Skip to comments.Ron Paul and the Lodestar of Liberty
Posted on 01/14/2008 8:04:27 PM PST by forkinsocket
Ron Paul is not a nut. He is honorable and intelligent. I have talked with Congressman Paul about politics and policies. He is consistent and principled. Much of what he says is true. The Constitution is routinely ignored by politicians of both political parties. Government spending, particularly entitlements, is wildly out of control. The crucial constitutional concepts of federalism and limited government are tacitly denied and this denial is the crux of many of our social and political problems.
But Ron Paul holds the vain hope that American government would return to constitutional law anytime soon, even if he did win the presidency. Congress, the judiciary, legal education, and tradition have imparted momentum to the living constitution school of thought. Bring about an actual return to the Constitution requires more than a snap of the president's fingers. Federal courts routinely "interpret" the Constitution in ways directly in conflict with the plain language of the document. At best, a president can only appoint judges the Senate will confirm and wait for natural turnover.
A lot of persuasion is necessary before Americans (including our elites and their institutions) change their way thinking. We in fact still need a crusade to change hearts and minds more than a candidacy.
And if we are going to return to first principles, remember that the Constitution is not the foundational document of our American experiment in individual liberty. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted after independence, the Continental Congress acted as the original government of the United States and successfully waged a war against the great superpower on the planet with very little real authority. The fundamental principles of American government were established long the Constitution was adopted.
What does matter is the Declaration of Independence. The divine endowment of all people with liberty comes directly out of this document of 1776 and it is to this document that serious friends of liberty should look for inspiration and restoration. And what was the Declaration of Independence? It was, in effect, a declaration of war against the British Empire.
It was not an isolationist document but a universalist document. It speaks, pointedly, to the rest of the world. It talks about the reasons that governments are formed (not just our government.) It was bold, sweeping, and international. And it was seen by the rest of the world as just that: A revolutionary document for all peoples, even if it applied specifically only to thirteen embattled colonies in North American.
Ron Paul wants to return us to the Constitution, as if it were a sacred document which granted us freedom. Our spiritual lodestar should be the Declaration of Independence, which remains a much more dangerous, much more powerful, and much more relevant document to our times.
Some policies Paul proposes are admirable. Why do we still have armies in Germany and in Korea, when both are rich, modern industrialized nations? Why does government have to do so much and why does "government" more and more mean centralized government in Washington? Why have a tax code which punishes productivity and which requires contortionist behavior from business?
But other parts of Paul's policies simply do not fit our age. The notion that we should disengage from the Middle East, for example, suggests that Israel is "just another nation," like, say, North Korea or Syria. The foundation of the Jewish state was based upon the undeniable facts of history continuing, dreadfully, through the Holocaust, that Jews are not "just another people," but are rather a persecuted people who were not welcome when escaping Nazified Europe. Ignoring that is ignoring salient history.
Likewise, the stark contrast between Israel and its neighbors (except, until the last three decades, the successful state of Lebanon) cannot be ignored, and the murderous intent of neighbors who seriously read in large numbers Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is also a grim, absolute fact of the modern world. The notion that, on paper, Israel can make peace with these neighbors is not just pure theory, but it is theory which has failed the test of experience.
Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, and that nuclear weapons change everything. Ever since H.G. Wells first used the term "atomic bomb" in his science fiction stories more than a century ago, it has become almost inevitable that true, horrific global war power was inevitable. Happily, America acquired fission weapons and then fusion weapons first. Happily also, America has had leaders willing to use that power to protect our nation and allies who would otherwise be unprotected.
And, as we learned from the Japanese in the Second World War and from radical Moslems today, the calculus of economic benefits and political rights which works very well in moderating and balancing the behavior of most people, simply does not work with everyone. Does anyone doubt that the Japanese would have used the atomic bomb on American cities or that radical Moslems will use thermonuclear bombs on America, if they can, even if it means massive casualties in our retaliation?
Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao. As Lincoln today might have said "This world cannot long endure half slave and half free." This was also perhaps the greatest victory of the greatest conservative leader of our age: Ronald Reagan. Congressman Paul might recall the Gipper's Cold War strategy: "How about this: We win; they lose?"
Ronald Reagan, like Abraham Lincoln, understood the supra-constitutional importance of liberty in the fulfillment of America, and liberty to them meant more than just the liberty of American citizens. If the ideal which is America is to survive the totalitarian impulse which we see not only in North Korea and the Taliban, but among the Leftists in our own nation, then we need to recapture the fortitude of Washington, the vision of Lincoln and the clarity of Reagan. If we can do this and preserve the vestiges of the Constitution, fine.
But the vision of America is much more than the Constitution. It is much more than Congressman Paul sees. What Ron Paul proposes is not bad or dishonest. It is simply no longer enough for liberty and decency to survive in America or in the world.
After the Paul newsletter disclosures, one would think that the Paultards would hang their head in shame and slink away. Instead they defend the wakadoo and the ugly subculture of the ultra far right. Bizarro.
