Wednesday, January 4, 2012


Why I Cannot Support Ron Paul

The old progressive model is creaky and on the verge of collapse. Even some liberals will admit it is financially untenable. The orthodox statists scream for more taxpayer money, but everybody else realizes we can’t tax our way out of this.

Libertarianism is gaining a hearing from a populace that had previously viewed it as the milieu of nudist dope smokers, anarchists, and bow tied theorists. People are looking for solutions, but raw libertarianism is still too scary even for many small government types. It will take time, and the right people, for libertarianism to gain mainstream currency. Paul Ryan is not a libertarian, but he’s the kind of guy that will be needed: Smart, articulate, and able to deliver it all with a smile.

What's Wrong with Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson is an affable guy with a solid small-government record as governor of New Mexico, but his talk of legalizing heroin scares people. And libertarians shouldn’t accuse those folks of fearing liberty. Reasonable people are afraid that mainstreaming drug use will unleash deleterious effects, just like blasphemy, pornography and hundreds of other societal poisons did once we stopped combating them. So the fears, while debatable, are well founded.

Retreat will not bring Safety

Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive and dangerous. His rEVOLution rhetoric warmly unites liberty loving libertarians, leftwing Kucinichites, Neo-nazis, 9-11 Troofers, Isolationists, and sensible small government conservatives, but it is folly to believe that "If we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."

Just because the gunslinger hangs up his spurs and spends evenings by the fireside doesn't mean old rivals won't still be gunning for him. And "them" is generally understood to refer to practitioners of a religion that split into two rival teams after the founder died and then set themselves to the grim task of slaughtering one another. 1500 years later they are still at it. Is Ron Paul really so naive as to believe that people who nurse thousand-year-old grudges will let The Great Satan go gently into that good isolationist night with fresh sins yet staining his unrepentant soul?

Sunni terrorists are not fighting for deposed Iranian secularists

Then there is the ridiculous contention that our meddling in Iran in the 50’s has spawned Sunni Islamists.

Our CIA deposing secular Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh has been proffered by hoarse-throated lefties as the reason "they hate us." I am dismayed to see many of my fellow conservatives hoist this Noam Chomsky banner, because there are several problems with such simple-minded thinking. First, “they” are Islamists, and they have always been set in opposition to the leftwing intellectual professoriate class that Mossadegh represented. Had we not removed him, his fate would have been that of the secular intelligentsia who teamed with the Mullahs to topple the Shah in 1979: The Islamists slit the throats of their revolutionary partners of convenience, and the rest is history.


I am also dismayed to see some of my fellow conservatives pick up the blowback banner. Iranians didn't carry out the string of terrorist attacks bookended by the WTC bombings. The people we defended from Saddam Hussein carried out those attacks; and they are Sunni extremists who hate the Shia Persians!

We stopped aggression when we chased Saddam out of Kuwait, as we did when we went into The Balkans. Was the Kosovar Muslim who murdered US Air Force personnel at Frankfurt Airport blowback for our defense of his kith and kin against the bloody predations of Orthodox Christians?

The problem with the blowback argument is that world history is full of chain reactions. Blowback is nothing but the physics of human and societal interaction: humanity's equal and opposite reaction. We’d be wise to remember that good men doing nothing will also cause the dreaded blowback.

A Tower of Babble: False Dilemmas upon Logical Fallacies

In addition to Paul’s historical mis-readings and the logical fallacies they have spawned, we also must suffer breathless false dilemmas from his hard-core followers (thankfully, I don't hear these memes from my fellow Right Blogistanis who Support Dr. Paul) :

* Ron Paul is a constitutionalist -- If you don't vote for him you hate the constitution.

* If you aren't with Ron Paul on Israel you are a neocon.

* If you disagree with his foreign policy you are in favor of endless wars.

* If you agree that the CIA has done bad things then you must support dismantling it.

I don’t believe we should intervene everywhere; but we should never tie our hands and forswear intervening anywhere. I can concede that yes, the CIA has done some bad things, but it does not follow that the entire intelligence apparatus must be dismantled. Do Paulistas really want to gouge out America’s eyes and plug our ears? I don’t want us pulling dirty tricks on countries that do us no harm, but I do want us spying on enemies.

