Skip to comments.3 Impolite Facts About Ron Paul I Hope Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter Mention Next Time
Posted on 12/16/2011 10:18:39 AM PST by mnehring
1. Pauls intellectual mentor Murray Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism and opposed the legitimacy of all nation-states, including ours.
2. Paul openly proclaims himself a revival of the Old Right, the movement which opposed our entry in World War II. He and his followers proudly reject the New Right tradition established by William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.
When I was deciding whether or not to run for President as a Republican, I re-read Justin Raimondos Reclaiming the American Right and it gave me hopethat the anti-interventionist, pro-liberty Old Right, which had once dominated the party, could and would rise again. Here is living history: the story of an intellectual and political tradition that my campaign invokved and reawakened. This prescient book, written in 1993, could not be more relevant today.
RON PAUL, Ten Term U.S. Congressman (TX) and 2008 Presidential Candidate
3. Paul is an antisemite.
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a non-interventionist path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Just as today Paul doesnt care if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arms the Islamic Republic of Iran for a nuclear-charged assault against Israel.
Yet when conservatives talk about Paul they just politely note that they disagree with Pauls policy of standing by while the next Holocaust begins.
When will the Conservative Movement finally finish the job Buckley started and stop tolerating the racist, anarchist, useful idiots for Jihad in their midst? Ever?
Update: Ex-Conservative Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the GOP nomination today. Perhaps Ill have a response later
Michelle Bachman pretty much called Ron Paul an imbecile last night.
The Founding Fathers rejected anarchy because they knew that in the long run it would evolve into gang warfare and a form of statism of gang rule.The Founding Fathers were seeking a golden mean of freedom between big government statism and anarchy.
The only good Paul does is to expose the “high level” nut bars that support him. That way we can keep track of them...:)
Along with dead Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. (Of course Stalin was doing a good job with those races as well), and in the end without our intervention, most likely we would have been dealing with either an All-Nazi Europe, or an All-Red Europe, neither of which would have been good.
When Hannity tried to interview him after the debate, all he did was dodge and weave. I tried to listen to his views with an open mind, but they just crashed and burned for me...
Ayn Rand had a great quote skewering Libertarians like Paul’s mentors- basically she called them (paraphrased) ‘hippies of the right that trade rationalism for political whims and capitalism for anarchy...’
I just wish Mrs. Paul would take her husband to an upscale men’s store with good tailors and buy several suits that actually fit.
..not to mention do something about his prosthetic eyebrow.
She is probably to busy with her fish sticks.
“The Founding Fathers rejected anarchy because they knew that in the long run it would evolve into gang warfare and a form of statism of gang rule.”
Ridiculous. Anarchy was not even on the table for rejection because local and state governments alredy existed as legitimate respected authority against gang warfare and gang rule.
“The Founding Fathers were seeking a golden mean of freedom between big government statism and anarchy.”
Wrong again. The Founding Fathers were seeking a balance between the several states’ authority and a Federal Government they feared would evolve into big government statism.
WWII was an inevitable consequence of our totally unjustified intervention in WWI, where no U.S. security interests were involved, but liberal fascist Wilson had to meddle.
Even those obsessed with the survival of Israel need to consider where our intervention in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East has led us. Israel is now painted into a corner. Millions of Christians face genocide or exile. Thanks a lot, rich punk G.W. Bush, for listening to the Clintonist CIA director who led you to invade Iraq. Thanks for lying during the campaign that you were against nation-building (in Haiti, right in our hemisphere), then pursuing unprecedented nation-building thousands of miles away.
The country is broke. Wars and interventions inevitably lead to unforeseen adverse consequences. We need to bring the troops home and defend our homeland from illegal immigrants and stop Muslim immigration.
1. Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann are the most conservative candidates in the race.
They were talking about Coulter’s comments and wasn’t part of the main article’s content.
As the article you cited to notes, "Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property, as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism."
Rothbard's theoretical analysis of the role of the state in fact supports many fundamental concepts of conservatism. For example, as the article you cited notes:
"Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market. "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action. So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like."
In large part isn't that what conservatives believe in? Or don't you really believe in free markets, less taxes, private property, and the fact that people own themselves, and aren't the property of the state?
You don’t have to defend RP because you sound like you are him.
You are a complete idiot if you think we shouldn’t have entered WWII. Of course that’s understandable since you appear to be RP.
Furthermore, WWII was not a result of us entering WWI. WWII was a direct result of the sanctions imposed on Germany at the conclusion of WWI.
Finally, our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that the Arabs always have and always will desire the complete and utter destruction of Israel. The islamonazis don’t hate us or Israel anymore now than they did 30 years ago.
He’d be a good choice for appointment to some position where he can effectively push his government-cutting ideas (which are good) but has no bearing on national defense.
You really have to think about what you just wrote, had the US not entered the war the Nazis would have had the bomb and millions of Jews and Slavs would have been slaughtered and enslaved.
This type of historical para-analytics is dangerous, really really dangerous.
“Wrong again. The Founding Fathers were seeking a balance between the several states authority and a Federal Government they feared would evolve into big government statism.”
Great point; and for a good part of the nation’s history - with the exception of the Civil War, that balance we believe was intended to be resolved in the Constitution prevailed.
It began to be undone with the change to popular election of Senators (eliminating the “direct representation” of the states in the Federal government), the personal income tax, the “New Deal” additions to the “regulatory state”, all the “progressive” additions to that state since then and the slide into the “living Constitution” by the judiciary.
Those who feared most about the slide into statism seem, at this point, to have been more prescient than their detractors.