I agree, he's a fruitcake.
Certainly more saner than your candidate, a flip-flopping POS with no core.
The letters were debunked and explained even back in the 1990s. So there's no need to "hang our heads."
Instead they defend the wakadoo and the ugly subculture of the ultra far right.
Far right? I thought Paultards were far left. Which one is it? We're leftists now, but I'm sure when the GOP begs for our votes in the general election, we'll morph into conservatives.
you are a polite young man aren't you? Ron Paul is your role model, is he?
Go away. Hang out at stormfront.org or another forum where your views are welcome.
“But other parts of Paul’s policies simply do not fit our age. ..................
Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, ............................”
Between those words are the reason RP should never be in the White House, why you do not get that fact is beyond me.
RP allowed these letters to be published using his name and image....therefore he is responsible for the content.
L Ron Paul can only speak of the Constitutiion.
He really hates the constitution as the enemy he does
not want Americans to fight back, the IslamOfascist, if they win they will take our constitution from us immediately not before killing us first.
L Ron Paul is another useful idiot for the left.
You stick by your candidate. Do you really think military disengagement from the rest of the world is a good thing for the United States? That’s what worries me most about his platform. Some of his other ideas can be appealing but as Commander in Chief he could carry this policy to fruition, and it’s worldwide devastating consequences.
Nothing this traitor paul does or is involved in surprises me! What a disgrace
Apparently, I hit a nerve.
I got banned from Stormfront. I'm too extreme even for them.
He has taken responsibility for them and have fired the contributors. Back in the 1990s.
This is a non-issue.
I think this article was captured my view of Ron Paul well. I don’t think calling him crazy serves any good purpose. He is right on many domestic issues, but he is out to lunch of foreign policy.
If the Republicans nominated him, they would take an massive beating. The problem is that Ron Paul is way too far out to the right on domestic issues for the American public at this time. That’s unfortunate but true.
Take Social Security as one example. Yes, it was a Ponzi scheme from the start, and we baby boomers will pay a dear price in our old age. But look what happened when Bush tried to take the tiniest step toward privatization. The idea that people should actually be allowed to keep a small portion of their own contributions in their own private account was demagogued down and defeated. Many Americans apparently trust the govt more than they trust themselves. Go figure.
Yet Ron Paul is going come charging in on a white horse and abolish SS completely? Oh, and he’s going to eliminate all welfare and entitlements too while he’s at it. Yeah, right. You must be smoking something pretty strong if you think he can get elected on that platform, and you must be clinically brain dead if you think he can accomplish those feats.
You can stick by the GOP and the rest of the status-quo candidates, that's currently circling the drain. The GOP can't defeat the Dems without embracing some of Paul's issues.
Do you really think military disengagement from the rest of the world is a good thing for the United States?
We'd still have a military under Paul. There'll still be a strong national defense and border security. We don't need to stick our noses everywhere and fighting wars that should have been over and done with months ago.
Thats what worries me most about his platform.
I'll take Paul being half-wrong on foreign policy over the other GOP candidates embracing big entitlements, big government, big spending, usurping states' rights, more tax dollars to the UN and Palestinians, more arm sales to the Saudis...anyday.
Some of his other ideas can be appealing but as Commander in Chief he could carry this policy to fruition, and its worldwide devastating consequences.
Paul would still be a better Commander-in-Chief than the Democrats and better than Rudy, Romney, and Huckabee.
Never said he'd abolish it.
The money saved from foreign policy and unconstitutional domestic spending would go into the trust fund for existing seniors on SS. Younger workers would be allowed to opt out with no penalties. Seniors wouldn't get their benefits taxed. That means the program dies a slow agonizing death.
Gee. Nobody understands the Constitution but Ron Paul and his followers. Every single discussion with these people begins with some kind of fevered pitch about not caring or not understanding the Constitution.
Yeah. Electing Ron Paul is going to do wonders for the things that are corroding it. Talk about a messiah complex.
It is Monday night and there are a load of Ron Paul related threads all of a sudden. Do they have their meetings on Monday and then send people forth to spread the word?
So you think we should leave Afghanistan and hope for the best. You think we should leave Iraq, and hope for the best. Leave SE Asia And watch curiously as China takes over. Disengage our burgeoning military relationship with India. Leave Australia to the wind. There are too many more to note in one response. You want to abandon all US allies. The consequences of one’s actions are what logical people tend to think about.
Even the Austin, TX NAACP leader said Paul wasn't a racist.
These letters are old news and have been addressed already.
They're in the news simply because Paul is a presidential candidate and both the establishment left and right can't knock him on anything else and are desperate.
Anything else LOL.
The threads are being posted by Paul critics.
Maybe Paul's numbers are looking good in MI? Who knows?
Do they have their meetings on Monday and then send people forth to spread the word?
Basement space is limited. We can only hold so many moonbats in one of our parent's home.
Not that you care, but here is a link to audio of the NAACP president defending Paul.