More "Constitutional" than the Founders?

Ron Paul supporters call him a constitutionalist, but nothing in our constitution prevents us from forming alliances with likeminded people around the world or taking action when authorized by congress.

George Washington invaded Canada, and as president he donned his military uniform to lead a militia army in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. His protégé, Alexander Hamilton (one of the Federalist Papers authors) set up our nation's first central bank, and when a later congress voted against renewing it's charter, President Madison (another Federalist Papers author, and Father of the Constitution) established the Second Bank of America, another central bank. President Thomas Jefferson sent US Marines to the shores of Tripoli, and "The Last Founding Father" James Monroe's famous doctrine declared that any act by any European power to colonize any part of North or South America would be considered by the US government as an act of aggression to be met with military force. Would Ron Paul call these actions by our founders wrong?

Ron Paul rejects the isolationist tag while throwing up smoke screens about no more endless wars (a lefty trope), but he also thought we should have stayed out of WW II and his stated philosophies would have prevented us from winning the cold war. Western Civilization would look much different today if Dr. Paul's views had held sway. Forming military alliances, providing military assistance, and securing landing rights in other countries is a far cry from war-mongering. On the contrary, those actions, carried out prudently, save lives and money by deterring war.

The world is a messy place, with unprincipled actors brandishing horrible weapons capable of murder on a mass scale. Those who stubbornly stand upon principle will end up standing upon rubble. Between Ron Paul and the trigger-happy statists, there exists a sensible middle, and it is on firm constitutional footing.

I understand the Paulist urge of impatient libertarians and those disgusted with our statist federal monster, but Ron Paul ain’t the guy and America ain't ready for the libertarian full monty just yet.


(((Thought Criminal))) said...

::grabs whetstone::

I'll be back ;)

Always On Watch said...

Ron Paul will not get the GOP nomination.

However, if he doesn't, he'll likely bolt and start a third Party, thus resulting in the re-election of Barack Hussein Obama. Paul will garner enough votes to do exactly that.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Ron Paul is not a conservative

Proof Ron Paul wrote and editted his racist newsletters

Ron Paul - champion of traitors

Ron Paul's "harmless" Iranian friends

Ron Paul: Welfare statist

Ron Paul leaves a bad taste in the mouths of conservatives AND libertarians because he's neither.

Just another cryptoleftist.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Like others, I would offer that Ron Paul is not a standard bearer for Libertarians. He is far too fundamentalist to be warmly embraced in the LP camp.

The media does a bang up job of pushing his 'libertarianism' and sadly does likewise for the tea party.

I am an unashamed Libertarian, but my ideology is tempered by the fact that a Libertarian president [if that should ever occur] would not be able to pass any of the 'extreme' measures many Libertarian support. Given the option, I will always choose more freedom over less.

Otherwise, pretty well written piece, SF.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Ron Paul: campaign finance scofflaw

Ron Paul: Moscow's candidate

Silverfiddle said...

Insurgent: Thanks! Do you think someone like Johnson, who I like, could gain national success by playing down the scarier aspects of libertarianism while still staying true to the cause?

Ducky's here said...

I'm curious that you get so worked up about Iran. It represents no threat to us.
The threat is to our valued "allies" Saudi Arabia and Israel. Just part of the big game of f**k-f**k in the mid East.

Just as we are backing the Egyptian military and Assad in Syria.

Silverfiddle said...

Ducky: Who are you talking to? I'm not "worked up" about Iran.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

SF: I really like Gary as well. And I do think that a rebranded message for public consumption would work better for the Libertarian Party. His major drawback in this consumer driven society is that he doesn't appear dynamic and telegenic. And that is a major minus for campaigning.

I think another obstacle is while people carp, bitch and gripe about the candidates we're forced to choose that most people fear voting for someone who isn't favored to win. They succumb to the lesser of two evils, without staying true to their conscience. The media portrays Democrats, Republicans and 'independents' [inferring the last group is merely people who haven't made up their mind yet, but will vote for one or the other in the end]. The 'squishy middle' in other words. My personal opinion is if everybody voted for the candidate that best represents their belief and values, a strong third party effort would arise.

