Category Archives: Political Philosophy

UPDATED: Paul In National Polls (Independents’ Vote Ripe for Ron Paul)

Barack Obama, Crime, Drug War, Homeland Security, Military, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Republicans, Ron Paul, War

January 16th, 2012: If the November election were held today, a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday shows Ron Paul is almost statistically tied with Obama, with the president at 48% and the longtime congressman at 46%.

The CNN/ORC International poll has Obama beating Paul by a slim 48%-46% margin, but add in the margin of error and it is basically tied. The same goes for Romney’s 48%-47% lead over the president. The poll shows Obama easily beating the other Republican candidates.

[OpposingViews.]

Here are all the Ron Paul South Carolina FOX Debate Highlights:

There is a difference between defense spending and “military spending,” and between what Eisenhower called the military-industrial-complex and national defense.

Let us not rehash the Paul drug-war racism comments, which I dissected in “Diane (Sawyer) in Disneyland (The Homo-eroticism of Left-Liberalism)”

UPDATE (Jan. 18): The New York Times concedes that “a majority of independent voters have soured on BHO’s presidency, disapprove of how he has dealt with the economy and do not have a clear idea of what he hopes to accomplish if re-elected. … Two-thirds of independent voters say he has not made real progress fixing the economy.”

What amazes me, and I can only presume that some statistical error has crept into the data (such as a bias toward giving a favorable answer for fear of being labeled You Know What), is that “38 percent of all voters BHO favorably.”

The independents vote is ripe for Ron Paul.

UPDATE II: Unfortunately, Paul repeated the leftist rant he delivered in New Hampshire about how drug laws are enforced in the United States, pointing out that black men are incarcerated at disproportionate rates. (“How many times have you seen the white rich person get the electric chair?” he asked. “If we really want to be concerned with racism…we ought to look at the drug laws.”)

I said on 01.07.12 that, as a rightist I abjure anti-drug laws on the grounds that they are wrong, not racist. The fact that these laws ensnare blacks is because blacks are more likely to violate them by dealing drugs or engaging in violence around commerce in drugs, not necessarily because all cops are racists.

Cops deal with the reality of crime. It is an error—and wrong—to accuse them all of targeting blacks when the latter actually commit more crimes in proportion to their numbers in the population. This is also a losing strategy with rightists. It is akin to aping Obama, who went hell-for-leather at Sgt. James Crowley, calling him a racist for mishandling his pal Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. That strategy helped BHO lose the midterms.

“Dennis Prager offers stats showing judicial system is biased against whites, not blacks”:

…it is clear that blacks are actually under-represented in executions.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death-penalty organization, between 1976 and January 2012, 441 blacks (35 percent of the total) and 717 whites (55 percent of the total) were executed. Given that blacks committed more than half the murders during that time (52 percent versus 46 percent by whites), if we are to assess racial bias based on proportionality of murderers executed, the system is biased against whites, not blacks.
Because this fact is both obvious and irrefutable, virtually none of the anti-death-penalty sites note it. Instead, they focus on the race of murder victims and even the race of prosecutors – in other words, the race of just about everyone except those convicted of murder.

UPDATED: Fired Up Over Firing

Business, Capitalism, Economy, Elections, Free Markets, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Reason, Republicans

As I pointed out weeks ago on an RT broadcast, Newt Gingrich attacked Mitt Romney for what are the prerogatives of private property and the fiduciary duty of a CEO managing private property: firing people or evicting them from private property.

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t quite put it in such uncompromising terms, but he points out today what a feat of unparalleled moronity is the specter of “capitalism being attacked by the Republican” presidential front-runners.” “It’s senseless. It doesn’t make any sense,” gushes Rush.

Establishment conservatives only acknowledge reality once their own kind awakens to it, in this instance, Romeny’s vigorous defense of profits was noticed by Rush due to National Review’s Jay Nordlinger, who has rightly derides Mitt Romeny’s anti-capitalism detractors.

“Over and over, Romney defends and explains capitalism. And he’s supposed to be the RINO and squish in the race?” The one guy out there defending capitalism, the one guy out there trying to explain corporate profits to the Occupy crowd, he’s the squish, he’s the moderate, he’s the guy that we have the problem with? “That’s what I read in the conservative blogosphere, every day. What do you have to do to be a ‘real conservative’? Speak bad English and belch?

[Don’t bother to post here in reply if you are unable to separate this episode from the actors you dislike, and are wont to launch into a, “I hate all establishment conservatives, therefore I, lazily, refuse to address anything they say or do, right or wrong, and demand that you, Ilana, appease my idiocy.]

UPDATE: Paul defends Romney ‘fire’ comment and history at Bain. Good for him.

What is interesting is that dumbo Dana Bash—a CNN reporter whose love for Obama is second only to Jessica Yellin’s, another CNN pack animal—spun the Paul response as strategic, rather than principled. She’s not even an “analyst,” for what that title’s worth at CNN, yet she’s parsing a Paul response for markets (a thing she has no grasp of) as a response for politics. Yellin is now, as I write, yelling with excitement because, naming anonymous sources (isn’t that a no-no in Journalism, unless a matter of life-and-death?), she has had confirmation from her Man’s camp (BHO), that Romney has unraveled in the past 48 hours. Weird. Didn’t he just win a New Hampshire Primary?

Paul In Black, White & Pink

Gender, libertarianism, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Political Philosophy, Race, Republicans, Ron Paul

A December 2011 poll (16-18), taken by CNN/ORC, reveals that Ron Paul’s favorability among non-whites mirrors that of other GOPers. Hence, the fantasy that minorities will flock to liberty is just that, a fantasy.

While Barack Obama takes 72- and 57 percent respectively of the non-white and female vote, Ron Paul gets 25 and 41 percent of the same constituency. All the oozing over young Paul supporters aside, these numbers are yet more evidence that females and young voters lean left-liberal and are thus a hindrance to liberty: Obama garners the support of 53% of voters aged 18 to 34, to Paul’s 47%.

What was said in “RIP GOP” obtains: As the GOP goes, so goes the libertarian movement. Smug, self-satisfied left-libertarians like to dream that their constituency is differently derived, but the demographic facts are straightforward. The upshot of continued, unfettered, mass immigration—as it is currently practiced and preached by American central planners—is the triumph of tribalism, pillage politics, and left-liberalism.

No Tats, Toots

Classical Liberalism, Drug War, Elections, Foreign Policy, libertarianism, Liberty, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Rights, Ron Paul

Yes, it’s all very endearing and cute: Young college kids, most of whom are not self-supporting, are supporting Ron Paul, age 76. Paul’s “college-aged volunteer army” has “descended on Iowa from around the nation to coax people to the state’s Republican caucuses.”

Are these kids mere libertines, more committed to toking it up than cutting an overweening state’s reach and spending? It doesn’t appear so. The New York Times believes that, “For the students, much of Mr. Paul’s appeal derives from civil libertarian views like ending the federal ban on marijuana and other drugs, as well as his desire to end foreign wars and his small-government credo.”

I have never been in favor of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, smuggled into the Constitution by statute. The Amendment artificially swelled the ranks of Democratic voters, which has further eroded any protections the Constitution afforded to private property, and swayed the balance of power in favor of those who “vote for a living,” as opposed “those who work for a living.”

However, if Ron Paul’s youthful devotees are voting for negative, leave-me-alone rights—then, by all means, hop on board and bring along your pals on the Left.