Category Archives: Ron Paul

UPDATED: Ramrodding Ron Paul (Talk to the Hand, Borger)

Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Political Correctness, Race, Racism, Ron Paul

Ron Paul to CNN’s Gloria Borger: “When are you going to wear yourself out?” CNN has dredged up the “Ron Paul Report” again. These are the politically incorrect newsletters published under Ron Paul’s name during the 1980s and 1990s, and unearthed, strategically, by The New Republic, during the last campaign. This as Paul’s popularity rises. “I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them all, and I disavow them,” responded the congressman.

My guess is that pissed-off supporters don’t give a tinker’s toss about the media monolith’s mandate to enforce racially correct thinking. Talk to the hand, Borger (below).

UPDATE: Kind words for Paul from La Coulter.

UPDATED: Liberty’s Civilizational Dimension

Foreign Policy, History, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Old Right, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul

LIBERTY & CIVILIZATION. In the post “STRASSEL’s Non Sequitur,” it was pointed out that whether Ron Paul’s statements about Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were true or not, “Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was tantamount to a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.”

In their demands for an explanations, my libertarian readers seemed to forget that “conservative libertarians” are the majority who matter.

This writer is a paleo-libertarian; a libertarian of the Right. If libertarianism is ever to appeal to middle America, it is this libertarianism, as it is rooted in the founding ideas, which is also why I prefer classical liberalism as a philosophical label.

As I pointed out in “Libertarianism Lite,” “A certain establishment-endorsed libertarianism is currently being touted on the Fox News and Business channels as the only legitimate brand of libertarianism. This life-style libertarianism, or libertarianism-lite, as I call it, tends to conflate libertinism with liberty, and appeals to hippies of all ages, provided they remain juveniles forever.”

These sinecured TV types appeal to middle America not at all. “Ordinary, gun-toting, homeschooling, bible-thumping Middle Americans remain unmoved by people who draw their paycheques from foundations, think tanks, and academia, and wax orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman. This stuff might appear sophisticated, but it is reductive and shallow—a post-graduate cleverness that lacks philosophical depth.”

More crucially: If you are driving a libertarianism that hates the whites BHO described derisively as clinging to their bibles, bigotries and guns—you are a marginal and insignificant force in American politics, and so you will remain.

True, salt-of-the-earth America (the founding stock of this great nation) is diminishing fast thanks to immigration central planning: mass immigration from the third world.

In “The Sequel to ‘Suicide of A Superpower’” I wrote: “…almost all the immigrants replacing the host population in the U.S. come from ‘Asia, Africa, and Latin America.’ Given America’s preference for welfare-dependent, third-world immigrants, pillage politics will proliferate. Thirty years on, when the Rubicon is crossed, most Americans will be poorer, less educated, and more welfare-dependent. One party will represent this majority. This party will serve as an instrument of perpetual oppression of the minority by a politically powerful majority. … America is destined to degenerate into a dominant-party state.”

The party of choice for this socially engineered America will never ever be Republican or libertarian leaning (capital or lower case “l”). Never ever.

A candidate who dismisses the national questions, namely immigration, affirmative action, the centrality to America of Christianity and the English language, etc.—fails to appreciate the civilizational dimension of ordered liberty.

Like it or not, the libertarian non-aggression axiom has a cultural and civilizational dimension, stripped of which it has no hope of being restored. I’m not saying that in her fumbling iterations on Islam Ms. Bachmann evinces such an understanding; far from it. But Bachmann is instinctively using Islam and Jihad as proxies for arguments that have become politically too dangerous to make.

For a conservative candidate to mock individuals who do so is a grave error.

UPDATE: “Two new polls show that Ron Paul is now the undisputed leader in Iowa, while Newt Gingrich has deflated and Rick Perry may be on the verge of making a small comeback.”