I've long been of the opinion that the LP needs to stop running Presidential candidates and save their funds to build a solid base of local and state representatives.

But Gary has a strong track record

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I think marijuana legalization is a great idea. Other drugs, not so much. But, it we must legalize them all, what we really ought to criminalize is drug rehab clinics and emergency room treatments for drug overdoses.

Talk about letting personal responsibility take its toll.

I'm sure there was a time in American history that people could point to the gutters at living examples of why drug abuse is bad, mmm'kay...

(Edgar Allan Poe's death springs to mind, but he may have been cooped

Unknown said...

I'll give you another fine example of the Tower of Babble lobbed at me by Paul supporters: "McCain, a neoconservative-Republican who ran on a leftist foreign policy of military preemption and interventionism was defeated by a Democrat who ran on a conservative foreign policy of ending the war in Iraq."

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Mark - To be fair, we do have history in liberal interventionism, and Conservatism [as I accept it] doesn't always or necessarily mandate foreign intervention.

Silverfiddle said...

Insurgent: I plead guilty to the "lesser of two evils" mindset...

I strongly agree with you that is must be from the grassroots up. Like houses, you can't build movements from the top down.

And I also agree that invading other countries without a clear and present danger is very un-conservative.

Anonymous said...

Real Clear Politics Video

The Latest Politics, News & Election Videos

Posted on January 3, 2012

Ron Paul Asked If He Sees Himself In Oval Office: "Not Really"and

Asked why he believes he draws a large crowd of young people, Ron Paul says younger people are "more open to consistency and principle."

"I think all young people, whether you're a toddler or a teenager, like independence," Paul added.

Later in the interview Paul is asked if he sees himself sitting in the Oval Office.

Terry Moran, ABC News: "When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?"

Ron Paul: “Not really."

Ron Paul went on to say that he’s not blind to the odds, but they are “not as slim as they were 25 years

Submitted by FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Well, Silver, a good part of your article is an apologetic for our meddling.

Just as we are meddling now it is a cheap exercise in power (well actually a very expensive exercise) that helps maintain an authoritarian status quo.

Maybe "worked up" i too colorful a description but you certainly see intent on justifying our behavior in the mid East.

Silverfiddle said...

Not really, Ducky. I think that between total isolationism and serial neocon interventions there lies a golden mean.

Israel and its neighbors is an intractable problem. It cannot be solved, only continually managed.

I don't want to go back over there and I sure as hell don't want my kids over there fighting for people who hate us. I would love nothing more that for the US to completely vacate that hell on earth.

Unknown said...

ConInsurg, you can make that statement, but history has little to back it up with. Of course, my comment referred to McCain and Obama in 08. Which there is no material to back up the Paulbot statement, of that time.

Left Coast Rebel said...

Great post, thanks for linking my AT piece, Kurt and happy new year to you and your family ;).

Ducky's here said...

What does it matter, Silver?

The whole thing has taken shape and we will have an Obummer/Romney election. We'll get all hot and testy about which one is this or that and miss the point that they both get on their knees to Wall St. at every opportunity.

We'll be arguing over the nature of the freaking noise each makes to distract us.
We'll do whatever these fools feel is necessary to protect the oil supply. We'll continue with the upward income transfer and we'll be fighting among ourselves about gay marriage. Completely dysfunctional culture.

Meanwhile, if we don't do something about our news media we are just going to circle the drain.

Obummer has worked a freaking masterpiece and fellated Wall St. while he completely eliminates the fringe right criticism that Dems are soft on defense. He's taken those talking points away and forced the right to move into la-la land.

Ron Paul, L'il Ricky Retardo, Newt Gingrich? Are you freaking kidding me?

So there you have it. We will have an election featuring two right of center Wall Street stooges and no matter who wins the corporatists win. Meanwhile ... wait, look over there, a scary Muslim.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

...says the leftist who'd piss hisself if Khalid Sheikh Muhammad got a civilian trial in his city.

Silverfiddle said...

... And in a major blow to the Romney campaign, Mitt received the endorsement of John McCain today. A thumbs up from George W. Bush should seal the deal...

Silverfiddle said...

LCR: No problem! It was an excellent article. I submitted this to AT but they shot it down.

