43 posts tagged “politics”

Saying No to Democracy.

Yes, it is certainly accurate to say that I am not a fan of voting, the voting process or democracy. As I have typed here, returning to a comparatively more free society would mean returning to a republic or a more aristocratic government (if we must be content with a government at all, or be confined to a non-monarchial government form). Access to voting should go back to being much more restrictive and discriminatory, more so. For example, no welfare bums or government workers should be allowed to vote. Only land property owners should be given access and newly arriving ('legal' and 'illegal') immigrants should be blocked from access.

And, while we are talking about striking down democracy, ballot propositions (see my Paleo Blog entry on this here), which do more to increase government than to decrease it, should be ended too. The democratization that occurred with mass popular elections of senators, for another example, should also be ended. Simply put, the de-powering of democracy. It is better if the United States be a Republic once again and not a Democracy.

Voting ---- Lesser of Two Evils? Which is the "Lesser"?

While I am not fan of the democratic or voting process, if I do get the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, I have decided that I will.

Now I think I was probably mistaken on being so critical or harsh to those that do vote, as I have in the past. In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard quotes Lysander Spooner on why a man voting for candidate X does not therefore mean that the voting man gives X a complete pass or acceptance on everything he does. And, as the great Walter Block has written at LRC: "If a slave master allows his property to vote between a harsh and a more humane overseer, we are to blame to slaves for choosing the latter? This is a perversion of libertarianism."

The issue I want to address here, for those that do vote, is how some people believe that they can only vote for someone who "has a chance of winning." This leads some people to reject such candidates as the principled and independent old fashioned conservative or minarchist libertarian Ron Paul. Why do that? Now, if your goal is to vote for someone who "has a chance," why not just vote for the candidate who you believe will win the election, despite, or leaving aside, his positions or views on the political issues of the day? It appears as if one who votes according to "who has a chance" might as well do this.

Besides, when the choice "of having a chance to win" is between, at the end, between Republocrat A and Republocrat B it is difficult, if you vote between them, to figure out who is the "lesser of evil." It as if one is going to risk a lot of money at a casino. Who is the lesser evil? It is hard to tell.

As talked about before, in the 2000 presidential election with George Bush and Al Gore it would be understandable how someone could have said that Bush would be the "lesser of evil." Today it is difficult to say that. Bush's rhetoric was in promotion of a more non-interventionist foreign policy (unlike Gore, who belonged to an administration which behaved exactly the opposite) and whose rhetoric was more limited government (again, unlike Gore). Half-way decent rhetoric in 2000 turned into political policies that were the polar opposite under this nightmare administration.

In retrospect, Gore would probably have been relatively better, be it only by a small margin. All modern Republican presidents have grown government faster and more than Democrat presidents. As for war, the political parties take turns on this one, it appears. There is all the reason in the world, plus more, to suspect that if Gore were president there still would have been a war in Iraq. Would it be more limited or would it end sooner, though, is anyone's guess.

If you think the Democrats are so different on the Iraq War issue, you are kidding yourself. They now have the majority, and what to do they? Expand it. They are nothing but power-hungry unprincipled politicians. They are also sitting in the sidelines twiddling their fingers when Bush and the neocon echo chamber is pushing a war with Iran.

(By the way, maybe people should think twice before being spoon-fed the neoconservative lines for the reason "we" "must" attack Iran. They do not have the best record when it comes to these matters.)

Neoconservatives claim that the Democrat Party gained the majority due to Bush's growth of government. No, the reason related to war issues. As people voted in the Democrats, who appeared the "lesser evils," nothing has changed or is changing in regards to Iraq and little pressure is being applied to the Bush administration in the possibility of war with Iran.

In this case, the possibility of war with Iran might be slightly less with more Republicans in office. This is because they would be more seen as the cause for the war and this would make them more conservative in deciding the proper course of action.

So the "lesser evil" is a lottery game. It is a waste. The Republican and Democrat parties are just part of the Washington Party. Voting between is just a vote for the Washington Party. If you must vote, vote for the politician that is the most independent and principled. This may require voting third party in all elections, but so be it. Maybe by doing that, it might lead to some good impact. To win people over to Liberty is to engage in the war of ideas. Good libertarianism, property understood, is the anti-politics philosophy. As a late libertarian said, it seeks the death of politics. The political process might not be the first choice of many libertarians (me included), but Ron Paul has opened up a lot of individuals to the philosophy of liberty. It has made a lot of people excited about these ideas.

