Ron Paul has refused to be bullied over his reasoned dissent from U.S. foreign policy. Good for him.
11 Responses to “Good on ya’, Ron”
Garry Cobb
What saddens me is that many of the main media outlets are still characterizing Paul’s truthful statements as a “misstep” of some sort and that Giuliani “smacked [Paul] down”.
In reality, it was mayor Giuliani who misstepped, as he exposed his foreign policy ignorance. He stated that he had never heard Paul’s explanation that intervention was a main factor in the sentiment behind the 9/11 attacks.
The CIA has been saying that for years, as has the Cato Institute and numerous other very credible sources. Further, the 9/11 Commission mentioned U.S. interventionist policy as a critical factor behind the terror emanating from the Middle East.
Also, Giuliani’s reply to Ron Paul was nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It was not an argument. He essentially responded to Paul’s facts and evidence with “You can’t say that! I was mayor of New York during 9/11! Take it back!”.
He made no counter argument, yet, the pundits declare that he “knocked Paul’s ‘soft ball’ out of the park”.
The truth is that Giuliani swung and missed badly.
You are wrong. Ron Paul is part of the same Antiwar.com-Axis of Treason that Tom has rightly been exposing. He is anti-American, and his arguments implicitly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He has a regular column on Antiwar.com, which should be renamed anti-american.com, along with the infamous Raimondo. He gives us the same moral equivalence rationalizations for supporting terrorism as Micahel Moore, Ward Churchill, and Susan Sontag.
I like everything about Ron Paul, but his position on immigration is abhorrent. I don’t know how anyone can call himself a libertarian while essentially believing that the United States should be surrounded by walls lest immigrants swamp you all.
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”
It’s a shame that the very end of the commercial (and I don’t know if it was approved by Ron Paul’s campaign or not) there were some ugly comments about how “We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia” and “the Spanish company that is building the NAFTA super-highway.” It’s a shame that a reasonable discussion of the unintended consequences of foreign policy (and it’s quite reasonable to argue that since the 9/11 attacks were occasioned by the occupation of Saudi Arabia and the perception that US bombing of Iraq was anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, as EVERYONE acknowledges, including Osama bin Laden, Donald Rumsfeld, the 9/11 commission, and the CIA, we should think twice about stationing troops around the world) was marred by some strange mercantilism and nationalism. I hope that those don’t represent Ron Paul’s views.
Regardless, Ron Paul deserves credit for injecting some serious questions concerning foreign policy into the debates.
This seems to be really amazing. Such a radical libertarian receiving so much attention in U.S. political debate. I would be glad for that. I have my doubts considering his immigration stance, but as a whole this is really a blessing for the libertarian cause.
At the other hand, maybe Goldwater was just as radical in the sixties, and he made it to be the candidate, while Paul doesn’t have a chance.
Axis of Treason? These are strong words. I just don’t like their lack of self-criticism sometimes, but Paul doesn’t seem to suffer from that.
Yes, it’s unfortunate that many of Ron’s supporters are actually isolationists (some even xenophobes). Ron does little to disabuse them of the idea that he is “with them”. Ron sees NAFTA, the UN, and the WTO as infringing on US sovereignty. One can be a “free trader” and oppose NAFTA, but Ron hasn’t tried to make that distinction that I’m aware of.
What’s tragic is that on every single other issue (to the best of my knowledge), Ron Paul is a genuine libertarian who truly believes in limited, constitutional government. That’s exceedingly rare (as everyone here knows). But then you get the to immigration portion of his website and he turns into a foaming-at-the-mouth xenophobe. Well, perhaps that’s too strong, but he clearly would rather people stay out than come in.
As a Canadian, there are many things that I loathe about the politically-correct leftist consensus in this country (the belief in public monopoly health care being right up there). If there’s one thing I’m grateful for, though, it’s that there’s basically no political party up here that is truly anti-immigration (or has the guts to be so in public).
