Ron Paulism

Posted: December 26, 2009 in Government, Politics

Here’s a good example of why many of us consider Ron Paul and his followers to be just short of having all their accounts balanced.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul627.html

Vern

Advertisements
Comments
  1. waylon1776 says:

    Ron Paul is one of the few members of Congress who actually stands for conservatism all across the board. There is no such thing as “conservatism” anymore in Congress. It’s like the Constitution – they pay lip service to it. Democrats want a large wellfare state and Republicans want a large Warfare state.

    Sean Hannity should take a lesson from President Eisenhower who warned against the military industrial complex. The anti-war libertarian left is something that can be found in the words and direction of the founding fathers.

    As for “balanced”, the U.S. Government isn’t balanced, and that is from a long history of neglect to the Constitution. So call us nuts, extremists, or what have you, but the Ron Paul Republicans are for the Constitution and liberty, not Sean Hannity.

  2. Vern Crisler says:

    I believe we need to limit the state, for whenever power is ceded from the people to a central body, there is always the temptation to abuse that power. So limitations, checks & balances, and constant review and scrutiny of state power and state action are appropriate and necessary.

    Nevertheless, unlike purist libertarians I believe in the reality of original sin. There are evil people in this world, both domestic and foreign, and the state is necessary to protect us from both. Purist libertarians believe that the formation of the state constitutes the fall of man, and for this reason, they believe the state is the root of all evil in the world. It is understandable they would therefore reject the consequences of state power — police and military action.

    Purist libertarianism is ultimately a form of utopianism, and is no more true or workable than socialist versions of utopia. But this is all common sense, a characteristic that anarcho-libertarians and Paulists seem to lack.

    Vern

    • thrashertm says:

      Vern,
      Ron Paul is not a purist libertarian. He’s a Constitutionalist that believes we’ll have a stronger national defense by not bleeding ourselves out meddling around the world.

      • Vern Crisler says:

        If Ron Paul were a Constitutionalist, he would be in Abraham Lincoln’s corner rather than bad mouthing our greatest constitutionalist since the founding.

        Our enemies and fanatics don’t care about Ron Paulist pacifism; they will try to kill us anyway because they are murdering fanatics and psychopaths, as Ben Stein said.

        In addition, one doesn’t get a stonger national defense by hiding one’s head in the sand, which is what we will do if we adopt an introverted foreign policy.

        Vern

  3. waylon1776 says:

    Read the words of men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams – all of these men advocated abstaining from the worlds affairs. Do you honestly think that the muslims started hating us overnight? Or that they hate us because we are Christian? Take a look at our country – it is the furthest thing from Christian.

    A sensible foreign policy? For the last fifty years we’ve been in the business of funding and toppling governments, and when it all falls apart the government and the media demonized these people as “terrorists” just for us to go over there and do it again. How would we react if China were propping up Canada or Mexico? Or selling the U.S. government biological weapons? Weapons of which were given to Iraq in the 1980’s by the CIA.

    A sensible foreign policy? George W. Bush gave Pakistan weapons and billions of borrowed dollars. This is a country that was a military dictatorship, they have ties to radical Islamic terrorism, and should I mention that they have nuclear weapons? And note today that this same country is in turmoil. All in the name of fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq.

    A sensible foreign policy of arming our and Israel’s enemies just to fight them all over again? I think not. I’ve said it before on my blog that the interventionist foreign policy is the most corrupt form of coercion ever devised. “Hiding one’s head in the sand”? I think not.

  4. Vern Crisler says:

    Waylon, radical Muslims hate us because THEY perceive us as a Christian country. They could care less what YOU think of America.

    They do not hate us because we’re “over there.” Rather, they hate us because we’re “over here.” We are an affront to their theocratic delusions. In fact, radical Muslims are being demonized as terrorists because the ARE terrorists.

    There’s no question that the US has made many mistakes in its foreign policy. There is also no question that political correctness has blinded much of our foreign policy establishment to the dangers of fanaticism here and abroad.

    But to admit this does not entail that non-interventionism is the answer. We ignored terrorism during the Clinton years — became in effect practical non-interventionists — but that did not stop 911. In fact, it invited it.

    Smart interventionism is the answer here, not covering our eyes and ears and hoping terrorists won’t blow up our airliners any more.

    Vern

  5. waylon1776 says:

    What would be smart interventionism? Invading a country with the shackiest of evidence that they had nuclear weapons? Putting the weight of our military on a country when they don’t want us their anyway? Occupation does nothing to slow down terrorism or apprehend those responsible.

    You would be right in saying that the Clinton years ignored terror alerts, but so did George W. Bush. September 11, 2001 was a criminal act, not an act of war. As we speak the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are draining our economy at record rates.

