The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

Townhall.com ^ | June 15, 2007 | John Hawkins

[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.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Kindly check radioman’s description of Congressman Paul, as well as his white racialist supporters, which can be found easily at places like Original Dissent.

[NCSteve]

Typical mindless drivel from this pubbie droid dimwit. I find it highly ironic to see one these twits making the “conservative” case for or against anything.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Ron Paul is a John Birch "palaeolibertarian," which...explains his proclivity for conspiracy theories, since the JBS' whole worldview is that Leftism is a mere front for "The [Zionist] Conspiracy."

The JBS does not promote the idea of a Zionist conspiracy and eschews Judeophobia. However, they do believe in what they call the "Master Conspiracy," a sinister plot to establish a totalitarian world state that was hatched by the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Skull & Bones fraternity, etc.

::Sigh:: Please allow me to state again: I am a former John Bircher(just as I am a former Catholic), and I know their "official" positions. Unfortunately, they have also long chosen to promote a number of "unofficial" positions, and many of their important members have been people who think that "Zionism" is the driving force behind the "master conspiracy" (Frank Capell is one example). And their brief period of sympathy with Israel under the early Begin prime ministership, lasted all of five minutes.

The JBS may have "officially" eschewed anti-Semitism, but in their "unofficial" publications (and according to them only the Bulletin is "official") they have promoted anti-Israel viewpoints, writers, and books. They used to sell the works of Nesta Webster, a British anti-Semite and pro-Nazi whose official works were published by a notorious Nazi/racialist organization--so they sold illegal pirate editions instead! They have published and promoted books by the Romanian anti-Semite and Iron Guard apologist Prince Michel Sturdza (the Romanian Iron Guard was one of the most vicious and murderous of all the European anti-Semitic organizations in the days before WWII). They "unofficially" promote a book entitled The Rapture Cult, a book which promotes Rushdoonyian "reconstructionism" and attacks traditional pro-Israel Protestant Fundamentalism. One former member of their National Council, Charles Carlson, is a virulent Israel-hater who has a net site named "Pharisee Watch."

The John Birch Society is alien to the traditional "chr*stian right" (ie, people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.) and exists completely outside that tradition. In fact, they ("unofficially") attack those conservatives as "statists" (an epithet they never apply to the foreign totalitarian dictators they so admire). Despite the great numbers of pro-Israel chr*stian conservatives, there are none in the Birch Society. And if one joins, he either winds up poisoned against the Jews or has to leave in disgust.

The Birch Society is the proud, avowed successor of the pre-WWII anti-Semitic right. Anti-Semites like Charles Lindbergh and Henry Ford are their heroes (never mind that Ford built truck plants for Stalin in the Thirties; anyone who hates the Jews just has to mean well!). While defending the military draft during the Cold War, they have suddenly discovered (since our current war allegedly benefits Jews too much) that all of a sudden the military draft is "unconstitutional" again, just as it was in WWII (those drafts were bad, the Cold War draft was good).

The John Birch Society has had among its members Willis Carto (the grand pooh-bah of anti-Semitism in America) and even Ben Klaasen, a sick man who hated the Jews so much that he became an atheist and attacked chr*stianity as Jewish (he also founded the "church of the creator"). Many, if not most, of the most notorious anti-Semites in America have spent time in the JBS, absorbing its subtle poison. This is why I insist that it is the "blue lodge" of the anti-Semitic movement.

The Birch Society may not "officially" blame "the conspiracy" on "Zionism," but many of their members and leaders do. Even Alan Stang, born a Jew (and now a non-Fundamentalist Rushdoonyite "Baptist" of some kind) attacks "Zionism" as the force behind the "conspiracy," though he defends Israel against it. Yes, that's right--Alan Stang thinks "the Zionists" are out out to destroy Israel!

Until I joined the JBS I never dreamed there was such a thing as an anti-Israel conservative. Through them I discovered a sickening legacy that I knew nothing about, that is completely alien to my Fundamentalist heritage, and which I want nothing to do with. The Birch Society is worse than a group of lunatics--it is evil. And I will maintain that till the day I die. All you have to do is look around and notice that anyone who attacks Israel (such as Buchanan and Sobran) automatically becomes a hero and a martyr to it. If this doesn't say more about what they think about Israel, Jews, and Zionism than anything they have the guts (or honesty) to publish in their "official" Bulletin, then I don't know what they could possibly say or do to confirm it.

