The Honor of Ron Paul - Joseph Sobran

Patrick J. Buchanan Blog ^ | June 26, 2007 | Joseph Sobran

[West Coast Conservative]

That isn't why Paul voted against it though:

This resolution is an exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.

Spinning his vote as some sort of principled defense of the Constitution doesn't make any sense considering his speech on why he voted against it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr062007b.htm

[dighton]

“An exercise in propaganda that serves one purpose: to move us closer to initiating a war against Iran.”

Oops . . . . sorry, wrong pic.

[radioman]

So let me guess, someone is against liberty if they oppose abortion "rights" and gay marriage, right?

No, they are against liberty when they give the federal government powers that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Many libertarians are pro-life, they just support the Constitution against those who want to use abortion and gay marriage to increase unconstitutional federal intrusion into our lives.

Libertarianism as a philosophical principle espouses "the free flow of labour", and that national borders ought not be a hindrance to any individual exercising their right to get the most benefit from their labour. Ron Paul's position on the borders is NOT libertarian.

Not true. The free flow of labor is an ideal to strive for. It requires a completely free market. It won't work in a socialist state where immigrants come for the big government welfare benefits. Take away the freebies and you will solve the illegal immigration problem. All libertarians understand this and Ron Paul's position on the borders is the same as every libertarian I know. I'll remind you that it's the NEOCONS who have opened the border to the illegal invasion.
.

[radioman]

I forgot to address this in my last response, but the reason I specifically chose abortion and gay marriage as questions about traditional values and liberty is because they are both issues which ARE BEING DEALT WITH through federalism by social conservatives

Lol...
That's why "social conservatives" are pushing to nominate SCOTUS judges who support federal anti abortion law?
That's why "social conservatives" have turned abortion into a general election platform?
That's why "social conservatives" enacted law that takes my right to spend my money any way I please?
That's why "social conservatives" have thrown out the separation of church and state by taxing me and giving my money to Pat Robertson?

Yes, that's why "social conservatives" have to use the invented "social conservative" term. People wouldn't look on you so kindly if you used your real title...Theocrat.
.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Libertarianism predates Conservatism by two centuries. The founders of our Republic were Libertarians.

No, they were not. The Founders were thoroughly steeped in Lockean commowealth ideology, which is not nearly individualistic enough to qualify as "libertarianism" by any stretch of the term.

Besides, the Founders were Neo-Ciceronians....

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

That's why "social conservatives" are pushing to nominate SCOTUS judges who support federal anti abortion law?

Oddly enough, when you have a SCOTUS decision like Roe v. Wade which nationalises the abortion issue, and which is subsequently used to overturn any attempts at federalism on the issue, you sort of have to first get SCOTUS justices who will overturn the previous bad judicial interpretation before the issue can be returned back to the States. Get it?

That's why "social conservatives" have turned abortion into a general election platform?

Last I checked, an electoral platform was not law. An electoral platform is what a party uses as its guiding principles and which (generally) identify what a candidate from that party will tend to believe. And yes, if the social conservatives want to turn abortion into a general electoral point so as to see expansive and unconstitutional judicial activism (read Roe v. Wade) overturned, and returned to the States, then that's a point FOR federalism.

That's why "social conservatives" enacted law that takes my right to spend my money any way I please?

Without your being more specific, this point has absolutely no meaning.

That's why "social conservatives" have thrown out the separation of church and state by taxing me and giving my money to Pat Robertson?

If we want to be real technical about the Constitution, there IS no "separation of church and state". However, saying so does not make a person a "theocrat", it merely makes them a Constitutional literalist. As for "giving money to Pat Robertson", I'd have to ask for some eludication on this (linkie please?) because as it currently stands, this makes you sound like you are perilously close to being in "kook conspiracy theorist" country.....

[Revenge of Sith]

Joe Sobran spoke at an Institute for Historical Review conference and had articles published in the Journal of Historical Review.

[radioman]

No, they were not. The Founders were thoroughly steeped in Lockean commowealth ideology

ROFL!!!
Locke was a libertarian.
.

[marsh_of_mists]

By the way, where does this “only true conservative in the race” differ with the people at The Daily Kos?

It's interesting you should mention that. Here's a link to one kossacks view of how much Ron Paul has in common with "progressives."

[Revenge of Sith]

> I happen to disagree with the “constitutionalist” (ie. Ron Paul) concept that military isolationism is required until war is declared.

Especially since John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all used military force without a formal declaration of war.

[inkling]

Essentially your definition of a conservative is “someone who agrees with me.” Keep mixing that LP Kool-Aid, brother.

[ejonesie22]

Ok, so we ignore the statements by the head of CAIR, the rants of Ahmadinejad, and the Koran itself about the domination of Islam. Add to that we have to ignore what is happening to Europe (some invasions occur without a shot)

I read part of this book a while back, its accurate, from his perspective, I’ll leave it at that.

Burka’s not withstanding, I don’t think these guys will just be happy if we just pack up and move back into our boarders. I believe that is the naive stance. Beside that Jeanie has left the bottle, we can ill aford to maintain an isolationist stance in a modern world.

How the Muslim’s decide to respond to our presence and participation in regions they occupy was and is THEIR choice.

