Posted on 06/15/2007 7:24:20 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul
By John Hawkins
Friday, June 15, 2007
Even though he's not one of the top tier contenders, I thought it might be worthwhile to go ahead and write a short, but sweet primer that will explain why so many Republicans have a big problem with Ron Paul. Enjoy!
#1) Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative: I have nothing against libertarians. To the contrary, I like them and welcome them into the Republican Party. But, conservatives have even less interest in seeing a libertarian as the GOP's standard bearer than seeing a moderate as our party's nominee. In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side. So, although he is a small government guy, he very poorly represents conservative opinion on a wide variety of other important issues.
#2) Ron Paul is one of the people spreading the North American Union conspiracy: If you're so inclined, you can click here for just one example of Paul talking up a mythical Bush administration merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, but you're not missing much if you don't. Reputable conservatives shouldn't be spreading these crazy conspiracy theories and the last thing the GOP needs is a conspiracy crank as our nominee in 2008.
#3) Ron Paul encourages "truther" conspiracy nuts: Even though Ron Paul admits that he does not believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy, he has been flirting with the wackjobs in the "truther movement," like Alex Jones and the "Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth." Republican politicians should either ignore people like them or set them straight, not lend credence to their bizarre conspiracy theories by acting as if they may have some merit, which is what Ron Paul has done.
#4) Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
..."Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.
...He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote."
Ron Paul has since claimed that although these comments were in his newsletter, under his name, he didn't write them. Is he telling the truth? Who knows? Either way, those comments don't say much for Paul.
#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).
#6) Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2. Since then, the world has become even more interconnected which makes Ron Paul's strategy of retreating behind the walls of Fortress America even more unworkable than it was back in the thirties.
#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality. Yet, Paul believes we should immediately retreat from Al-Qaeda in Iraq and let that entire nation collapse into genocide and civil war as a result. Maybe, just maybe, Paul's motives are better than those of liberals like Murtha and Kerry, who want to see us lose a war for political gain, but the catastrophic results would be exactly the same.
#8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11,
"They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda.
This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter. 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."
#9) Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988. Granted, Paul would do considerably better than that if he ran at the top of the Republican Party ticket, but it's hard to imagine his winning more than, say 35%, of the national vote and a state or two -- even if he were very lucky. In other words, having Ron Paul as the GOP nominee would absolutely guarantee the Democratic nominee a Reaganesque sweep in the election.
Summary: Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen.
Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.
Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
Oh, I had no idea anybody here was talking about voting for a democrat.
Meanwhile, I agree that the liberal democrats are not good for the country, I also realize there are many other enemies who claim not to be democrats.
Some of the most dangerous claim no particular party affiliation.
....bottomline.
Is the NAU a conspiracy theory? NO!
The Council on Foreign Relations had a (could still be there) a press conference on March 14, 2005 (no names of presenters allowed to be published), of the upcoming meeting of Bush, Fox, and Martin on March 23, 2005.
THEN, the government put up a website www.spp.gov about the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) which would erase the US/Canadian and US/Mexico Borders to produce the North American Union. When Americans began to scream about the site, it was “toned down.”
Judicial Watch (www.judicialwatch.org) has been the only organization to pull the SPP documents out of the US Commerce Department. Rep. Tancredo couldn’t get the docs, Rep. Rogers of Alabama couldn’t get them, nor could Dr. Jerome Corsi, but Judicial Watch did.
Another great read on the NAU is www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com (or is it .org?). This is a well-documented long read but well worth the time.
The people in DC don’t vote for President.
In Paul's case, his voting record shows that he is the least conservative member of Congress running for President on the GOP side
I see. So the idea of federalism is not conservative. Can this gentlemen please point to me where in the Constitution his views are advocated?
Ron Paul's racial views: From the Houston Chronicle, Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Debunked by Dr. Paul himself. But a lie can get up and run around the world before the truth gets its shoes on eh? Keep selling it, the uninformed will believe it...
#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together.
Damn it people!! Quit calling for actual limited government. You'll get the government we tell you you want and you'll damn well like it!! Get it?!? Anyone remember the days of Reagan where he stumped for eliminating federal agencies?