Trekkie4Ever said...

I don't believe Ron Paul stands a chance, not any longer. Not that I was rooting for man, I didn't like what I was reading.

I am for Santorum and I am sticking with my choice. I hope he does well. However, I heard that he is very low on funds. God help him.

Unknown said...

"Mitt received the endorsement of John McCain today."
Thought they were one in the same... .

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

... And in a major blow to the Romney campaign, Mitt received the endorsement of John McCain today. A thumbs up from George W. Bush should seal the deal...


Anonymous said...

Practicing the Medicine He Preaches: The Free Market Charity of Ron Paul


FRIDAY, 30 DECEMBER 2011 14:00

James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas said in a pro-Ron Paul campaign advertisement released December 28 that in the early 1970s he saw "Ron Paul come to my rescue. He just stepped in and went to work with my wife." Williams' wife was pregnant and extremely ill, and until Dr. Ron Paul showed up, nobody at the hospital would care for his wife. Williams suspects the bi-racial family in the deep South may have been a factor (he's black, his wife is white) in the wait to see a doctor. But Ron Paul saw his wife immediately.

"He said, as far as the bill," Williams continued in the RevolutionPAC advertisement, "he would take care of everything. Which he did. I never got a bill from the hospital or anything. And he was a doctor of medicine and that's what he was doing, was practicing medicine. And it didn't matter who, and what, and why. He was doing it because he'd think of one human being just as much as another. He's just an honest man, and that's something we need now in this day and time."

... [T]he video was an insight into the ordinary way the country doctor-turned-presidential candidate operated for decades in his obstetric practice. [Dr. Paul] was excoriated by leftists after a September 12 debate where moderator Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked about a hypothetical 30-year-old man without insurance who needed six months of medical care. Knowing Rep. Paul's opposition to government healthcare, Blitzer asked: "But congressman, are you saying that Society should just let him die?"

Dr. Paul replied:

No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospital. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves, assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. That's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes a special interest, it cow-tows to the insurance companies and then the drug companies.

After the debate, few knew what Rep. Paul was talking about, and an even smaller fraction believed what he was talking about would ever work. Dr. Paul's medical partner, Jack Pruitt, told this writer several years ago that Ron Paul had always opposed government intervention in medical care. "When I walked into his office," Pruitt said, "the first thing he said to me was that there were two things that he and I had to agree upon ... 'Number one is, we do not do any abortions.... Number two is, we also don't accept any federal funds. We are going to see Medicare and Medicaid patients for free, and we are going to treat them just like we treat everybody else regardless of what it costs us to do that.'" ...

Complete article may be found at:

Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


Politics has been reduced to guerilla warfare between hagiographers and character assassins.

There is no truth in it anywhere, and no interest whatsoever in FINDING truth. Instead it's all about WINNING through a furious exchange of insults, selected facts, vicious lies, half-truths and and preposterous assertions.

Winning WHAT?

Whoever "wins" a contest of this sort could only wind up being King of the Dunghill, because that is precisely what the current political process has turned this country into -- a heap of stinking garbage.

Sorry, Dave, but when you are absolutely certain the opposition lives to serve "The Devil," compromise becomes impossible. Both sides believe the other to be satanic.

Usually "The Devil" is in "the details," but in this case he resides -- and THRIVES -- in The Polarity.

~ FreeThinke

PS: Of all the many evils that have infected American politics Character Assassination is the one I abhor most. Even so it is a time-honored practice indulged in by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both when they competed for the presidency -- and it was rife among most of the founders and their supporters much of the time. Politics never has been subject to any recognized Rules of Etiquette. - FT

Anonymous said...

WHOOPS! Sorry. The reference to "Dave" did not belong on his thread, but was intended for another blog.

~ FT

Anonymous said...

Ducky said:

" ... We'll get all hot and testy about which one is this or that and miss the point that they both get on their knees to Wall St. at every opportunity."

That's very close to the truth, Ducky, but it is not "Wall street" per se but thede facto cabal of Owners and Suppliers of Raw Materials, International Bankers and Financiers, Captains of Global Industry and their army of henchpersons otherwise known as "The Media" who are striving with all their might and main to collapse the American System, subvert our Constitution, and manipulate us into subjecting ourselves to Global Government -- ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, which will, of course, be a dictatorship run by this de facto cabal.