Insider Advantage (12/18)

Ron Paul 24%
Mitt Romney 18%
Rick Perry 16%
Newt Gingrich 13%
Michele Bachmann 10%
Rick Santorum 3%
Jon Huntsman 4%

UPDATED: STRASSEL’S Non Sequitur

Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul, Terrorism

KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL of the Wall Street Journal claimed, in “Why Ron Paul Can’t Win,” that “conservative Republicans” cannot accept Paul’s philosophy as it “fundamentally denies American exceptionalism and refuses to allow for decisive action to protect the U.S. homeland.”

Is STRASSEL equating American exceptionalism with the kind of non-defensive militarism America currently practices? It would appear so.

This writer’s position on said “exceptionalism”: “the United States, by virtue of its origins and ideals,” was unique. But most Americans know nothing of the ideas that animated their country’s founding. In fact, they are more likely to hold ideas in opposition to the classical liberal philosophy of the founders, and hence wish to see the aggrandizement of the coercive state and the fulfillment of their own needs and desires through war and welfare.

Thus, I find myself in agreement with this one statement by Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids…deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

[SNIP]

I thought Paul was strong on Jay Leno, but should probably not have cozied-up to the Left in the way he did. More on that later:

UPDATE: About Bachmann, Paul Said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em.'” “In reference to Rick Santorum, Paul said he can’t stop talking about ‘gay people and Muslims.'” (ABC)

Leave aside whether these statements are true or not: Paul has taken a classic Chris-Matthews kind of ad hominem swipe against Michele Bachmann: she hates Muslims. Santorum hates gays and Muslims. Siding with the Left by adopting its arguments may be situationally advantageous, but it is wrong, and will backfire on a Republican candidate in the long run. This tactic, even if it was a not-so-funny joke, damages Ron Paul’s effectiveness from the vantage point of conservative libertarians who think that liberty cannot be reduced to the non-aggression axiom and has a cultural and civilizational dimension.

Paul is wrong to imply, reductively, that Islamic terrorism in general and September 11 in particular are the sole consequences of American foreign policy. Libertarians cannot persist in such unidirectional formulations. Our adventurous foreign policy is a necessary precondition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one.

UPDATE II: Talked Ron Paul On RT (Russia Today) & MyRon Pauli Distills GOP Debate

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Ilana On Radio & TV, libertarianism, Media, Politics, Republicans, Ron Paul, Russia, The State

I was on Russia Today (RT), my favorite broadcaster, to discuss the Ron Paul surge. I am sorry I was unable to give you notice of the segment, but I’ve been tied up. I am sure it will pop up later. Send the embed if you find it; I’m no good at locating such things.

UPDATE I: To MyRon’s comment: If I watched myself do these things I’d never do them. I’m a writer, first and foremost. A shy one, at that. I thought RT’s Liz said “anti-war,” which is a variant on the “isolationism” libel against libertarian foreign policy,” but I could be wrong.

UPDATE II: MyRon Pauli Distills Tonight’s GOP Debate, in Sioux City, Iowa:

“I subjected myself to something almost as bad as waterboarding – watching the FOX NEWS DEBATE!

Rick and Michelle are out there trying to out do each other on protecting us from Partial Birth Abortions.

Perry was a bit better and almost funny as the Aw Shucks Redneck invoking Tim Tebow.

Huntsman, while no ideologue, actually tries to act like an adult instead of an idiotic panderer.

Mitt, the businessman, can lecture the Bloated Socialistic Newtonian on capitalism – but the voters looking for red meat cheap shots probably can’t understand a lick of economics.

Newt – that right wing socialistic egomaniac – oi vey – the true inheritor of and poster boy for Hoover Progressivism, Nixonian Price Controlling, and Dubya’s Compassionate Conservatism.

And then there is Ron Paul getting clobbered over how to deal with America’s number 1 threat – the IRANIAN NAVY (heck – what happened to the Nepalese Air Force, the Liectenstein Army, and the Maldive Islands Special Forces)? Strange because of my job that some of this hits home as well.

Well, I dozed off a few times waiting for Ahmadinejad’s Battleship to come sailing up the Potomac!”

**

This is MyRon Pauli signing off for BAB.

MyRon’s previous campaign dispatch for BAB was filed from his couch too. Read it.