#7) Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq: Even if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, the reality is that our foreign policy isn't currently one of isolationism and certain allowances should be made to deal with that reality
And a recent poll of 54% of Republicans that plan to vote in Iowa want to be out of Iraq in less than six months. Wonder if Mr. One Note will be singing the same song in September as more Republican candidates start advocating the same thing?
#8) Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attacks on America: In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on American with this comment about 9/11,
No he didn't. He gave a reason for it. But this is a hit piece that has no basis in reality or truth so why start debating semantics now?
Mr. Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Conservative Grapevine and Right Wing News. He also writes a weekly column for Townhall.com and consults for the Duncan Hunter campaign.
Imagine that. Works for Ol' 'fair trade' (protectionist) Dunc.
Really? The why does the DC carry 3 electoral votes?
I hesitated to bump this but it’s sort of sad Ol’ Dunc’s team has sunk to a level of spreading lies.
>> Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency
Eh ... I’d put him slightly above Dennis Kucinich (with his retarded proposal of abolishing the Department of Defense and instituting the Department of Peace ... ha ... cute).
A
>> The people in DC don’t vote for President.
Uhh ... yes they do. Washington DC has 3 electoral votes.
They don’t vote for a congressional representative or a Senator.
A
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., is a constitutionalist because he wants to conserve the U.S. Constitution - the most important governmental document ever produced in 6,000 years of recorded human history, after the Holy Bible.
As an ObGyn (who has delivered over 4,000 babies), he believes that life begins at the moment of conception and believes that abortion is immoral. Libertarians don’t take this stance.
Libertarians are for legalizing marijuana and other harmful drugs. Ron Paul, M.D., has taken the Hypocratic Oath to do no harm and does not support legalizing any currently-illegal drugs. If he had ever supported legalizing illegal drugs, his Congressional record would have shown this somewhere - and it doesn’t.
Ron Paul is known as “Dr. NO” in the House of Representatives. Kent Snyder, Dr. Paul’s right-hand man, did his Master’s thesis on Ron Paul. Kent went through about 4,000 votes to find out how many times Congressmen cast a single dissenting vote against a piece of legislation. If I remember correctly, Kent said (at UROC’s Spring Convention, 2005) that there were about 68 Congressmen who had voted NO on a single piece of legislation ONCE and never cast another single dissenting vote. Ron Paul, on the other hand, cast over 70 single dissenting votes on legislation because the pieces of legislation were not innumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
He believes in free trade as opposed to managed trade through organizations (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, GATT, FTAA, etc.) which only enrich the multi-national corporations while robbing millions of middle-class Americans of their jobs. Actually, the term “free trade” should be “fair trade.”
I believe most “conservatives” want to conserve the U.S. Constitution, too.
I don’t doubt his “constitutionalist” stance ... but his foreign policy stances are a dealbreaker. Sure - most conservatives support the preservation of the Constitution ... but most also support a “peace through strength” Reaganesque foreign policy.
The key is to find a candidate who represents mainstream conservatism ... and that candidate is NOT Ron Paul (if it were ... he’d be doing better). Paul may represent most conservatives fiscally/ constitutionally ... but so do candidates like Tancredo and Thompson - and they’re not completely off the reservation when it comes to foreign affairs.
Paul’s foreign policy is a dealbreaker for myself ... and the VAST majority of conservatives. A candidate that is unelectable (which Paul is) is completely useless to conservatism because he’ll NEVER have the power to institute any of his ideas.
A
Ron Paul did not vote for the War in Iraq because it was not authorized by an Act of Congress, as stated in the U.S. Constitution. Instead, he put forth two pieces of legislation (don’t remember the titles) that put a price on the head of Osama bin Laden. This would have been in the constitutional tradition of Thomas Jefferson going after the pirates on the high seas (from the Halls of Monteczuma to the shores of Tripoli...).
Thus, we would have had mercenaries going out, finding Osama bin Laden, and bringing him back. If we were serious about find ObL, this would have been the rifle effect as opposed to a shot-gun effect and 3,500 of America’s finest young men would not be coming home in body bags.
Ron Paul is serious about our foreign policy, too, which is currently being managed by the elitists.
Summary: Just another poor attempt at a hit piece on Ron Paul.
This was President George Washington’s position is his farewell speech. I heartily agree.