Paul is not anti-immigration, he’s about ordered liberty. The US stands to lose its DNA of liberty if there is not some of type order in immigration. In fact, little by little it is. Surely, it is not the immigrants or immigration’s fault. But, it sure can be the political rent seeking of immigration that is. It is easy to see that there is a movement of rent seekers using immigration as a guise to inject their special interests.
I favor free migration. However, the immigration that is happening today is more free exploitation. Statists in both parties, who are pro or con, are using immigration as an excuse to legitimize their agenda to expand the state. Those on the right will use this issue to expand the police state. Those on the left will use the same issue to expand the welfare state.
Most of the people I talk to do not have anything against immigrants, they have a problem with immigrants free riding the system. Overcrowded schools is one example and an the increase in crime is another.
Paul has consistently supported free trade but not corporatist trade deals:
“CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body.”
“Free trade. Iâ??m for free trade. Although Iâ??m not for the type of system that we have today because I donâ??t believe itâ??s my concept of free trade. I do not believe that the Congress should ever have the authority to pass this authority to the president. And on things like on fast track and then president devises agreements that serve the interests of the special interests.”
I took part in a fundraiser last night for Dr. Paul (in Austin, TX) and must say that I was impressed, not only by the good congressman’s speech but also by the enthusiastic attendants. There were many “Republican-looking” persons, some military men in uniform, apparent college students, and even a guy in a mohawk. And they all erupted in applause… when Dr. Paul arrived, when he descended the staircase after finishing up his radio interview, and when he struck gold with his words. At one point he said that many of his supporters don’t consider themselves Republicans… many are independents (applause), Libertarians (intense applause), and even Democrats (yes, there were cheers then too, some very loud).
anthony fisher: I’m hesitant to dignify your comment with a response, but you should most certainly get over yourself and wake the hell up. Dr. Paul is one of the few honest politicians in D.C. and is as American as any man can be. He does not see the horrific terrorist attacks of 2001 as justified, but understands how the U.S.’s reckless foreign policy fueled (and still fuels) the hatred that led to those acts of violence.
Ron Paul may not be the Republic’s last hope, but he is the best hope we have now.
anthony fisher said: “Ron Paul is part of the same Antiwar.com-Axis of Treason that Tom has rightly been exposing… He is anti-American, and his arguments implicitly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”
Explanations and justifications are not the same. What Ron Paul gave was an explanation. The explanation that he gave for the 9/11 attacks is one that must be understood if we are ever to decrease or eliminate the terrorist threat.
Unless the government simply expects to kill all current and potential anti-American terrorists (an impossible task), it will have to do what is in it’s power to limit the number of people possessing a crazed anti-American sentiment. In order to succeed on that point, we need an understanding of which foreign policy actions feed into that sentiment.
Next, we should look critically at such actions and determine whether they are a net-benefit or a net-detriment to our security.
For instance, the bases in Saudi Arabia provided no security benefit to us here in America. However, those same bases were used as a recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Our bases, regardless of what we think of the ‘logic’ of extremists, were a net-detriment to our security as they provoked attacks on us and our soldiers. Thus, my conclusion is that we should not build permanent bases in that region (we are currently doing just that in Iraq).
The same can be said for the shelling of Muslim villages in Lebanon in the early 1980s, the first Gulf War, the sanctions on Iraq, and numerous other actions in the Muslim world. Those actions were at most of little benefit to our security while being a HUGE detriment. Such policies should be discontinued.
And that is not “blaming the victim” as some might say. It is just good advice.
If an attractive young female goes up to Mike Tyson’s hotel room at 3 a.m. and is assaulted, would it not be prudent to advise her against repeating that action which put her in a dangerous situation? Is explaning how such a situation is dangerous “blaming the victim”? Is it “justifying” the assault? Of course not!
Ron Paul is advising our government against embarking on foreign policy escapades that do not protect us but put us in danger. He should be applauded for doing so.
Thank you Dr. Palmer for bringing this to the forefront.
What saddens me is that many of the main media outlets are still characterizing Paul’s truthful statements as a “misstep” of some sort and that Giuliani “smacked [Paul] down”.