Rush Limbaugh-style "Left" versus "Right" is Nonsense

And this "lesser of evil" is a complete distraction from the left-neocon establishment.

Democracy and the voting process pushes into this stupid debate. Turn on Rush Limbaugh to constantly hear about it. Read a neoconservative blog. Or turn on Air America Radio. Or read a left-liberal blog, who also keeps on the message of "Democrat, basically good. Republican, basically always, bad." To these people that is what politics is all about. It is about partisanship and drinking the "kool-aid." Who can stand that stuff? Why do so many people? These people are cartoon characters of one another, sorry to say. Not only do they make usually false statements about the supposed "other side," but they themselves typically have no guiding principles.

This is one of the things I very much dislike. The establishment tries to pin everyone down into this erroneous "left" versus "right" debate. As if the establishment of what they define as the "left" (i.e., Democrats) and the "right" (i.e., Republicans) are actually fundamentally different! A scam this is. A point that Paul Gottfried has been making is that you will virtually never see (with a few rare exceptions) a paleoconservative or a paleolibertarian in the media. Left-liberals are completely happy to engage with neoconservatives, because they are not much different in their views (as they wish and daydream).

To illustrate politics today, Mr. Charles Goyette and his son wrote a great article during the 2004 presidential election. Here is an except:

"Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Election"

"Did so!" "Did not!" "You're a liar!" "You're one, too!"

The presidential contest sounds so much like your kids in the backseat on a long road trip, that you almost expect them to break out in chants of "I'm rubber and you’re glue!"

It is in this atmosphere of elevated public debate that my 11-year-old son Steven and I decided a convincing case could be made that this is the Winnie the Pooh election. While this may be the Fifty State Nation, not the Hundred Acre Wood, we believe the comparison is otherwise uncanny.

That is politics. And that is the debate of politics. Turn on talk radio, read the neocon-liberal blogs, et cetera.

A caller on the radio made the suggestion on The Charles Goyette Show that during tomorrow’s GOP “debate” Ron Paul should simultaneously blog his reactions to all of the questions asked and respond to some of the answers that the neocon candidates gave. I think that is a good proposal. It just probably could not be simultaneous, but if Ron Paul posted something up at his official website as quickly as possible and it was picked up by places like LRC, that would be a good thing to do.

It appears that other candidates who have lower official polling data than Ron Paul and have officially declared their candidacy after Ron Paul are invited to this “debate.” It is pretty clear why Ron Paul will not be there.

See “Excluding Ron Paul” and “The Iowa Crime of '07” by Thomas Woods.

Libertarian activist Ernest Hancock reports from Iowa where Ron Paul supporters are gathering in protest of Ron Paul being excluded from the debates. Listen to the interview, conducted by Charles Goyette, here [mp3]. Also, read Hancock’s log of being in Iowa here at Freedoms’ Phoenix. Not everyone is dull when it comes to how the political system is manipulative and corrupt. The Des Moines Register Newspaper, Mr. Hancock reports, has a headline that says: “No Politicians Allowed in Town.” Hey, I want a copy!

Stay Up-To-Date: Daily Paul Blog | LRC Blog | AntiWar Blog | Ron Paul Blog Search (technorati)

“Half the country hates George Bush because he is a conservative Christian from Texas. The other half likes him for the same reasons. Both groups are delusional. His title is dubious on all three descriptions.

“The first group (leftists) are emotionally unable to accept that he is really the best friend they ever had. The second group (Republicans) are either corrupt, too stupid to perceive reality, or emotionally unwilling to admit that they have been royally duped.”

Read the whole thing here.

I like Dr. Wilson.
I think I should look into the books he has published...

Links:
Chronicles Archive of Wilson’s “Old Republic”
Wilson’s LRC Archive

Addendum ~ UPDATE: The powers that be have excluded him from the Iowa Forum. Check out the following links: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/380 & http://blog.lewrockwell.com The only way this can be stopped is with a grassroots effort to bombard with phone calls and emails. Someone needs to be speaking the truth about our government's foreign policy and fiscal problems. And, seeing that this is a group for Tax Relief, no better man is Ron Paul on this topic. Someone, like the Honorable Ron Paul, also needs to expose the bad nature of the so-called "Fair" Tax idea.