At this point in our Republic, no major party acts in true opposition to that slide into statism. We have been reduced to a competition for the financial and power-levers of the state between crony-capitalists and Marxists, and with that competition more and more dominant at the Federal level and the Federal level more and more dominant in the economy and society.
True “free enterprise” “Libertarian capitalism died, possibly, in the period from WWII to the 1970s. Even in the “hi tech” world private enterprises spend only an “infant” period before joining the competition in trying to secure (buy) their place within the embrace of the state, and few are truly seeking to secure more of their Liberty and ours from that state.
My wife who pays near zero attention to politics was wondering why the Republican audience kept cheering Paul's stupid answers - Not knowing about the small but loud Paulbot activist who follow him to these events. I fear there are more people out there in the real world like my wife than are like us political junkies on FR. The false impression Paul gives of the Republicans makes me want to barf.
If that meddling fool, Wilson, had not gotten us involved in the Great War, there would have been no Hitler, no Treaty of Versailles, no betrayal of promises Wilson made to Germany, and the Europeans would have had to learn to settle their differences among themselves.
Ron Paul opposed the landmark 2010 McDonald v Chicago gun rights decision. And he supported the Kelo decision.
In both those cases he agreed with the liberals on the supreme court. Any case where the SCOTUS enforces the Bill of Rights on the states, Paul opposes it. Because Ron Paul doesn’t believe in “incorporation of the Bill of
Paul on incorporation and the 1st Amend:
“The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally
was none of its business.”
Re the McDonald decision and 2nd Amend:
“Congressman Pauls DC office said he didnt sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with states rights, whose policies shouldnt be dictated by the federal government.”
On the 5th Amend regarding the Kelo decision:
“If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases...”
If the U.S. had not entered the Great War on the side of Allied Powers, and prior to entry leant them enormous matrial support, there would never have been an onerous Treaty of Versailles. No one is more responsible for the rise of Hitler than Woodrow Wilson.
Without Nazism, Zionism would be a romantic, nostalgic, backward looking movement with a tiny number of activist adherents (in my contrafactual world, anyway.)
Yep, I’ve been holding on to that one but this is one of the biggest damning things on Paul- his belief that the tenth amendment over-rules other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
It is one of the reasons I call him a false Constitutionalist.
But then again, our not intervening, may have resulted in the Bolshevization of all of Europe.
All of those things can be debated in ‘what if’ alternative history, however, we don’t have a magic time machine to go back and change things or go forward and figure out all the butterfly effect interstices for our actions, all we have to face what is the reality of what is in front of us.
However, at least you are honest in what you believe. Too many try to hide behind vague political terms like ‘non-intervention’. We could at least have an honest and interesting conversation about it.
That was the view of George Washington.
Since 1945 we have not had one declared war and yet have been fighting all over the place with nothing to show for defending US interests.
“Butterfly effect”, nothing, I am talking about first order, foreseeable (and foreseen) effects. We just prolonged the European Civil War for another 30 years.
Most people who call themselves, “anti-war”, just think we’re fighting for the wrong side.
I’ll give you the fact that we gave material support to the allies, but our entry into WWI didn’t effect the outcome one way or the other. If you are saying we should have stayed neutral and allowed the Germans to take over Europe we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, the French are responsible for the onerous Treaty of Versailles, not Wilson.
Also, didn’t you mean to say the JEWS are at fault for all the trouble in the ME?
Thanks for the balance, hellbender.
Another excellent post!
Thank you, OmegaMan.
This point of contention is at the hub of the "debate".
The French only imposed Versailles using an American made shotgun that Wilson loaded and handed Clemenceau. I am indifferent to who would have won World War I without American participation, the Germans were no worse than the French, and probably more philosemitic in the bargin.
Even with the aid of the Americans, the British and French did not “take over” Germany or Austro-Hungary, they were content to steal their colonies for one more generation and demand tribute, under the guise of “reparations.”
To say that American support for the Allies during the Great War did not materially effect the outcome is to ignore facts.
I do not mean to say that the Jews are responsible for trouble in the Middle East. The presence of the Jews gives Middle Eastern dictators like Sadam and Nassar a convenient distraction to divert their subjects wrath at an external target. Islamism is the reaction of those unable to adapt to modernity, and Jews are, out of necessity, the most adaptable and modernizing people in human history. Without Jews, the dictators would find some other diversion, like the Iraq-Iran War which killed a million (and as Kissinger observed, it was a shame they couldn’t both lose.)
For every Jew who left Russia for Palestine, 100 emigrated to America, to our gain. After Hitler, the trickle of Zionists turned into a torrent.
W. Audrey was a railroad buff and Anglican priest, who liked to vacation of the Isle of Man, which he knew was part of the Anglican diocese of Man and Sodor. Sodor was previously the Norwegian diocese of “Sodor”, meaning southern islands, e.g., the Shetlands, which passed from Norwegian to English eccliastical control around 1100.
Audrey wrote the railway series of books, but Thomas doesn’t show up until the fifth or sixth book. And yes, I have grandkids. Is your three year old a girl, because I think Thomas and Friends is a guy thing.
OOOPS! Wrong thread by a lot.
Mass: I think you may have replied to the wrong poster, but since you brought it up, I love Thomas the Tank Engine story. No, I haven’t read any of them, but I’ve watched it on the telly, and my grandchildren have a video. Can’t take my eyes off it.
I guess the admin moderator can delete these posts.
As non sequiturs go, that was a masterpiece. Merry Christmas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.