[marsh_of_mists]

I think Paul sees himself as more of a "constitutionalist" than either a "libertarian" or a "conservative."

that's why "social conservatives" have to use the invented "social conservative" term. People wouldn't look on you so kindly if you used your real title...Theocrat.

I don't see how calling people "theocrats" helps. As a traditional Catholic, I consider myself about as "socially conservative" as they come, but there's nothing on my radar screen, as far as the federal government is concerned, beyond stopping them from forcing legalized abortion on the entire country and keeping them form forcing same-sex "marriage" on the entire country. I think it's possible to be socially conservative and politically constitutionalist/libertarian.

[Optimist]

>>> no offense but look at one of the largest receivers.

it’s not who, or how much ...it’s why (or why they should not in some cases) BTW (speaking of one of the largest receivers) Egypt receives 2/3 of what Israel receives...I’m sure they have our back.

>>> Let’s attack Russia and China tomorrow....theoretically they could attack us one day

it’s not about the potential it’s about the likelihood ... maybe you don’t think we should spend any money on foreign intelligence, pull all our ships and planes within US boundaries, and have a picnic in the back yard until we find out that the Saudis weren’t able to stop Ahmanutjob from overtaking the oil fields of Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
You weigh the threat and its dangers to yourself and your ALLIES.

>>> the concept of Just War Theory.

“When enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language, war conventions have rarely been applied. It is only when the enemy is seen to be a people with whom one will do business in the following peace that tacit or explicit rules are formed”

>>> optimist: the Mideast (that we cannot allow to be dominated by a totalitarian, fascist or communist entity)
>>> billbears: Why can’t we? What is it our business how another nation runs its internal affairs?

The Mideast has a history of struggle for domination of its land (Greeks, Persians, Babylonians, British, Nazis, Soviets...). Why? It is a crossroads, it is the birthplace of western religion, and it sits on oil. But you’re right we have no interest in what happens there (like the Panama Canal or Suez Canal or Cuba or ...). International alliances are built generally among men who aren’t always in power, and not always with countries that are stable. But then if a suicide bomber gets hold of oil fields (or god forbid a nuclear weapon) with which to blackmail us we have nothing to worry about because thats their internal problem and they won’t inject themselves into our internal operations since that is against the Just War Theory. /sarc

[ejonesie22]

In a world of WMD’s (whether nuclear, chemical, or multiple warhead ballistic missiles) we can’t wait for a first attack or formal declaration of war to maintain our security.

Hell yes! Let’s attack Russia and China tomorrow. After all they have the largest stocks after us and theoretically they could attack us one day....I’d suggest you go back and read what the Framers had to say on the issue. Pre-emptively attacking other nations doesn’t even come close to falling under the concept of Just War Theory.

Time to get up to speed a bit friend. I am one to doubt that the Framers could every foresee the weapons we have now and the fact they they could easily fall into the hands of suicidal maniacs on a mission.

Remember that mutual assured destruction has worked for neigh on 50 years between us and other nations whose intrerest in self preservation superseds the desire for conquest. If that was not the case the USSR would have hit us in the late 70s when we were not at our best militarily.

Just war theory is all well and good when all things are equal and the is a desire on both sides to fight and the combatants on each side have equal desires to live. That is not the case now.

[marsh_of_mists]

What you’re saying is little different than what lots of liberals say: the concept that things which may have once been true are suddenly obsolete because “everything’s different now” and “we can’t turn back the clock.” But conservatives are supposed to believe in eternal and universal truths and principles.

[CJ Wolf]

How can I trust anything from you when I catch you in such a bold face smear and lie? Why don’t you retract your lies, like a decent human being? It wasn’t funny, just plain sick.

[WWTD]

I heard that Ron Paul lost a couple relatives at a Nazi concentration camp...they fell from the guard towers Statements like that show people just what kind of person you are. Do me a favor and continue to speak against Dr. Paul like this. I find it interesting that many of the people here who speak against Ron Paul are doing it in a most vile fashion. He sure has some of you scared, and you're certainly not reacting in a manner consistent with conservatism or the spirit of Reagan.

[radioman]

you sort of have to first get SCOTUS justices who will overturn the previous bad judicial interpretation before the issue can be returned back to the States. Get it?

Yes, I do "get it". That's how I know that your agenda is about more than states rights. Your SCOTUS choices are all big government socialists.

Without your being more specific, this point has absolutely no meaning.

The Unlawful Internet Gambling Act. There was no public support for this abomination and the banking industry opposed it. This law was stealthily attached to the Port Security Bill and is pandering to James Dobson and his Focus On The Family pac.

As for "giving money to Pat Robertson", I'd have to ask for some eludication on this (linkie please?) because as it currently stands, this makes you sound like you are perilously close to being in "kook conspiracy theorist" country.....

Lol...
The info comes from Robertson's IRS form 990. It's published on every anti Faith Based Initiative site on the net, including some anti Faith Based Initiative sites that are Christian.
Do you want a link to a Secular or a Christian reference?
.

[SJackson]

You might find this oldie entertaining.

Sobran: My Obsession with Jews [for all who mistakenly think he is a valuable contributor]