Their plan is form an OLIGARCHY of ELITES to whose whim and will everyone in earth will be subject.

What-you-call "Wall Street" is only one facet of the Whole.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

~ David Rockefeller Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

Even one of our most outspoken skeptics on the subject of Internatialist Plots has admitted that quote to be authentic, though I believe he dismisses David Rockefeller as a "kook."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


"Just think of what Woodrow Wilson stood for: he stood for world government. He wanted an early United Nations, the League of Nations. But it was the conservatives, Republicans, that stood up against him."

"Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts."

"Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam."

"War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members
of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think
only in terms of groups.

By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession
with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.

Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards
individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."

~ Government and Racism, April 16, 2007

Submitted by FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

A fine example of character assassination may be found in this article from The Philadelphia Jewish Voice:

~ FreeThinke

KP said...

<< We will have an election featuring two right of center Wall Street stooges and no matter who wins the corporatists win. >>

Boiled down ... that's how I see it. It seems it is going to take one party's control of Congress (and a miracle) to move the needle.

Finntann said...

Perhaps we need to stop electing politicians ;)

Sometimes I think we wouldn't do much worse with a random lottery...




You are hereby ordered for induction into the Government of the United States and to report to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia on January 20th, 2013 at 7:30 A.M

Hey, it's worth a shot.


(((Thought Criminal))) said...


Careful with that. Some Kenyan might use it as a path to citizenship.

I kid, I kid.

KP said...

Finntann -- kind of like jury duty :-)

Anonymous said...

Wasn't it Wm. F. Buckley who said he'd rather have the first two or three-hundred names selected at random from the Manhattan telephone directory govern the country than the faculties of Harvard, Princeton and Yale -- or something like that?


If you'd really like to know how things OUGHT to be done, just ask any New York City cab driver. HE'LL tell tell ya!

Could random member of the hoi polloi do worse than what we have now?

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FT and Finn: I seriously think we would do much better. People would treat it, as KP says, as jury duty. Get the job done and go home.

Anonymous said...


~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...


~ FreeThinke

Ducky's here said...

Finntann, have you listened to Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann or L'il Ricky Retardo?

Anyone posting on this board is more capable and more intelligent than those butt nuggets.

Problem is that most of us have principles which makes us unelectable.

Finntann said...

Yes... which is why I suggest drawing

Honestly, If I had my pick of the current field, I'd take Gary Johnson.


(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I'd rather have Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State, but there are no Republican candidates smart enough to choose him for that. And so, I'm gelling into the Gingrich camp as my appointed "not-Romney anti-Obama" Presidential candidate. I like fiscal conservatives that have actually accomplished fiscally conservative things.

The candidates I was the least enthusiastic about have already dropped out - Cain and Bachmann.

I'll probably end up selling my own blood plasma to raise money for Obama to express my contempt for Romney or Paul if they get a slot on the GOP ticket. Go ahead and throw Jon "Obama's stimulus wasn't big enough" Huntsman in there too, but he's less a risk of me taking a needle.

Rick Perry needs to, no wait there's no salvaging that.

Rick Santorum, can he fly?

Gary Johnson, can he win the Libertarian Party nomination?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

I humbly ask those flailing to defend Ron Paul from charges of racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry, conspiracy theory mongering, or just outright neo-liberalism / leftism what it is that racists, anti-Semites, bigots, conspiracy theory mongers, and leftists see and support in him and no other candidate?

Why aren't neo-Nazis marching for say, Jon Huntsman? Where are the 9/11 Troofers for Michelle Bachmann? Any "why doesn't the Air Force have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomb?" welfare statists for Rick Perry?

Silverfiddle said...

Unfortunately, Beamish, my blogger buddies who support Ron Paul on their blogs have not visited...

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Well, I appreciate the battlespace you provide, Silverfiddle. ;)

Anonymous said...

I have come to believe that it doesn't really matter who wins, because virtually ALL of the candidates on BOTH sides have been bought and paid for by the de facto Oligarchy of International Bankers, Corporate Magnates and Owners and Suppliers of Raw Materials that TRULY runs the show behind the scenes.