In reality, it was mayor Giuliani who misstepped, as he exposed his foreign policy ignorance. He stated that he had never heard Paul’s explanation that intervention was a main factor in the sentiment behind the 9/11 attacks.
The CIA has been saying that for years, as has the Cato Institute and numerous other very credible sources. Further, the 9/11 Commission mentioned U.S. interventionist policy as a critical factor behind the terror emanating from the Middle East.
Also, Giuliani’s reply to Ron Paul was nothing more than an appeal to emotion. It was not an argument. He essentially responded to Paul’s facts and evidence with “You can’t say that! I was mayor of New York during 9/11! Take it back!”.
He made no counter argument, yet, the pundits declare that he “knocked Paul’s ‘soft ball’ out of the park”.
The truth is that Giuliani swung and missed badly.
You are wrong. Ron Paul is part of the same Antiwar.com-Axis of Treason that Tom has rightly been exposing. He is anti-American, and his arguments implicitly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. He has a regular column on Antiwar.com, which should be renamed anti-american.com, along with the infamous Raimondo. He gives us the same moral equivalence rationalizations for supporting terrorism as Micahel Moore, Ward Churchill, and Susan Sontag.
I like everything about Ron Paul, but his position on immigration is abhorrent. I don’t know how anyone can call himself a libertarian while essentially believing that the United States should be surrounded by walls lest immigrants swamp you all.
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”
There’s no one like him left.
It’s a shame that the very end of the commercial (and I don’t know if it was approved by Ron Paul’s campaign or not) there were some ugly comments about how “We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia” and “the Spanish company that is building the NAFTA super-highway.” It’s a shame that a reasonable discussion of the unintended consequences of foreign policy (and it’s quite reasonable to argue that since the 9/11 attacks were occasioned by the occupation of Saudi Arabia and the perception that US bombing of Iraq was anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, as EVERYONE acknowledges, including Osama bin Laden, Donald Rumsfeld, the 9/11 commission, and the CIA, we should think twice about stationing troops around the world) was marred by some strange mercantilism and nationalism. I hope that those don’t represent Ron Paul’s views.
Regardless, Ron Paul deserves credit for injecting some serious questions concerning foreign policy into the debates.
This seems to be really amazing. Such a radical libertarian receiving so much attention in U.S. political debate. I would be glad for that. I have my doubts considering his immigration stance, but as a whole this is really a blessing for the libertarian cause.
At the other hand, maybe Goldwater was just as radical in the sixties, and he made it to be the candidate, while Paul doesn’t have a chance.
Axis of Treason? These are strong words. I just don’t like their lack of self-criticism sometimes, but Paul doesn’t seem to suffer from that.
http://watchronpaul.com/ (Thanks to the Belgians of http://www.phaedrus.be/ )
Yes, it’s unfortunate that many of Ron’s supporters are actually isolationists (some even xenophobes). Ron does little to disabuse them of the idea that he is “with them”. Ron sees NAFTA, the UN, and the WTO as infringing on US sovereignty. One can be a “free trader” and oppose NAFTA, but Ron hasn’t tried to make that distinction that I’m aware of.
What’s tragic is that on every single other issue (to the best of my knowledge), Ron Paul is a genuine libertarian who truly believes in limited, constitutional government. That’s exceedingly rare (as everyone here knows). But then you get the to immigration portion of his website and he turns into a foaming-at-the-mouth xenophobe. Well, perhaps that’s too strong, but he clearly would rather people stay out than come in.
As a Canadian, there are many things that I loathe about the politically-correct leftist consensus in this country (the belief in public monopoly health care being right up there). If there’s one thing I’m grateful for, though, it’s that there’s basically no political party up here that is truly anti-immigration (or has the guts to be so in public).