Articles and Links

The American Conservative, my favorite political magazine, has two articles about Dr. Ron Paul in their latest issue (June 18). Both of them are available online:

Lone Star by Michael Brendan Dougherty

Stupid Party by Kara Hopkins

The great paleolibertarian Joe Sobran writes about Ron Paul and today's conservatism.

Wanted: A New Conservatism by Sobran

You can view the newly organized Ron Paul File at LRC.

Links to Keep You Up-To-Date: Daily Paul Blog | Rescue US - Ron Paul | LRC Blog | AntiWar Blog | Ron Paul Blog Search (technorati)

You can buy Ron Paul's new book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, here.

Anti-Ron Paul Article at TownHall.com:

Sometimes I take a look at TownHall.com. They cannot be all bad because they do carry Pat Buchanan. And John Stossel, while I have not watched much of him on TV, seems interesting. Oh, and they do have Walter E. Williams.

John Hawkins has written "The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul." It might be fun to go through a point-by-point rebuttal of this anti-Ron Paul article. Normally my entries are not rebuttal pieces, but I will make an exception here. Mr. Hawkins seems to be a GOP talking-head. Really, if this is the best they can do, they are in trouble.

The following comments are just off-the-top of my head as I read Mr. Hawkins' article.....nothing "systematic" or anything....

#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative.

Yes, that is true as far as that goes. Although, how does Mr. Hawkins define "conservative (or "libertarian" for that matter)? Conservative pundits like Pat Buchanan have had high praise for Ron Paul. The conservatism based in a tradition of Russell Kirk would be similar in my aspects to Ron Paul's philosophy-----like foreign policy. Of course, we all know what kind of conservatism Mr. Hawkins has in mind and promotes: big government, in both foreign and domestic affairs, neoconservatism. Something radically different then an older, "paleo," more traditional, conservatism.

It is also funny how he calls Dr. Paul a "moderate." Really? I am sure that would be a new one if Paul heard someone call him that. He is the most "extreme," or anti-establishment, candidate of the bunch of Republicans and Democrats. How can this writer call Paul a moderate? Would Paul's ideal policies be of "moderate" effect on the current shape, scope, and size of the current government? Bizarre.

If you want to speak about "moderates," then what about the Republicans running now? Look at the bunch: pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, even pro-HillaryCare, etc.

And how many surveys have shown Ron Paul to be the "most conservative" and/or the most constitutionalist in the federal government? Obviously the writer of this article must drag something out that "proves" him correct in Paul's "moderate conservative" views.

#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy

Interesting. If this author is a fan or not of open borders, it has been one of the neoconservative ten commandments: "There shall be open borders!" With the current state of affair, it seems to me, open borders are surely heading us in the direction of a North American Union. How could it not? When trade policies are implemented to harmonize laws, what is being created is the harmonization of nations (governments).

#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts

Soooo? Like Ron Paul, I myself am doubtful of the "truth seekers" who see that 9-11 was a complete "inside job" by the government. But open and honest debate should always be welcomed. Is he saying that it should not? A government that hides and makes so much unavailable to the public will create a void that will breed conspiracy theories.  That is what, in my view, has happened. And if the conventional wisdom is correct, then why can it not withstand a challenge? Answer me that.

#4) Ron Paul's racial views

We already know that Ron Paul did not write these words. Scott Horton posted what the Texas Monthly reported in 2001 about this.

Funny how the author gets caught up with this. He seems he cannot make any other good negative points against Ron Paul. As it is always with this topic: One tinny allegation of being a "racist" and it is all over, as far as the establishment is concerned. I thought that this was supposedly a left-liberal tactic? But it seems we have another example of this being a tactic for neoconservatives too.

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating

Nooooooo, we can't have enthusiastic voters and supporters! That would make a bad campaign, eh? Hahahaha.

#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist

There is a difference between an isolationist and an non-interventionist in today's common political vocabulary.

But so was George Washington. He was an "isolationist." Or, probably more correctly, a "non-interventionist." So let's line up all of these guys and dismiss them. It just comes to show that neoconservatives would rather have a version of, say, Bill Clinton then elect a reincarnation of Washington. That is scary.

It is also funny how he says that after World War I we were "isolationists" up to the point of our entry into World War II. Good grief. This is incredibly at odds with history. We were not "isolationist" in-between. The U.S. government purposefully got itself involved in both wars. The then current presidents wanted a war.

