Category Archives: Ron Paul

The Father Or The Son?

Government, Healthcare, Individual Rights, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Regulation, Republicans, Ron Paul, Socialism

Ron Paul is the elder statesman, Rand Paul is scrappy and fit for a fight. And you do know that breaking free from the moochers and the looters, if at all possible, is going to necessitate a fight. I used to wonder about Rand’s deadpan delivery. But a poker face is just what the doctor ordered together with those revolutionary statements.

“SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): ‘With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery.'” (RealClearPolitics)

Read the entire statement; it’s beautifully put.

To libertarians what Rand Paul said is real clear. We often describe the fabricated (positive) right to health care as a right to conscript doctors in the service of humanity. For what else does it mean? (“Protesters for a public plan have the right to seek out a doctor and pay him for his services; they have no claim to the products of his labor, and no right to enlist the State to compel third parties to pay for those products.”) But to hear a man who sits in the ossified Senate echo the natural law is just wonderful.

The other day, Rand Paul was quizzed about the absence of entitlement reform in his five-year budget plan. Without flinching, Rand replied that he chose to do away with whole departments, instead.

UPDATED: Is Ron Paul Good For Israel? (Inadvertently, Yes)

Foreign Policy, Israel, libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Ron Paul

The excerpt is from “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?”, my latest WND.COM column:

“In 2007, the Ron Paul presidential campaign commissioned a short position piece from me concerning the congressman and Israel. In discussion with Dr. Paul’s then-campaign managers, I had ventured that to forge ahead as a viable candidate, Rep. Paul would need to convince the enormously powerful Christian Right that he was not hostile to Israel. For America’s Evangelicals—and not the puny AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) often invoked derisively by libertarians—are Israel’s most powerful political lobbyists.

The truth is that libertarians consider Israel a bit of a vexation. As a principled libertarian and an unapologetic Zionist, I have strived to navigate these shoals without resorting to special pleading. … The time is ripe, then, to publish ‘Unshackling Israel,’ the piece I penned for Dr. Paul back in December of 2007…”

The complete column is “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?”, now on WND.COM.

My new book, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, can be pre-ordered from the publisher. Shipping is currently free. Follow the “Buy” links on the page. The Amazon account will be activated shortly.

UPDATE (May 14): Actually, I am unsure what readers mean when they assert that I must have “investigated” Ron Paul and certified him as a friend of Israel, whatever that means. Nothing of the sort. I have no idea what Ron Paul feels or thinks about Israel. The good news is that Paul’s First Principles are all I need to know about. And I do know these; these are sound. With the kind of First Principles Paul holds, he will be good for America, first and foremost, which means he will not be meddling with other countries, which, inadvertently, means he will let Israel conduct its own affairs.

Here is another thing I know: Paul understands that an American president will have a tough time currying favor with Americans if he tilts wildly toward the crazy Palestinians. Americans are generally pro-Israel. Simple. If Paul starts exculpating suicide bombers in Israel, it’s over. That’s the way Americans roll.

Steve Forbes: Johnny-Come-Lately To Gold

Debt, Economy, Elections, Federal Reserve Bank, Media, Ron Paul

The mummified media, the financial press included, called Rep. Ron Paul a lunatic when he explained again and again that “a return to the gold standard by the United States would help the nation solve a variety of economic, fiscal, and monetary ills,” created when President Richard Nixon abolished the Gold Standard.

“Such a move would help to stabilize the value of the dollar, restore confidence among foreign investors in U.S. government bonds, and discourage reckless federal spending. … With a stable currency, it is ‘much harder’ for governments to borrow excessively. … Without lax Federal Reserve System monetary policies that led to the printing of too much money, the housing bubble would not have been nearly as severe.”

You don’t say?!”

Actually, these are Steve Forbes’ words, not Paul’s. Forbes is currently singing from the Paul hymn-sheet, and it is music to the ear.

Of course, this is not to say one should embrace Paul’s political opponents, just because they’ve arrived at the correct economic conclusion, now that it’s probably too late.

Goldbugs know that gold is a necessary financial hedge in the survival on the road to serfdom.

Watch out! Gold is bad for government health. Remember Executive Order 6102? FDR, idolized by BHO and many a Republican alike—by almost all offshoots of the duopoly, in fact—forbade “the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates” at pains of punishment: a fine of “not more than $10,000, or “imprisoned for not more than ten years or both.”

Ron Paul Vs. The ‘Revirginizing’ Republicans

libertarianism, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul

John H. Richardson of Esquire Magazine has a great line about the Republicans’ hollow commitment to constitutional principles: “Once Obama became president, the hymen of their small-government ideals spontaneously regenerated.” Richardson follows with a fabulous piece about Ron Paul:

“[Ron] Paul chose to use the new Congress’s ceremonial reading of the Constitution — a tribute to him — to chastise his colleagues for the hollowness of the stunt. ‘Will there be no more wars without an actual congressional declaration?’ he asked. ‘Will the Federal Reserve Act be repealed? Will only gold and silver be called legal tender? Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments, including the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor? Will the Patriot Act be repealed and all the warrantless searches stopped? Will the TSA be restrained or abolished? Will the IRS’s unconstitutional collection powers end? Will executive and judicial quasilegislative powers be ended? Will we end the federal war on drugs? Would we end the federal government’s involvement in medical care? Will we end all the federal government’s illusionary insurance programs? Will we ban secret prisons, trials without due process, and assassinations? Will we end our foreign policy of invasion and occupations?'”

The feature about Ron Paul is well-worth reading. (While you’re at it, here’s a defense of Representative Paul, one of many, written during the heyday of the attacks against him launched by Beltway libertarians.)

Other good lines by Richardson: “Words that other politicians used like screeches of chimpanzee code, Paul actually meant and could explain so that everything from the economic collapse to marijuana legalization to terrorism actually connected and made sense. Like the words on everyone’s lips these days, small government. The way Ron Paul explains it, the U. S. Constitution was all about setting up a balance of powers in order to prevent a recurrence of government tyranny, a purpose emphasized by the Bill of Rights….”

A not-so-good line, because arguably incorrect (the accretion of the state has been the ruin of the USA): “He doesn’t care that it was a powerful American government, based in Washington and willing to invest in its people, that ultimately made the United States into the world-historic power that it is today, with a huge economy and a vast middle class. Nor does he care that it was that strong central government that ensured the survival of the young country” …

Finally:

The difference is that a lot of conservatives just say this stuff without meaning it. It was conservatives, after all, who said that you can have small government along with two wars and seven hundred overseas military bases. But Ron Paul goes the other way. Philosophical and systematic and pure in a way that young people may be best qualified to understand, he lays bare the contradictions. That is the reason his ideas have spread like hidden veins throughout our culture, the reason he has become such a stunning challenge to the existing order. He means the words that everyone else just uses. He’s flinty as a Founder and solid as the gold standard — not just the messenger but also the message.