Paul is not anti-immigration, he’s about ordered liberty. The US stands to lose its DNA of liberty if there is not some of type order in immigration. In fact, little by little it is. Surely, it is not the immigrants or immigration’s fault. But, it sure can be the political rent seeking of immigration that is. It is easy to see that there is a movement of rent seekers using immigration as a guise to inject their special interests.
I favor free migration. However, the immigration that is happening today is more free exploitation. Statists in both parties, who are pro or con, are using immigration as an excuse to legitimize their agenda to expand the state. Those on the right will use this issue to expand the police state. Those on the left will use the same issue to expand the welfare state.
Most of the people I talk to do not have anything against immigrants, they have a problem with immigrants free riding the system. Overcrowded schools is one example and an the increase in crime is another.
Paul has consistently supported free trade but not corporatist trade deals:
“CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html
“Free trade. Iâ??m for free trade. Although Iâ??m not for the type of system that we have today because I donâ??t believe itâ??s my concept of free trade. I do not believe that the Congress should ever have the authority to pass this authority to the president. And on things like on fast track and then president devises agreements that serve the interests of the special interests.”
http://mrspickles.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/ron-paul-2008-on-lou-dobbs-talking-about-free-trade/
I took part in a fundraiser last night for Dr. Paul (in Austin, TX) and must say that I was impressed, not only by the good congressman’s speech but also by the enthusiastic attendants. There were many “Republican-looking” persons, some military men in uniform, apparent college students, and even a guy in a mohawk. And they all erupted in applause… when Dr. Paul arrived, when he descended the staircase after finishing up his radio interview, and when he struck gold with his words. At one point he said that many of his supporters don’t consider themselves Republicans… many are independents (applause), Libertarians (intense applause), and even Democrats (yes, there were cheers then too, some very loud).
I briefly covered the event on my blog:
http://ragnar1787.livejournal.com
anthony fisher: I’m hesitant to dignify your comment with a response, but you should most certainly get over yourself and wake the hell up. Dr. Paul is one of the few honest politicians in D.C. and is as American as any man can be. He does not see the horrific terrorist attacks of 2001 as justified, but understands how the U.S.’s reckless foreign policy fueled (and still fuels) the hatred that led to those acts of violence.
Ron Paul may not be the Republic’s last hope, but he is the best hope we have now.
anthony fisher said: “Ron Paul is part of the same Antiwar.com-Axis of Treason that Tom has rightly been exposing… He is anti-American, and his arguments implicitly justify the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.”
Explanations and justifications are not the same. What Ron Paul gave was an explanation. The explanation that he gave for the 9/11 attacks is one that must be understood if we are ever to decrease or eliminate the terrorist threat.
Unless the government simply expects to kill all current and potential anti-American terrorists (an impossible task), it will have to do what is in it’s power to limit the number of people possessing a crazed anti-American sentiment. In order to succeed on that point, we need an understanding of which foreign policy actions feed into that sentiment.
Next, we should look critically at such actions and determine whether they are a net-benefit or a net-detriment to our security.
For instance, the bases in Saudi Arabia provided no security benefit to us here in America. However, those same bases were used as a recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Our bases, regardless of what we think of the ‘logic’ of extremists, were a net-detriment to our security as they provoked attacks on us and our soldiers. Thus, my conclusion is that we should not build permanent bases in that region (we are currently doing just that in Iraq).
The same can be said for the shelling of Muslim villages in Lebanon in the early 1980s, the first Gulf War, the sanctions on Iraq, and numerous other actions in the Muslim world. Those actions were at most of little benefit to our security while being a HUGE detriment. Such policies should be discontinued.
And that is not “blaming the victim” as some might say. It is just good advice.
If an attractive young female goes up to Mike Tyson’s hotel room at 3 a.m. and is assaulted, would it not be prudent to advise her against repeating that action which put her in a dangerous situation? Is explaning how such a situation is dangerous “blaming the victim”? Is it “justifying” the assault? Of course not!
Ron Paul is advising our government against embarking on foreign policy escapades that do not protect us but put us in danger. He should be applauded for doing so.
Thank you Dr. Palmer for bringing this to the forefront.