    Perhaps a better terror fighting tool found in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the Constitution could be more effective – Marques and Reprisal. Hiring men as “bounty hunters” to arrest, kill, and destroy would be more cost effective. Not to mention they would not have to deal with the trouble of occupation.

    On my blog I have an article of how the U.S. “missed” its chance to nab Osama bin Laden. My best wishes to you and Happy New Year!

    • Vern Crisler says:

      911 was both a criminal act and an act of war, and no we cannot allow terror sponsoring states to have nuclear weapons. Moreover, we did not occupy Iraq and Afghanistan; rather, we liberated them and are helping them maintain that liberty. The idea of bounty hunters to kill our enemies? This is your big idea for stopping terrorism? Do we not have spys? Do we not have CIA agents? What are we paying these people for?

      It may not have been wise to liberate Iraq or Afghanistan. I’m not one of those Stephen Douglas types who thinks democracy is the answer for everything, but once we made the decision to liberate Iraq & Afghanistan, we had to see it through. Turning tail now would encourage terrorists, just as Bin Laden was encouraged by our historic surrenders in Vietnam and Lebanon.

      Vern

  6. waylon1776 says:

    Marques and Reprisal was put into the Constitution in a time of piracy, and one could equate terrorism to piracy. And as for “stopping terrorism”, I am sorry to break the news to you, but it won’t ever go away. So if you want to invade and occupy every country that has terrorists, you are in for a long drawn-out and costly war.

    Liberation, as you say, is putting out a totalitarian government and letting the poeple decide. We do not let the people decide. We install those governments and spend our time and money supporting them. Liberty cannot be given, but it has to be earned.

    As for liberating Iraq – we cannot ignore the fact that the Bush administration misled the American people with faulty information, and by no means does that justify invasion, liberation, and “occupation”. Moreover, the Constitution gives the Congress the power to Declare War. That is not some half-baked resolution with no goal or end in sight under international jurisdiction, but an actual declaration.

    As for Vietnam – they did absolutely nothing to us and we went to war with them anyway and lost nearly 60,000 men under the excuse of “stop the spread of communism”. And who cares what kind of government someone else has? Once again, if you want to go out into the world in search of monsters to destroy, you better take a lunch because it will be an all day job.

    One last note. It seems funny to me that one decade the U.S. government can prop and sponsor a terrorsist government – if you want to call Hussein that – watch them commit atrocities on their own people, and two decades later grow a conscience. We are so worried with the security of Israel when all the while we fund their enemies three times as much.

    Like I said, Bush gave billions of borrowed dollars to a country that is playing with disaster. In ten years I can see Pakistan being the “enemy of tomorrow”, and we will be right back to where we started. The full circle is completed.

  7. waylon1776 says:

    I am not blaming every evil of the world on America. I am proud to be an American and a constitutional America is the best way to go. However, the United States government is not America. The United States government is not our country. There is a big difference between country and government.

    What I am saying is that everything has a cause and effect. If we think that we can throw our weight around the world without repucusion (I think that I am spelling it right) we are sadly mistaken. Does America like to see our men in POW camps? Do we like to see our men beheaded? Absolutely not.

    But if we think that we can place enemy combatants in concentration camps with no chance of a fair trial to decide if they really did have ties to al-Qaeda, or practice methods of torture – which by the way, are probably a lot worse than what the government or mainstream media want to disclose – without any sort of backlash, you’re in a dream world.

    We can throw out the arguement of “who’s right and who’s wrong” and “Islam this and Islam that”, what it all comes down to is human nature. Plain and simple.

    Is their any difference between the racist acts of both white and black that occurs in this country and the acts of Islam? At the core of both is hatred and human nature.

    Like I said before, you can invade any country that has “terroristic characteristics”, whether directed to the United States or not, and you fight those people all you want, but at the end of the day, you will find yourself exhausted.

    People seem to be laboring under the Ann Coulter syndrome of where anyone who questions the government – or at least “conservatives” – is unpatriotic and, thusly, un-American.

    As for “9/11 Truther” – I believe that there are a lot of questions that pertain to that day that aren’t being answered that should be. Have you seen conclusive videotape of an American Airlines 757 going into the Pentagon? I haven’t, and I have scoured the internet and have found only four released videos, and none of them show a 757 impacting. So if you want to label me as a 9/11 Truther, then I probably am.

    If one wants to look at whether or not their government would consider such an act as what happened on September 11, 2001, they only need to look to Operation Northwoods disclosed in 1997 and can be found on Wikipedia, and my blog. While you may not have a problem with such a plan, author and historian James Bamford does, as do many Americans.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s