#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq

"Genocide" . . . "civil war" . . . etc. Is he talking about what is happening right now? It sure sounds like it. I hear offten that we cannot have another Vietnam that we "just leave in defeat." Besides the question of what is "victory," another comes to mind. Why not just leave? Look at Vietnam now. They are embracing some capitalistic ideas. We are even trading with them. (Looks better then the Korea deal.)

#8) "In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda"

Simpletons seem not to be able to distinguish between things. Ron Paul does not think that the lives that were lost on 9-11 were deserved or justified. Give me a break.

And, his next statement is just priceless:

"If you want to truly realize how foolish that sort of thinking is, imagine what the reaction would be if we had bombed Egyptian or Indonesian civilians after 9/11 and then justified it by saying "We attacked them because those Muslims have been over here.""

Who wrote this article? Can he not see the irony?

#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party

He is jesting, right?

But... wait a minute. My first line of thought was that he meant least electable of all the candidates. So he means of the major ones? Hmm... Does he consider Ron Paul a major one? Well...guess not.

Let me just say that the powers that be will not allow Ron Paul to get elected. The establishment would move heaven and earth to make sure of that. I am very serious about this. There is just no way.

But say that he did get the nomination. If he got it, he not only gets a lot of Republicans that vote straight party line but also many anti-war Democrats. Up against someone like pro-war Hillary Clinton (or Obomba), he would have a chance to win. Using his run as a third party as an omen of failure is nonsense.

Beyond that, it is revealing, but not surprising, that this author, is on this point, revealing that he is more concerned with the Republicans keeping control of the White House vs. objective principles. Principles do not matter --- electability does.

Dr. Ron Paul, like usual, was a voice of reason and wisdom in the “debate.”

Watch the Ron Paul Debate Highlights: Here.

Roderick T. Long Provides His Summary: Here.

VDARE.com on the Debate – An Immigration Angle: Here.

For the Latest ~ LRC Blog | AntiWar Blog | Ron Paul Blog Search (technorati)

Ron Paul's Official Campaign Website (redesigned): RonPaul2008.com

Please donate a few bucks and spread the word...

(Via LRC: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/paul-offers-giuliani-a-few-policy-tips/)

Ron Paul

During today’s press conference, Mr. Paul expressed disbelief that Mr. Giuliani had never heard the occupation explanation before and suggested the “possibility that Mr. Giuliani has not been well informed.”

“I don’t think he’s qualified to be president, mainly because of his views,” Mr. Paul said of Mr. Giuliani.

“I’m giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment,” he announced. Here’s the syllabus:

–“Blowback” by Chalmers Johnston
–“Dying to Win” by Robert A. Pape
–“Imperial Hubris” by Michael Sheuer (The former head of the C.I.A.’s Osama bin Laden Unit was there to bolster Mr. Paul’s calls for a new, non-interventionist foreign policy.)
–The 9/11 Commission Report

Of course, Giuliani was lying, saying that he “never heard such a thing.” Even more absurd is how some in the statist mainstream media is trying to spin Ron Paul's view into some kind of 9-11 inside job-----a complete lie.

It is just Giuliani's way to get all of the flag worshiping wavers to wave their little flags in support of the American Empire, which, if they like it or not, is a monstrous evil. As Randolph Bourne said, "War is the Health of the State."

Blowback? You mean---- there are consequences to bombing people day-in and day-out? There are consequences to putting up trade sanctions that kill thousands and thousands of people? Or giving money to dictators that rule over them?

Only someone living in a dream world believes there are no consequences: That no resentment and hatred occurs because of this. Or that it is not a major contributing factor. As has been documented, the primary reason for new recruitments into terrorist organizations is not out of religious reasons or that they hate the fact that women can vote in the U.S. (Ha!), but of the reasons just mentioned. (Indeed, the number of terrorists has increased dramatically after entering Iraq.) There is a reason they attack the United States and not Sweden.

With statist conservatives war triumphs all. They are so obsessed with war and in believing false war nationalism (e.g.: American government is always right / America is never wrong / It can do no wrong / America always wins / etc. etc.) that they would vote for an outright pro-war socialist (besides those things go hand-in-hand) before voting for someone as principled as the honorable Ron Paul.