The only candidate who tells a consistent story and who has stood up to the evil that controls our destiny is Ron Paul -- and look what they have done to him:

Despite a consistent show of impressive grass roots support, an uncanny ability to raise huge sums of money quickly without the support of "lobbyists," Ron Paul has been routinely ignored, dismissed, lampooned and vilified by the Establishment -- tarred as an "anti-Semite," a :racist" a "bigot" and both a crypto-Leftist AND a Neo-Nazi.

It's a wonder "they" haven't given i=us the name of the plastic surgeon who cut of Ron Paul's horns and bobbed his demon's tail -- AND supplied us with the name of the evil shoemaker who skillfully camouflages Paul's cloven foot.

When one applies Guilt by Association to Barack Obama -- whose background, the little we know of it, -- is SCURRILOUS to say the least -- one is castigated, chastised, counseled, corrected and condemned. When the same miserable tactic is used against Ron Paul it's considered AOK.

Aside from all of that we have an more serious added problem: NONE of the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls -- including Ron Paul -- bears the slightest resemblance to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan -- bless his sweet Irish heart! -- famously said, "Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans."

The internecine warfare in which we Republican-Conservative-Libertarians are currently engaged -- and the aggressive, overly-assertive, bullying, badgering tactics engaged in by certain participants in the blogosphere, who masquerade as "Conservatives" when they are in fact nothing but vicious, ruthlessly determined troublemakers, is almost certain to ensure the victory of Barack Hussein Obama in November.

"He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

By the way a charge of "anti-Semitism" is very like a charge of Child Molestation, Date Rape or Sexual Harassment.

Thanks to the dictates of Political Correctness and the invention of Hate Speech Laws with which the Left has successfully bound and gagged American society, once the accusation has been made, it immediately becomes a "tar baby" from which it is all-but-impossible to extricate oneself.

In the Brave New World created by the wily, insidious, astonishingly powerful intellectual insurgency of Cultural Marxism an accusation is as good -- or better -- than a conviction.

People who gleefully practice The Politics of Character Assassination are beneath contempt.

~ FreeThinke

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

When one applies Guilt by Association to Barack Obama -- whose background, the little we know of it, -- is SCURRILOUS to say the least -- one is castigated, chastised, counseled, corrected and condemned. When the same miserable tactic is used against Ron Paul it's considered AOK.

Barack Obama built a loyal fan base of racists, anti-Semites, and conspiracy theory-mongers with 30+ years worth of racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theory-mongering subscription newsletters written by him and those operating in his name? Who knew?

Divine Theatre said...

There is a great deal of ignorance floating around here. Dr. Paul has MY vote.

Silverfiddle said...

@Divine: There is a great deal of ignorance floating around here

Please elaborate.

Z said...

Beamish "I'd rather have Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State, but there are no Republican candidates smart enough to choose him for that."

Gad, that's a nasty thought, in my opinion; but, don't worry...he'll be promised something to step aside. Wait for it.

Anonymous said...

"Please elaborate."

Oh come on, SilverFiddle! Does she REALLY need to?

I think I understand perfectly well what she means -- and is was NOT intended as a slam at you, believe me.

I would not choose to call it "ignorance," however. Irrationality, spite and malice would be more appropriate terms.

Trumpeting bigots live to indulge in intellectual thuggery. Their primary purpose is to confound, confuse, inflame and divide everyone within "earshot."

As they saying goes, "We learn much more about ________ from what he says about Paul than we learn about Paul."

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

"[D]on't worry... [Newt Gingrich] will be promised something to step aside. Wait for it."

Z! How astute! The thought sent a chill up my spine, but sadly it has the ring of truth about it.

All discernible "vibrations" indicate that The Establishment (meaning the RNC, the DNC, The Media, and the Corporate Magnates, International Bankers and Owners and Suppliers of Raw Materials who control everything surreptitiously behind the scenes) have decided that whether "We the People" like it or not, MITT ROMNEY is GOING to be the Republican candidate in 2012.

It's in the wind -- I can positively SMELL it, and it STINKS to HIGH HEAVEN.

