Category Archives: Ron Paul

Lovely Lack of Legislative Accomplishment

Elections, Federalism, Law, Regulation, Republicans, Ron Paul

Lack of legislative accomplishment, according to former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, makes his fellow GOP 2012 candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann “unfit to be President.”

On NBC’s Meet the Press today, Pawlenty went after Bachmann, who holds significant leads in the polls, saying “Her record of accomplishment in Congress is nonexistent — it’s nonexistent.”

Pawlenty should look for another angle to bolster his lackluster presidential campaign. Unless they are passing legislation to repeal other legislation, the less legislating the clowns in Congress do, the better—for every one of us. An example of a good legislative record is that of “Dr. No,” aka Ron Paul.

Naturally, it’s hard to find information about how voluminous the United States Code is, but it’s safe to presume that it has its own dedicated building.

UPDATE II: Libertarianism Lite Likely Won’t Cut It

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy, Pop-Culture, Ron Paul, Sex, Terrorism, The Zeitgeist

Some libertarians dream that the establishment-endorsed libertarianism-lite, currently being touted on Fox News- and Business as the only legitimate strand of libertarianism, will catch-on in this America. Dream on.

Liberty loving adults in the US tend not to identify with fast-talking youths, wearing trendy eye-wear, who insist that the cultural foot-and-mouth that is “Glee” and Gaga is the very essence of American freedoms and liberties. (Anyone who has ever read this space knows that I don’t have any objection to risque expression; only to artistically worthless cultural products.)

Granted, life-style libertarians come in all shapes and sizes; they are often older, but are always juvenile. In the country’s founding documents, they divine all kinds of exhortations to let it all hang out. Much as the Left does.

If I’ve learned anything about what remains of Middle America, it is that ordinary, gun-toting, homeschooling, bible-thumping Americans are unmoved by people who draw their paycheques from foundations, think tanks, and academia, and wax orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman. Although it might appear sophisticated, this stuff is reductive and shallow—a kind of post-graduate cleverness that lacks any philosophical depth.

Life, liberty, property: that’s what negative liberty is all about. The rest is either fluff or ancillary.

True, libertinism can be freeing in many ways, but forgotten by left-libertarians (I prefer libertarians lite; it’s more accurate) is this: libertinism is subsumed within a larger, more-inclusive category of liberty.

Besides, joining the Idiocracy is never liberating. Things that addle the brain permanently are, ultimately, not liberating.

(And what’s up with Nick Gillespie’s less than harsh words about the War on Terror? On Fox News’ Stossel, Gillespie seemed to second the general impetus of the War on Terror. He also went soft on the TSA, protesting only that a well-intentioned effort (TSA) had gone terribly wrong. Wrong! The War on Terror is an unconstitutional crock that guarantees the growth of the state. The TSA is engaged in legalized crime and needs to be dismantled, its goons jailed for each assault perpetrated.)

As I noted, when defending Ron Paul, in 2008, from attacks by the same libertarians,

Beltway libertarians … are moved in mysterious ways by gaping borders, gay marriage, multiculturalism, cloning, and all else “cool and cosmopolitan.”
Judging by Reason’s “35 Heroes of Freedom,” “cool and cosmopolitan” encompasses William Burroughs, a drug addled, Beat-Generation wife killer, whose “work is mostly gibberish and his literary influence baleful.”
Madonna Reason has exalted for, as they put it, leading “MTV’s glorious parade of freaks, gender-benders, and weirdos who helped broaden the palette of acceptable cultural identities and destroy whatever vestiges of repressive mainstream sensibilities still remained.” That sounds like the unscrambled, strange dialect spoken by a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies.

[Or is it “Womin’s Studies”?]

Naturally, I’m down with any lifestyle the individual chooses, just so long as he or she doesn’t visit violence on others (as the TSA does). But to conflate low-culture and manifest ignorance with American liberties is asinine. (And very much the essence of life-style libertarianism.) As the libertarian law goes, all human beings have the freedom to act-out in anyway they like, so long as they abide by the non-aggression axiom.

Personally, I favor discretion. For if “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy,” in Ayn Rand’s magnificent words, then sexual—or any other—exhibitionism is anathema.

UPDATE I (June 29): Tom DiLorenzo has blogged the this post at LewRockwell.com:

“Fast-Talking Youths Wearing Trendy Eye-Wear . . .
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on June 29, 2011 02:42 PM

.. and “waxing orgiastic about MTV and Dennis Rodman” on the FOX networks. That’s how Ilana Mercer describes the Kochtopusian “libertarian lite” crowd of Beltway “libertarians.” They’re the same crowd that orchestrated a vicious smear campaign against Ron Paul, as Ilana discusses.
Ilana’s just-released book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is a must-read. Among the “blurb”writers who praise the book on the first few pages are yours truly, Tom Woods, Thomas Szasz, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

UPDATE II (June 30): ANARCHISM. In reality, working as we are with so few options, there is not much that separates the classical liberal (your host, Mises, etc.) and the anarchist (Rothbard, LRC). The wise, freedom-loving thinker knows this, and works to optimize collaboration. However, as someone who was once an anrachist, and had reconsidered, after careful thought, turning to liberalism in the classical (and American) tradition, my thoughts on anarchism may be of interest.

Here they are in “AGAINST ANARCHISM.”