Only partisan hacks believe that the Iraq War has decreased terrorism and has made the world safer. Terrorists are being created faster then we are killing them. They are not created in a vacuum. It is hence nonsense to believe that there is some fixed number or terrorists to kill. To end terrorism is the equivalent to having a war to end preemptive strikes: it never ends.

Read Mr. Scott Horton’s excellent AntiWar.com article “For Those Interested in Facts: They Hate Our Foreign Policy”

Highlights:
--- Ron Paul did not "blame America" or excuse the evil that was committed on 9-11. There is a difference between trying to understand why people hate us versus believing that terrorist activity is acceptable.
--- Paul asks why we do not get after Osama bin Laden. He is in Pakistan. With a nod and a wink from the U.S. government, it now has nuclear weapons, and the U.S. government goes as far as giving that government money. (And with this said, the American government is in Iraq----no connection with bin Laden etc.)
--- Bin Laden was backed by the U.S. in the drive to get Russians out of Afghanistan.
--- U.S. built bases in Saudi Arabia, a major outrage to Muslims.
--- One can read bin Laden's "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
--- Saudi bases used throughout the 1990s to attack Iraq.
--- Michael Scheuer, the former head analyst at the CIA's bin Laden unit, reports that Ayatollah Khomeini spend the 1980s talking about the culture of America. But this did not have much of an impact. On the other hand, bin Laden talked about U.S.'s foreign policy to motivate people:
1) "The bases in Saudi Arabia
2) Unquestioning support for Israel (The 1996 Fatwa came on the heels of the first Qana massacre in Lebanon)
3) The no-fly zone bombings and blockade of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people (now replaced on the jihadist sales pitch list by the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan which have killed hundreds of thousands more)
4) Support for dictators across the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.)
5) Pressure on the oil producing states to keep their prices set where America wants them
6) Support for Russia, China and India in their wars against Muslims"
--- Studies show that "every single individual suicide bomber on Earth between 1980 and 2004 – the one characteristic that all suicide bombers have in common is the presence of foreign combat forces in their country – not Islam."
--- "None of the September 11th hijackers was from an "axis of evil" state (Iraq, Iran or Syria). They were all from countries whose governments are our government's "allies" – in truth, client dictatorships. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia."
--- Fundamentalists want us there.
--- There were no "suicide bombing in Iraq before 2003."
--- CIA's National Intelligence Estimate reports that Iraq "has worsened our terrorism problem over all – by far."
--- "Also in 2005, the Saudi government and an Israeli think tank did studies tracking the individual jihadists traveling to Iraq to be trained in fighting Americans."
--- ...

Paul on Maher ~ YouTube Video
(Much better then the first interview. Real substance discussed.)

Anti-War Radio:

• Michael Scheuer --- Ex-Head of CIA’s Osama Unit says Ron Paul “exactly correct”
• Philip Giraldi --- Former CIA counter-terrorism officer backing up Paul
  
• Ray McGovern --- Another retired CIA officer backs up Paul
  
• Thomas Woods --- Author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization, and more talks about Ron Paul, Left versus Right, War,...
  
• Chalmers Johnson ~ Interview I / Interview II --- Author of Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, & Nemesis
• Justin Raimondo --- Editorial director of Antiwar.com, author of An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

New ~ "The Ron Paul File" at LRC

Yes, I am a Rothbardian----a libertarian. But I do have much respect for an older form of conservatism. This is one reason why this blog is a “paleo” blog.

The late Russell Kirk is considered the founder of post-World War II conservatism. (See this entry to The Paleo Blog.) His views were very similar----if not exact----to Ron Paul’s on foreign policy. Having troops scattered all around the world or sending vast amounts to dictators is a foolish policy. Kirk was against the first Iraq War. He saw the coming blowback too.

Thomas Woods recently wrote an article called "Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?” You can read it here.

(So, maybe, real conservatives should look more to Kirk, the father of conservatism, and less to the neocons who were former leftists.)

See Also:

• "But Who Was Right—Rudy or Ron?" by  Patrick J. Buchanan
  
• "Why Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them" by Jacob G. Hornberger
  
• "Ron Paul Said It" by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
• "Ron Paul’s Patriotic Crimethink" by Patrick Foy
  

I did not get to watch (or listen on the radio) the second debate. Hopefully C-SPAN will once again repeat it on the weekend.

[update] This Wednesday morning, talk show host Charles Goyette is playing some clips. Wow was Ron Paul good.