~ FreeThinke

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Mitt Romney's PAC has given over a million dollars to mostly "Tea Party" candidates in state Governor, US Senate, and US House of Representative races outside his home state and Congressional district.

How much money did you send to the Tea-stablishment?

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

"I'd rather have Newt Gingrich as Secretary of State, but there are no Republican candidates smart enough to choose him for that."

Gad, that's a nasty thought, in my opinion; but, don't worry...he'll be promised something to step aside. Wait for it.

Maybe he should grumble about the establishment harrasing him and running him out on a rail on bogus ethics charges for his willingness to shut down the government to bring back fiscal responsibility. Nod and wink at the camera a bit. Maybe throw out a few "you betcha" lines (but don't set a real wager, please), and maybe a bus tour. Or should he have done the walrus-bashing reality TV series first?

Nah, we don't even know if his daughter can dance.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

People who gleefully practice The Politics of Character Assassination are beneath contempt.

Agreed. Let's find them nasty devils whut made Ron Paul's newsletters say whut they do.

Anonymous said...

He preached upon "Breadth" till it argued him narrow ––
The Broad are too broad to define
And of "Truth" until it proclaimed him a Liar --
The Truth never flaunted a Sign --

Simplicity fled from his counterfeit presence
As Gold the Pyrites would shun --
What confusion would cover the innocent Jesus
To meet so enabled a Man!

~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

Submitted by FreeThinke

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
- Lewis Carroll, in "Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There," 1872

Silverfiddle said...

Oh crap... Poetry wars have come to Right Blogistan...

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Oh crap... Poetry wars have come to Right Blogistan...

I don't have a banjo.

Anonymous said...

Crap, indeed!

Sorry, Kurt. I should ha known.

~ FT

dmarks said...

"Ron Paul's foreign policy is naive and dangerous."

Very true. It's based on a nasty combination of ignorance, and contempt for the lives of foreigners.

Other reasons I dislike Ron Paul:

1) He wrote a bunch of nasty racist things about black people in his newsletter.

2) He favors stripping native-born Americans of citizenship due to the supposes crimes of their parents.

And a personal one

3) His local group of supporters once trashed my church parking lot.

dmarks said...

Ducky the antisemite lied: " [Iran] represents no threat to us."

This nation has killed hundreds of innocent Americans, and has openly threatened us many times.

"The threat is to our valued "allies" Saudi Arabia and Israel."

It's more than a threat to Israel. It's a threat to exterminate its population of more than 5 million Jews. Which is OK for you since you support "criticising" Israeli's rights to live.

dmarks said...

beamish said: "I think marijuana legalization is a great idea.":

I strongly disagree. We need less drug abuse, not more.

Stogie said...

An excellent analysis of wrong-headed thinking by Paulians. Thanks for this. Will link you ASAP.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

"I think marijuana legalization is a great idea."

I strongly disagree. We need less drug abuse, not more.

Because of increased "social costs" you're hip with ponying up to pay anyway, right now?

Silverfiddle said...

I'm for leaving people the hell alone, so long as the state leaves me alone when those people blow their brains out on drugs.

If we implement libertarian law we must first be prepared to live with the libertarian consequences.

Unbridled personal liberty and hammocks disguised as safety nets do not go hand in hand.

Wall Street runs wild because they are backstopped by taxpayers.

(((Thought Criminal))) said...

Legalize drugs. Illegalize public-funded emergency overdose treatments. ;)

Anonymous said...

Speaking of memes this is The UEBER MEME hovering about every Denigration Derby on the subject of Ron Paul:

If you are not one-hundred percent in favor of the Global War On Terror, you must automatically be categorized as an ANTI-SEMITE.

This has happened to both Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul.

An accusation of anti-Semitism guarantees you a one-way ticket to Hell.

The concept of using accusations of anti-Semitism as a means of banning even the mention of certain topics and shutting down debate is the Great-Grandfather of Political-Correctness.

THAT is where it all got started.

~ FreeThinke

theCL said...

No, Gary Johnson has never advocated legalizing heroin. However Paul has, and I agree. Seeing that he came within 3 percentage points of Romney in the caucus (statistically insignificant), ending the Drug War obviously isn't as scary to so many people as you seem to think.