The Iraq War was supported by a Congressional authorization (the one that Ron Paul voted against). It seems to me that the Iraq War authorization resolution, which was passed by Congress, probably qualifies as a Declaration of War for the purposes of the Constitution.
A
H.R. 1096: To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans
HR 1096 IH
110th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1096
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To restore the second amendment rights of all Americans.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007’.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF 1993 LAW PROVIDING FOR A WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF A HANDGUN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM TO BE CONTACTED BY FIREARMS DEALERS BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF ANY FIREARM.
Public Law 103-159 is repealed, and any provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF SPORTING PURPOSES DISTINCTION.
(a) Section 5845(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—
(1) by striking `which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’; and
(2) by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes’.
(b) Section 921(a)(4)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes’.
(c) Section 921(a)(4) of such title is amended in the 2nd sentence by striking `which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural purposes’.
(d) Section 921(a)(17)(C) of such title is amended by striking `a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes,’.
(e) Section 923(j) of such title is amended by striking `devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms in the community’.
(f) Section 922(r) of such title is amended by striking `of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(g) Section 925(a)(3) of such title is amended by striking `determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes and’.
(h) Section 925(a)(4) of such title is amended by striking `(A) determined by the Attorney General to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes, or determined by the Department of Defense to be a type of firearm normally classified as a war souvenir, and (B)’.
(i) Section 925(d)(3) of such title is amended by striking `and is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(j) Section 925(e)(2) of such title is amended by striking `provided that such handguns are generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes’.
(k) Section 922 of such title is amended in each of subsections (a)(5), (a)(9), and (b)(3) by striking `lawful sporting purposes’ and inserting `lawful purposes’.
SEC. 4. REPEAL OF THE CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 2005.
(a) Amendments to Title 18, United States Code-
(1) Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (z).
(2) Section 924 of such title is amended—
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking `(f), or (p)’ and inserting `or (f)’; and
(B) by striking subsection (p).
(b) Repealer- Section 5 of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note; 119 Stat. 2099) is repealed.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The provisions of this Act shall take effect immediately upon enactment.
He also put forth a declaration of War against Iraq rather then the UN ass kissing crap that was passed.
I guess you agree with Henry Hyde that the Constitution has been overtaken by time (or at least globalists).
“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are
saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn’t done anymore.”
That isn’t at all what I said. In fact, I didn’t say that a declaration of war was unnecessary or archaic ... I said a Declaration of War on Iraq was, in fact, PASSED BY CONGRESS.
Nowhere is there a requirement that a declaration of war be titled “Declaration of War” ... I see no distinction between a “Declaration of War” and an “Authorization for the Use of Force” ... two phrases that mean EXACTLY the same thing.
The Constitutional requirement for Congressional Authorization was met for the invasion of Iraq.
A
I'm sorry to hear that Ron Paul is indeed a "palaeoconservative" and that that's what you think a "real Republican" should be.
You didn't believe the Birchers back in the sixties when they warned about the advance of socialism in America and it's obvious that you have no concern about the advance of socialism in America today.
Hey, I was too young in the Sixties, but I was a member in the late Seventies and early Eighties, and at first I thought they were the greatest organization in the world. Unfortunately I discovered that the Birch Society is basically the "blue lodge" of the anti-Semitic movement in America, promoting anti-Semites like Nesta Webster and Prince Michel Sturdza as well as anti-Israel books like The Unholy Land (whose very title is blasphemous). I also learned they promoted the anti-Israel theology of the Rushdoonyite "reconstructionists."
For a while many Birchers left the organization because of its former CEO and formed their own organization, the Robert Welch Foundation, which attacked Israel and circulated a petition to investigate (again) the attack on the USS Liberty--a petition signed by many neo-Nazi groups. This organization has dissolved and its members have rejoined the Society.
I'm sorry if you believe the be-all and end-all of conservative thought is white racial purity or that the idea of a single G-d Who rules all nations is "one-worldism." But if you and Ron want to measure skulls with atheists like the late, unlamented Sam Francis and Revilo P. Oliver, then perhaps you need to create your own movement where people who believe in the Biblical/Jewish G-d won't be associated with you. As for me, I'll take Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Carl McIntire any day of the week.
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.