Posted on 12/16/2011 10:18:39 AM PST by mnehring
1. Paul’s intellectual mentor Murray Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism and opposed the legitimacy of all nation-states, including ours.
2. Paul openly proclaims himself a revival of the Old Right, the movement which opposed our entry in World War II. He and his followers proudly reject the New Right tradition established by William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.
“When I was deciding whether or not to run for President as a Republican, I re-read Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right and it gave me hope—that the anti-interventionist, pro-liberty Old Right, which had once dominated the party, could and would rise again. Here is living history: the story of an intellectual and political tradition that my campaign invokved and reawakened. This prescient book, written in 1993, could not be more relevant today.”
— RON PAUL, Ten Term U.S. Congressman (TX) and 2008 Presidential Candidate
3. Paul is an antisemite.
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Just as today Paul doesn’t care if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arms the Islamic Republic of Iran for a nuclear-charged assault against Israel.
Yet when conservatives talk about Paul they just politely note that they disagree with Paul’s policy of standing by while the next Holocaust begins.
When will the Conservative Movement finally finish the job Buckley started and stop tolerating the racist, anarchist, useful idiots for Jihad in their midst? Ever?
Update: Ex-Conservative Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the GOP nomination today. Perhaps I’ll have a response later…
My wife who pays near zero attention to politics was wondering why the Republican audience kept cheering Paul's stupid answers - Not knowing about the small but loud Paulbot activist who follow him to these events. I fear there are more people out there in the real world like my wife than are like us political junkies on FR. The false impression Paul gives of the Republicans makes me want to barf.
If that meddling fool, Wilson, had not gotten us involved in the Great War, there would have been no Hitler, no Treaty of Versailles, no betrayal of promises Wilson made to Germany, and the Europeans would have had to learn to settle their differences among themselves.
Ron Paul opposed the landmark 2010 McDonald v Chicago gun rights decision. And he supported the Kelo decision.
In both those cases he agreed with the liberals on the supreme court. Any case where the SCOTUS enforces the Bill of Rights on the states, Paul opposes it. Because Ron Paul doesn’t believe in “incorporation of the Bill of
Rights”.
Paul on incorporation and the 1st Amend:
“The phony “incorporation” doctrine, dreamed up by activist judges to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution, was used once again by a federal court to assume jurisdiction over a case that constitutionally
was none of its business.”
http://ronpaulquotes.com/Texas_Straight_Talk/tst070102.html
Re the McDonald decision and 2nd Amend:
“Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government.”
http://lonelymachines.org/2009/12/07/still-a-ron-paul-fan/
On the 5th Amend regarding the Kelo decision:
“If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases...”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html
If the U.S. had not entered the Great War on the side of Allied Powers, and prior to entry leant them enormous matrial support, there would never have been an onerous Treaty of Versailles. No one is more responsible for the rise of Hitler than Woodrow Wilson.
Without Nazism, Zionism would be a romantic, nostalgic, backward looking movement with a tiny number of activist adherents (in my contrafactual world, anyway.)
Yep, I’ve been holding on to that one but this is one of the biggest damning things on Paul- his belief that the tenth amendment over-rules other fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
It is one of the reasons I call him a false Constitutionalist.
But then again, our not intervening, may have resulted in the Bolshevization of all of Europe.
All of those things can be debated in ‘what if’ alternative history, however, we don’t have a magic time machine to go back and change things or go forward and figure out all the butterfly effect interstices for our actions, all we have to face what is the reality of what is in front of us.
However, at least you are honest in what you believe. Too many try to hide behind vague political terms like ‘non-intervention’. We could at least have an honest and interesting conversation about it.
That was the view of George Washington.
Since 1945 we have not had one declared war and yet have been fighting all over the place with nothing to show for defending US interests.
“Butterfly effect”, nothing, I am talking about first order, foreseeable (and foreseen) effects. We just prolonged the European Civil War for another 30 years.
Most people who call themselves, “anti-war”, just think we’re fighting for the wrong side.
I’ll give you the fact that we gave material support to the allies, but our entry into WWI didn’t effect the outcome one way or the other. If you are saying we should have stayed neutral and allowed the Germans to take over Europe we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, the French are responsible for the onerous Treaty of Versailles, not Wilson.
Also, didn’t you mean to say the JEWS are at fault for all the trouble in the ME?
Thanks for the balance, hellbender.
Excellent post!
Another excellent post!
Thank you, OmegaMan.
Bump!
This point of contention is at the hub of the "debate".
The French only imposed Versailles using an American made shotgun that Wilson loaded and handed Clemenceau. I am indifferent to who would have won World War I without American participation, the Germans were no worse than the French, and probably more philosemitic in the bargin.
Even with the aid of the Americans, the British and French did not “take over” Germany or Austro-Hungary, they were content to steal their colonies for one more generation and demand tribute, under the guise of “reparations.”
To say that American support for the Allies during the Great War did not materially effect the outcome is to ignore facts.
I do not mean to say that the Jews are responsible for trouble in the Middle East. The presence of the Jews gives Middle Eastern dictators like Sadam and Nassar a convenient distraction to divert their subjects wrath at an external target. Islamism is the reaction of those unable to adapt to modernity, and Jews are, out of necessity, the most adaptable and modernizing people in human history. Without Jews, the dictators would find some other diversion, like the Iraq-Iran War which killed a million (and as Kissinger observed, it was a shame they couldn’t both lose.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.