I find the idea that ending the Drug War equals "mainstreaming drug use" both scary and offensive. Government does not determine our culture. My German Lutheran grandparents church held beer garden every Sunday after church during the prohibition years. They believed (as I do) that what belongs to God is not the providence of the state.

Before you say "government reflects society," think about what the Drug War actually means - violence and the usurpation of natural rights. Come to think of it, that does describe our society. Not very well, though, does it? Nisbet wins that one!

Oh, further reflecting poorly on our society is our lack of respect for the rule of law too. The Constitution does not provide the power to prohibit such things as a plant that grows in the ground. But "we're" willing to overlook that "technicality," aren't we?

The federal government never waged a war on "blasphemy [and] pornography." But then again, not that long ago, most Americans didn't think of the fedgov as "we."

Let me ask you this ... A failed Tea Party candidate recently called for the assassination of President Obama and his family. What is it about the Tea Party that attracts these types of nutjobs?

Do you still beat your mom?

It's good to know that the federal government can intervene overseas without consequence. Why is it then, that they can't do it without consequence here at home too?

If you aren't with Ron Paul on Israel you are a neocon.

Don't need to resort to such a cheap attack, because it would be rather easy to argue that you've embraced much of the neoconservative philosophy* both at home and abroad. But none the less, all those accusations are fair, after all, look how many wild accusations (along with petty name-calling) you've employed in this one post alone. Goose. Gander?

I could carry on, but the vast majority of your post is hyperbole, wild-accusations, and pathetic, simple-minded name-calling. And it's this, the childish name-calling, that is the primary reason Republican Party sycophants (who run around as self-styled "conservatives" and/or "libertarians") will have to "beat Obama" without us stoopid "Paulistas." Good luck with that!

Silverfiddle said...

Name calling? You just did a pretty good job yourself, and you've proven my point with your specious argumentation.

I did not defend the war on drugs. I explained why legalization worries people. If you want to dismiss that, great. Snotty condescension rarely wins people to your side.

Funny how you zeroed in on the drug part. I didn't even make a for or against argument there.

Anyway, if you hated this post, you will positively loathe tomorrow's.

dmarks said...

TheCL: "I find the idea that ending the Drug War equals "mainstreaming drug use" both scary and offensive"

I find the idea of lifting the main restriction on drug abuse to by scary and offensive. And lifting this restriction would indeed mainstream drug abuse.

theCL said...

The drug war is both a) the first issue you brought up, and b) a perfect metaphor for the right's acceptance of the omnipotent state (and accompanying dismissal of constitutional government).

The idea that "we" and the state are one in the same is a dangerous leftwing ideology.

If you don't understand that the rest of my comment is me applying your own arguments against you, please read it again. I would have loved to have argued substance, but you didn't present any to argue against.

Oh, and on your next post regarding Kirk ... You do know that Kirk advocated the same foreign policy as Paul, right? Kirk and modern conservatism have little, if anything, in common.

Silverfiddle said...

"Kirk and modern conservatism have little, if anything, in common."

I agree with you there, which is why I invoked Kirk as the my standard for conservatism.

Nowhere did you use my arguments against me. I was not standing up for the drug war or a war against blasphemy. I was describing the perception of some conservatives and saying we should not simply discount their fears.

I never said "government reflects society" and I certainly do not confuse the people with the state.

I notice you skipped over my analysis of the illogical thinking regarding blowback, foreign policy and Paul's "constitutionalism."

You Paulists are going to have to learn that huffily asserting your point of view won't get you far. People want debates, and it is common for people to cling to their ways. If you can't explain yourself expect to remain on the fringe.

People don't like being preached at, and the inability to discuss issues dispassionately will be your undoing. No man, including Ron Paul, is above analysis and criticism, so get over yourself if you can't rationally discuss the merits and demerits of your candidate without getting defensive.

dmarks said...

"The drug war is both a) the first issue you brought up, and b) a perfect metaphor for the right's acceptance of the omnipotent state (and accompanying dismissal of constitutional government)."

As for (b) not in the least. Fighting against rampant crime does not dismiss the constitution,