I have been a member of two organizations in my life whose "official" positions are allegedly laudable but who have a great deal of "unofficial" teachings which are promoted so vociferously that they might as well be "official": the JBS and the Catholic Church (which doesn't "officially" endorse evoluton or the documentary hypothesis, but almost all of whose clergy and theologians do). I have come to see those two groups as very similar--and in fact, considering the admiration the Birch Society has for the Catholic Church (which it can't bring itself to have for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or John Hagee), I wouldn't be the least surprise at a connection somewhere, especially in the more virulently anti-Semitic wings of the Church.

By making itself an ally of the enemies of the Jewish People and an opponent of Israel's Ingathering in its Holy Land the JBS has made itself the enemy of G-d A-mighty. But then, the JBS (like all "palaeos") don't believe in a universal G-d anyway. The whole "G-d-family-country" slogan implies that each country and family has its own particular "gxd." To posit a single objective G-d is to advocate "one world government!"

The Birch Society can kiss my tachat, along with all their thugs, hangers-on, and front groups.

[Publius Valerius]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t we already have a sizeable bounty on OBL’s head?

I agree that our foreign policy is bad, but the bounty idea hasn’t seemed to work, either.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Debatable if I choose to explain myself to a screen name, which I won’t.

So why post on FR then? Isn't this is what everyone here is doing?

I only go by what I hear the man say, sorry so far he hasn’t impressed me.

So his sterling record of supporting the Constitution means nothing to you. You're just repeating the taken-out-of context quotes that the Giuliani/MSM camp is doing, BTW.

And its the drama queen aspects, as you demonstrate here, that are keeping Ron Paul from being seriously considered for a political job outside of your district.

I certainly don't think Paul has a chance of winning, but I am glad that he's in the race, talking about the real issues that are being ignored by the establishment. I think Paul knows what his role is.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Clowns of a feather.

Not as much of the current clown disgracing the WH.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

What is going on on FR?I have followed RP for years and he is a Constitutionalist.I thought people on FR at least had a clue.

The butt-kissing GOP wing of FR wouldn't know the Constitution if it walked up to them and undressed itself.

[bray]

Well, we will never have to worry about that.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[miss print]

Duncan Hunter can’t possibly be the most conservative member of Congress! After all, he gave us the Military Commission Act which puts not just “enemy combatants” (which term for enemy is not included in the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Convention) but Americans as well! Bush in a heartbeat would put those of us who oppose him/his policies into the category of “enemy combatant” and we would be put away - without habeas corpus - trying to prove (while in jail) that we were American citizens. So much for the National Journal!

Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was introduced to the Bilderberg organization by Henry Kissinger back in 1999 or 2000. This immediately qualifies Hagel as a globalist and not a conservative. (Before Cheney was announced as VP, someone here on FR asked who we thought would be Bush’s running mate and I said Hagel.)

Several years back, I went to the American Conservative Union (”ACU”) to find out whom they had chosen as their top ten Congressmen and Senators. Sen. Bob Smith (R-VT) was not on the list; neither was Ron Paul - the two top people in The New American’s bi-annual Conservative Index who voted for less government, lower taxes, etc. The Conservative Index reflects votes for legislation that is pro-US Constitution. All the ACU was interested in being was the “Grandaddy” of the “conservative” organizations. Big deal.

McCain is an outcast for his voting on illegal immigration. How could he possibly have a “conservative” rating? Just as having a beard does not a Rabbi make, being a Republican does not a conservative make.

[miss print]

One has to remember that 9/11/01 occurred exactly 25 years after the Camp David Accord (9/11/76) which peanut-brained Jimmy Carter had signed between Palestine and Israel. Again, another reason for non-intervention.

[William Terrell]

Every single libertarian I know is conservative, their philosophy being smaller government and preservation of liberties found in our Constitution.

The national libertarian party just has some nutball planks in the platform, much like the republican party has. In that sense, there are a couple liberal planks, but mostly conservative.

They are a whole lot more conservative than the republican party acts now. A party is how it acts, not what it says, which is a lesson we should learn from the republicans.

And, actually, staying out of foreign entanglements is a time honored conservative policy expressed by more than two of the founders.

Also, the freedom of people to take anything within their bodies at their own discretion is a conservative principle consistent with the foundation of the states ancient police power.

[miss print]

Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to abrogate its responsibility, in this instance, war, to the President!

[miss print]

An interview with Ron Paul in The New American magazine, March 19, 2007, “A Constitutionalist Speaks Out,” pp. 21-24, to wit:

“TNA: When the House International Relations Committee met in early October 2002, a full five months before the invasion of Iraq, you offered a very interesting motion. Can you recall what happened?