So I have been browsing blogs to get a taste at what happened. Yes, my prediction seems to have turned out correct, if what I gather about the debate is correct. They did go after Ron Paul.

First Ignore. Then Attack.

I’m looking at some of the blog reactions, from the neoconservative side. Seems the kool-aid drinking Republicans are not happy about Dr. Ron Paul. He is just as anti-war as John Edwards! Oh, wow. John Edwards is anti-war? Really. Huh...? Actually, Mike Gravel appears to be the most vocal anti-war candidate running in the Democrat Party. He seems just as anti-war as Ron Paul. (Can’t these neocons, who have no grounding whatsoever in the conservatism of someone like Russell Kirk, even get that straight?)

It seems some of them just cannot stand that Ron Paul is “cluttering up the debate.” Hahah. Thank goodness someone is “cluttering up” these so-called “debates.”

One of the fusses seems to be about what caused or help cause 9-11. The question should be turned around for a change. Why was the terror attack not in Sweden? Bin Laden must hate their “freedom” (or so-called freedom) too, right?

The answer is: blowback. Supporting and setting-up dictators, choosing sides, micromanaging, defining borders, etc. will cause resentment. Imagine that you are a young Jefferson in one of these places. You want freedom. But then America comes in and sends in money and weapons to those that rule over you. America, say, setups harsh trade restrictions on you. And they bomb you every few years. Family members and friends die. What do you think will happen? You don’t think that consequences will occur?

Terrorists are greater in number then ever. They are being created faster then we are killing them. The Middle East is more enraged at America then ever. ... Read this excellent article by Lew Rockwell: "The War the Government Cannot Win"

This blind ideology of America, its government and empire, can do no wrong and can never fail will bite you in the butt sometimes. (Well......always.)

Things do not happen in a vacuum, as talk show host Charles Goyette says. No one invited the attacks. No one wanted them. Ron Paul did not say “invited,” despite what FOX “NEWS” says. Does this go over peoples’ heads?

Another false claim is that Ron Paul is blaming non-interventionism for the 9-11 blowback! What? We did not have a non-interventionist foreign policy before 9-11. Come on! He said just the opposite.

Prediction: Now there is going to be a clampdown. The Republicans and the mainstream media are going to try to move heaven and earth to get rid of Ron Paul from these debates. They will not let the truth come out. It is already happening, I read. There is going to be a push to get rid of him. Hopefully they will not be successful.

Here is what the great Daniel McCarthy has to say:

But of course he [neocon Stephen Spruiell from National Review] spins this admission in a pro-war direction: "Paul was correct to point out that U.S. pre-invasion policies toward Iraq ... were front and center in Osama bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war against America" and therefore invading Iraq was the proper thing to do, NRO says.

It's like saying that if people hate you because you're picking their pockets and robbing their houses, they'll like you better when you step up to bloodier pursuits. In the whole anti-Ron Paul brouhahah, of course, the neocon pundits and the other candidates all conflate the U.S. government and its foreign policy with America. Tells you a lot about their outlook. The things the crooks do in Washington don't justify anything against the American people. And even the crooks presumably don't want 9/11s, but they know that bloodshed will follow if they keep throwing rocks at hornets' nests -- but they keep doing it anyway, rather than surrendering an ounce of power. Ron Paul is the only one who stands against this madness, and they hate him for it.

For more great commentary check out the LRC Blog and AntiWar Blog...

Roderick T. Long summarizes the debate with Ron Paul here.

Ron Paul Highlights at Debate - Watch Here.

Ron Paul versus neocon warmonger Sean Hannity - Watch Here.

Ron Paul around the world's many blogs: http://technorati.com/search/ron+paul
Ron Paul 2008 - The Official Campaign Website

Despite the surge Ron Paul is getting online the mainstream media is ignoring him. First they ignore you. Then they attack you. Watch the second debate. I say it is 50-50 that they (the host of the debate) will try to attack him or try to make him look like a crazed lunatic.

But Ron Paul is too smart and articulate. He should be able to handle that, if it happens.

By the way, ABC---FOX---CNN (and whoever or whatever else that is a loyal propagandizer of the State and establishment):

"Technorati spokesman Aaron Krane confirmed that, to the best of the company's knowledge, the online support for Paul is genuine. (Tech-savvy devotees occasionally attempt to enlist programs called "bots" to artificially boost their candidate on search engines, but Krane said Technorati is usually able to detect and delete the cheaters.)"