“Do Immigration Laws Violate Libertarian Axiom” is another relevant read. Ditto my immigration archive, the articles in which advance (unanswered) arguments as to why humanity does not have the right to venture wherever, whenever.

UPDATE III: Unflapable, But No ‘Flake’ (‘Winning’)

Elections, Etiquette, Human Accomplishment, Intelligence, John McCain, Media, Politics, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin

At last, presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) is deploying a tactic touted by this column in hammering home her own intellectual heft (relative to a politician, that is). She has to. Fox News’ Chris Wallace apparently thinks that asking Bachmann (as opposed to John McCain and progeny) whether she is a flake amounts to hard-hitting journalism.

Then and there, the “seldom fazed” representative replied (paraphrased):

Well, I think that would be insulting, to say something like that, because I’m a serious person. I’m a 55-year-old woman. I’ve been married for 33 years, and I have a post-doctorate [I think she meant post-graduate] degree in federal tax law. I have five children, and have raised 23 foster children and opened a charter school for at-risk youth.

[Note how the Fox News article is written in the passive voice, so as to avoid implicating its hired hand, Wallace.]

As I’ve written repeatedly, Bachmann is nothing like Sarah Palin. Palin is Bush in a bra (with all the implications about brain power that implies).

Rep. Bachmann, on the other hand, as was contended back in September of 2009, is very clever.

Back then , this column had already picked the GOP’s winning ticket: Ron Paul for commander-in-chief; Michele Bachmann as second-in-command.

Bachmann is eloquent and is seldom fazed. As attractive as Sarah, she is also cerebral, a quality poor Palin is without. Bachmann is not yet a libertarian, but neither is she wedded to the warfare state, and is wise enough to recognize the political value of denouncing America’s forays abroad in order to bring moderates and independents into the fold. Given guidance (and a good kick), she is not beyond apologizing for her unforgivable vote for the Patriot Act.
Conversely … Paul has gone from immigration hawk to toying with amnesty (with an asterisk or two). Bachmann will bring Paul back from the brink. Americans inhabit a world of reality TV and other frivolity. To win the GOP nomination in this parallel universe, Ron Paul needs political bling—he will want the punch, pizazz and money bombs a Bachmann can provide.

“Bundle Rand (Paul) and Bachmann—and the opposition, both Republican and Democratic, will be vanquished. But that’s for another day.”

UPDATE I: A Facebook friend wants an analysis of Sarah palin’s unraveling. Okay, here.

UPDATE II: Bill, as I wrote in “Bachmann: Bling For Ron Paul?”, Paul would not take MB on unless it was under his tutelage, after she was, “Given guidance (and a good kick),” and made to “apologize for her unforgivable vote for the Patriot Act.”

Alone, how is Paul to win? We’re in this to win, right?

UPDATE III: (June 29): WINNING. Myron, what is wrong with wanting Paul to win? He can win the nomination if he and MB combine forces. Alone he is unlikely to get anywhere. Defeatism is a luxury only well-funded, spoilt brats (like these) can afford.

Bachmann “has jumped into second place in the New Hampshire Republican primary. … While Bachmann remains well behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has 36 percent support, the other sixteen Republicans included in the survey all had levels of support in the single digits.”

The results of the Gallup poll released on Tuesday showed that Bachmann’s name recognition is up to 69 percent from 52 percent in a poll conducted in late February/early March. With the increase, Bachmann is behind only Romney, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, in terms of name recognition, Gallup also noted that Bachmann has a positive intensity score of 24, which ties with pizza magnate Herman Cain’s as the highest such score of any candidate

UPDATED: Economic Apocalypse Now

America, Constitution, Debt, Democrats, Economy, Propaganda, Republicans, Ron Paul

The following is from “Economic Apocalypse Now,” my latest WND.COM column:

“… On reflection, the U.S. Treasury takes in enough loot to pay down the interest on the debt as well as a portion of the principal. Matching federal spending with federal revenue: what a concept! And what a tonic to our moribund economy that would be!

To the soul of the subject: The engorged organisms (Anthony D. Weiner is a sample) that currently control the economy from D.C. can discharge their responsibility to creditors without authorizing more borrowing. To do so, however, they will have to cease their many unconstitutional endeavors and break the promiscuous promises they’ve made to certain voters at the expense of the vassals, out of whose hides these ‘promises’ are carved.

As it stands, Republicans – and a few Democrats, one of whom has even cosponsored an amendment to cap federal spending – have done no more than perform a budgetary Bonnie and Clyde: If Democrats want to continue the heist and run deficits and debts to eternity, they will need to promise – “nudge-nudge, nudge-nudge; know what I mean? know what I mean?” – budget cuts, preferably in the trillions. Or introduce, not necessarily pass, a balanced-budget amendment….”

Read more: “Economic Apocalypse Now.”

My new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, is now available from Amazon. A Kindle version should be on offer by next week.

UPDATE (June 5): Rand Paul:

“On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day. So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.…Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem. If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have a $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.…I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said $500 billion is not enough. And they’re right. $500 billion is a third of one year’s problem. Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.” —Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor, March 9, 2011

Pay attention to how the same self-anointed policemen of libertarianism—the tinny ideologues who’ve never reflected authentically American libertarianism—have taken it upon themselves to purge Rand Paul.

On the positive side, it seems like Beltway libertarians such as the author of this fair-minded piece have learned from the mistake they made when they reflexively panned Rand’s father, Ron Paul.