Rep. Paul: Yes. I knew that the administration was moving toward initiating military action, so I moved that Congress declare war against Iraq, and I indicated I intended to vote against my own measure because I didn’t think we should start such a war. I made the motion because I don’t like the idea of ignoring the Constitution that grants power only to Congress to send the nation into war. Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) responded to what I offered by saying, ‘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 relevent to a modern society. We are saying to the president, use your judgment. [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn’t done any more.’ And so we went to war once again without a congressional declaration. And the war power possessed by Congress alone was ignored.”

[Fiji Hill]

I find your comments to be thought-provoking.

Robert Welch, the founder of the JBS, was a Unitarian. He always eschewed anti-Semitism and racism in his writings, and when he concocted his "Master Conspiracy" theory in the mid-1960's, he took pains to explain that the cabal was not Jewish.

Nonetheless, by promoting this sort of worldview, the group was bound to attract extremists, including Jew-haters and racists. Now that you mentioned it, I do, indeed, recall a couple of Birchers who urged me to read Nesta Webster, whose books drip with hatred of Jews on just about every page. And Michael Sturdza's book on the Chappaquiddick affair--written under a pseudonym--was published by Western Islands, the JBS house organ, heavily promoted in the JBS' official Bulletin.

Initially attracted to the JBS because of its uncompromising anti-Communism, I gradually soured on them as I became more familiar with their worldview. In 1976, I split with the Birchers for good when they refused to back Ronald Reagan's presidential bid.

[oneamericanvoice]

Don’t get the popcorn for Ron Paul. He is a clown wander the halls of serious conservative thought. He shouldn’t even be on the GOP stage. He only wants the limelight since the Libertarians don’t have a debate.

[justiceseeker93]

Agreed that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and he is to be admired for his principles on that.

As an ObGyn..., he believes that life begins at ... conception and that abortion is immoral.

He believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is immoral, but you can't say that those beliefs were determined by his medical profession and experiences. After all, there are many Ob-Gyns who are "abortion providers."

Libertarians don't take that [pro-life, anti-abortion] stance.

Some do, some don't. "Libertarians" aren't totalitarians and aren't obliged to follow a party line. There are many shades of opinion within the spectrum of "libertarianism."

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.

First, again you paint with a broad brush. Some libertarians are for legalizing marijuana to varying degrees, others against it. Again, "libertarians" vary. Second, the mere fact that Dr. Paul took the Hypocratic Oath, or that any doctor took the Hypocratic Oath, has no definite relationship to that doctor's position on legalizing currently illegal drugs. The Hypocratic Oath relates to the doctor's behavior vis-a-vis his patients, not vis-a-vis government and politics. Third, based upon what I've read in The Almanac of American Politics, Dr. Paul has in fact favored some legalization of some currently illegal drug(s), but I'm unaware of his specific positions in that area.

[radioman]

but I was a member in the late Seventies and early Eighties,

And purged the the movement of libertarians like the Republican party is doing now. Is the RP headed in the same direction?

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."

No, I don't believe that at all and your attempt to divert and blame is lame. It's interesting that you evangelical extremists are always present at the death of every movement.

As for me, I'll take Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Pat Robertson, and Carl McIntire any day of the week

Are you going to go back to the Democrat party or go Green after you're finished with the Republican party? I know those carbon credits are already burning a hole in your pockets!
.

[Allegra]

Don’t get the popcorn for Ron Paul.

Sense of humor and sense of fun....on sale this weekend at Target. Almost half-price for two days only! Get them while they last! Sold separately.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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.

Just for the sake of accuracy, the reason Ron Paul's Congressional record doesn't show much support for legalizing drugs is because he doesn't think it's properly a Congressional issue at all -- he believes that,under the Tenth Amendment, it is Constitutionally an issue which belongs to the Legislatures of the several States.

So, a more accurate statement would be, "as a Doctor, Ron Paul personally thinks that self-medicating with non-prescribed drugs is bad for you and you shouldn't do it -- however, he would leave it up to the individual States to decide the legality thereof."

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I hesitated to bump this but it’s sort of sad Ol’ Dunc’s team has sunk to a level of spreading lies.

It is disappointing.

However, I'm not going to paint with too broad a brush here -- not all of Hunter's team is jumping on this "smear Ron Paul" bandwagon. Calpernia is a Duncan Hunter supporter who's not buying into this muckracking polemic; I believe there are several others on the thread.

So, I'm going to continue my policy of observing a "ceasefire" in regard to Hunter (whom I respect on many issues), except in those specific cases when Hunter's supporters are attacking Ron Paul.

And this addlepated screed doesn't really count -- it's hardly worth the bother of refuting.