(Via http://www.ronpaul2008.typepad.com/)

Fun to see what other blogs are saying: http://technorati.com/search/ron+paul

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

• He has never voted to raise taxes.
• He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
• He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

 

• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He voted against regulating the Internet.
• He voted against the Iraq war.

 

• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

 

• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year...

 

(Via Ron Paul’s MySpace. http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008 )

I never compliment politicians---ever. But Ron Paul gets my praise.

If I get the opportunity to vote for him in the primaries, I might. Voting is pretty much evil. (Yes, I did vote in 04. Sorry. I have repented!) But I might make an exception for Ron Paul. (Hey, a primary is okay to vote in....At least, should be. A gentleman who writes for LRC on an email list is debating if he should change registration to a Republican to vote in the primary. Guess I am in the same boat.) Even though money is scarce, I will donate some money to his campaign. I advice all freedom lovers to do the same. The freedom-oriented message gets out. .... Go Ron Paul!

“Is there a parallel between Hillary Clinton and Ségolène Royal of France?” Here we have one of the many questions being raised. For the sake of this discussion here at The Paleo Blog, I’ll assume some of the labels and general descriptions are accurate and are a given. I’ll also drop some of my biases of the “left” and “right” debate (much of it nonsense).

Both are women. Both have that element or a feeling of radical leftism in them. Both are socialists, to one degree or another.

Does this damage the witch Hillary Clinton, as some people are suggesting? Does this perhaps finish her future? Can a solid “right-wing” (whatever that means) nationalist guy beat her in 2008?

No. We have here an extra dimensionality in America. The Iraq War. The national issues, such as immigration, might be hot but not yet boiling in the eyes’ of the public. The issue is and will continue to be Iraq. Voters, if things keep going the way they are going, will reject this uncalled and immoral war. But even if the immigration topic jumped to head of the line, this would not necessarily help the Republicans. (What have they done recently on this issue? ... That answers that. Nothing. Zip.)

American voters will not be rejecting “leftism,” whatever that term might signify in today’s climate. Most people will be rejecting the Republicans and what they have stood for all these years with Bush, if trends persist as they have been.

This is why the parallels of foreshadow I have heard on talk radio (and other places) are wrong. It is not a parallel to Hillary Clinton’s upcoming defeat. She can still win.

Parallels to a rejection of the establishment (the current politicians --- particularly President Bush and his political party), on the other hand, could fit, depending on how you look at it. Including voting for a Democrat or even doing something really revolutionary like voting for the real anti-Bush candidate.

And there is one clear candidate that repudiates everything the Bush nightmare administration stands for, if the American people were only wise enough. You will not find him in the Democrat Party. He is in the Republican Party, as shocking that may be. His name is Ron Paul. Paul is against Bush’s wars and Bush’s socialism. He is the anti-establishment.

...One of my statements might surprise some left-liberals: Bush's socialism. But fact is, President Bush has increased government’s size and scope to astronomical levels, in all ways. He has not ”deregulated” the market place in any way shape or form. Regulations --- not deregulations --- have caused the economic problems in the business world. It is that that causes the Enrons that we have seen.

Sunday I watched the rerun of the debate on C-SPAN.

In short my impression of the “debate”: Horrible Host, Bad Questions, Awful Format, Superficial Discussion on the Issues, Time Bias in Favor of people like McCain.

It was not a debate but a stage show. More than half of the questions were stupid.

A real debate would be to get detail specific views of each of the candidates on issues like the Iraq War. We would learn the philosophical views of each of the candidates. No one learned anything from this debate.

Ron Paul was the only exception. His philosophical views did come out. People did learn something about his candidacy and philosophy. He was principled. The other guys did not get their philosophical views out. Of course, what is the difference? They have none. They are your typical politicians.

Truth be told, he has virtually zero chance of getting the nominee. (Sorry to be a downer. I will try not to do this. I would love to see Ron Paul get the nominee as any other principled libertarian, paleoconservative, or paleolibertarian.) Of course, it is always possible that we could see him pull out a win, if the political and world environment got bad enough. Lew Rockwell said that Ron Paul is going to surprise many of us on how well he does. I think he might be right there. Ron Paul will be getting some attention and get up to double digit numbers in the polls. The question is how far will that go.