Seems that if he were a racist someone would be able to dig up some quotes from those decades he spent in congress. You know how them racists like to run their mouths and get publicity for their cause. All I was able to find were lots of statements about how he admired MLK.
Paul voted to go into Afghanistan and for the record I don't agree with all of Paul's foreign policy.
You think we should leave Iraq, and hope for the best.
I think we should leave within 3-5 years. I don't agree with Paul that we should leave immediately.
Leave SE Asia And watch curiously as China takes over.
China doesn't have the military logistics to overtake Taiwan or Japan.
Disengage our burgeoning military relationship with India. Leave Australia to the wind. There are too many more to note in one response. You want to abandon all US allies. The consequences of ones actions are what logical people tend to think about.
No, I want to start taking care of America first rather than foreigners for a change. I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars go to tin-pot dictators. I'm sure India and Australia will be our partners and allies - economically. They can provide for their own military.
“Basement space is limited. We can only hold so many moonbats in one of our parent’s home.”
Quick, everyone to the batcave! LOL!
Yeah. Sorry. It just brings it out in me. The Code Pinkos I know are all hot and bothered to get Ron Paul into office. Good ideological company he keeps.
He really didn't have a choice to engage in Constitutional semantics shortly after 9/11, when conventional wisdom said to go after the terrorists. With Iraq though, there was plenty of time to thoroughly debate the issue and declare war the right way the 2nd time around. So I don't see a flip-flop.
There is no one on the Left supporting Paul's campaign. This is perhaps the biggest lie promoted since Bush's "phony" Guard service.
Actually, we were attacked by by the people running a foreign country. Attacking Afganistan was not preemptive. It was in response to an attack.
Attacking Iraq was preemptive. The Bush Doctrine changed decades of policy.
I don’t really care if we have to strike first or not. It’s best not to have threats that need responding to, but that is not reality.
Lets just hope that China & Russia never threaten us.
Paul has some very strange views that would make anyone question his reasoning.........
MR. RUSSERT: How many troops do we have overseas right now?
REP. PAUL: I dont know the exact number, but more than we need. We dont need any.
MR. RUSSERT: Its 572,000. And youd bring them all home?
REP. PAUL: As quickly as possible. Wethey will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany, troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesnt make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since Ive been in high school?
MR. RUSSERT: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?
REP. PAUL: Well, theyre not going to. That is like saying Iran is about to invade Mars. I mean, they have nothing. They dont have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them. But, no, if, if it were in our national security interests and Congress says, You know, this is very, very important, we have to declare war. But presidents dont have the authority to go to war
Iran Military Guide
“CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
JACK BLOOD, GUEST HOST: I think it’s fair to say that of all the candidates out there, the one most interested in reopening the investigation and clearing the questions is Dr. Paul; and you should be commended for that.
Every once in a while I’ll wander onto these threads, sorry each and every time I do.
Predictably there are those posts that really have sane people wondering out loud...
and then there’s the stuff that sends chills up the spine like this one for instance!
“China doesn’t have the military logistics to overtake Taiwan or Japan.”
What planet did THAT one come from?
Just playing along with the delusion, how long would that be the case if the U.S. irresponsibly took their ball and went home do ya think?
PaleoPaulie is a pantload attempting to block the future of our country while he is in service to Al Qaeda.
I read on another thread tonight that the Bush administration is going after private gun ownership. Add that to your list. I don't think Ron Paul would do that.
I have no idea of whether the paleosurrenderman is a racist or not and I would give him the benefit of the doubt on that.
OTOH, I seem to remember a post or two million in the last year accurately slamming the lying pipsqueak for his cowardly foreign policy, his craven military surrender reflex, his autosmooch of Islamofascist backsides, his lying about nearly everything, his claiming to be pro-life while adamantly opposing any federal effort to stop the baby holocaust, his posing as pro-family while resisting any federal attempt to protect marriage (the real kind of marriage), his running as a libertoonian in 1988 as candidate of the dope users' party, his cramming of Galveston earmarks into appropriations bills passed by his colleagues over his negative vote as he poses for "fiscal conservative" holy pictures etc., etc., etc.
Maybe shrimps (federally subsidized by paleoPaulie’s earmarks or not) will whistle and pigs will fly, who knows? Either is as likely as Dr. Demento doing well anywhere now that he has blown New Hampshire.
I’ve heard that the moon is made of green cheese but, skeptic that I am, I don’t believe that either.
What’s wrong with you!?...How can you not like the Packers?
But the Constitution is the rule of law for the United States and limits the power of government here.
As for Israel, she is more then able to handle any threat in her region.
We actually do her more harm then good to her in meddling in her internal affairs.
It would also help her if we stopped funding the Arabs!
He has accepted the responsibility for them.
But even that isn't enough for the PC police of the Right!
Yes, the regions of the world would handle their own problems, we could save hundreds of billions of dollars that is used to subsidize their defense budgets and U.S. troops won't be used as 'trip-wires' like they are in Korea.
All in all, pretty good consequences.