YAF National Board Expels Ron Paul From Advisory Board

The Washington Times ^ | Saturday, February 12, 2011 | Kerry Picket

[kristinn]

Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) , a conservative libertarian group founded in 1960 at the estate of William F. Buckley, expelled Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Republican, from their advisory board on Saturday. The organization released the following statement on Saturday afternoon:

The National Board of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)—America's oldest conservative-libertarian activist group—has, per curium, voted to purge Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) from YAF’s National Advisory Board.

YAF’s concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” said YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks.

“Who would have ever thought that we would see the day when YAF was more aligned with the Obama administration than a formerly conservative Republican congressman? Rep. Paul's refusal to support our nation’s military and national security interests border on treason, aside from his failure to uphold his oath to the United States Constitution and defend our country and citizens against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” Marks continued.

SNIP

YAF National Chairman Michael Jones issued the following statement on this issue:

SNIP “Freedom and prosperity cannot peacefully exist alongside radical Islam. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul--a member of the U.S. Congress-- does not understand this. Surely, our enemies do.”

[tallyhoe]

Cause if you listen to his speeches they ramble on and on and on and they are not coherent.

[BlackElk]

Awww shucks! Thanks.

[BlackElk]

If actually traditional Catholics had had the sense to stop feeling sorry for themselves over the early excesses of the "spirit" of Vatican II, depended upon the promises of Jesus Christ that He would be with His Church all days until the end and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it and, accordingly, stomped out both the excesses of the "spirit" of Vatican II AND the Lefebvrite schismatic cancer in its cradle, the Church and its loyal members would have benefited immensely but instead that cancer of hatred for John Paul II (the Great) was allowed to fester and metastasize in its misguided devotees.

If you do not wish to advertise AQ here, that is understandable. BTW, no one authorized you to be the spokesman for the "global English speaking trad community" of schismatics following in the tradition of dead and excommunicated Marcel Lefebvre and enemies of the papacy throughout history. Also, lest there be misunderstanding, as you put the word "pimp" in quotation marks, you do so for reasons other than quoting me since I seldom use that term and have not used it in regard to you or AQ or even the schism.

Finally, you are joining political error with religious error when you blithely deny that Bill Buckley was a conservative libertarian "by any imaginable definition" and also imagine that your eccentric assertion enjoys some sort of universal agreement. That is the style of argument that has been perfected by the communists and emulated by SSPX: "Surely no one will disagree that (insert falsehood)." "As everyone knows (insert falsehood)." It is the art of Daily Workerspeak and would hopefully be rejected as a method by anyone claiming Catholicism.

[BlackElk]

ZC: Yours is a good summary of "classical Republicanism" and its sources. I would add only that there were also the maniacal blood thirsty abolitionist crazies who were willing to wage Civil War with hundreds of thousands of dead American soldiers on both sides and unwilling to accept Andrew Jackson's sage advice (as a substantial slaveholder himself when the War Between the States was NOT imminent) to Sam Houston that slavery was economically doomed, that it should be allowed to die a natural death, and that Civil War should be avoided at all costs lest the wounds never heal. Secretary of State Seward gave Lincoln the same advice (to declare war on all of Europe if necessary to avoid a Civil War) and it was rejected. John Tyler, the retired Virginia Whig POTUS, spent much of his personal fortune financing a last ditch "peace convention" in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the Civil War. The War Between the States is outstanding proof that we are a lot better off fighting foreign wars against our nation's enemies rather than waging war against our own citizens.

In #110, Gondring makes the common error of imagining Robert Taft the Elder as somehow a precursor of more modern conservatism without limit. Actually, Taft was a "good government" type (a "goo-goo" in the parlance of the day) as well as being somewhat conservative. As a US Senator, he sponsored federal housing programs in the late 1940s and, as an Ohio state legislator, he sponsored a bill authorizing a municipal personal income tax for Cincinnati during the Depression. Taft was an impressive man for numerous reasons but NOT consistently conservative on a number of important issues and not just his pre-Pearl Harbor Midwestern isolationist disease.

A little known event of approximately 1915 deserves mention. In that year, the Civil War veterans organizations: Grand Army of the Republic and Confederate War Veterans held a joint "encampment" at Gettysburg and re-enacted the critical and disastrous (for CSA) "Pickett's Charge" (without weapons, of course). When the two groups of old men came into contact on that tragic long hill, they spontaneously wept and embraced each other in a spectacular outburst of genuine emotion. The USA has fought many foreign nations in its history without any similar scene playing out among the veterans of the respective forces.

Anyone who admires Taft's memory as to his conservative issues, should be embarrassed to tout the sorry and unworthy likes of paleoPaulie as the reigning heir of a far greater, though flawed, man like Taft. Such notions are also disrespectful to Taft who was certainly a man of personal integrity unlike Galveston's phony treasonweasel and addicted fiscal porkmeister and earmarker.

[AAABEST]

Are you still prattling on? For cryin' out loud, you've reverted to pinging ninenot to my posts... lol. Just like old times. This, however, is not old times. I have neither the time nor inclination to play with you guys.

I tried being unfriendly - it didn't work. Perhaps reverse psychology; If I send you a box of chocolates for St. Valentine's Day, will you go away?

It's a good bribe. I KNOW you like chocolate.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Re the abolitionist crazies: while most abolitionists were Unitarians and radicals (proto-leftists in some senses), the most radical and craziest abolitionist was a Fundamentalist Calvinist: John Brown. If he could see the political behavior of his beloved Blacks today he'd probably have regretted Harper's Ferry.

While the Torah certainly does not prohibit slavery (though I don't think American slavery was Halakhic), I would point out that most people on both sides of the debate manifest one very serious inconsistency: liberals who denounce slavery maintain that the Union was justified in keeping the slave states by force while apologists for the Confederacy defend (or at least defended) slavery. I'm no individualist libertarian, but at least Lysander Spooner got it right: if you're going to denounce slavery, you can't hold force states to remain in the Union, and if you're going denounce the North for holding the South in bondage you shouldn't be defending slavery.

[Zionist Conspirator]

PS: I must disagree that slavery was on its way to extinction. While this was true originally, Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin put an end to this trail to extinction.

Also recall that with the Fugitive Slave Law, the Kansas-Nebraska act, and the Dred Scott decision slavery was on its way to covering the entire country (sort of like "gay marriage" today), and its progress seemed inexorable and unstoppable.

[Bokababe]

Whatever anyone thinks of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, those view haven’t changed in many, many years. YAL knew exactly what they were before Ron Paul was put on the advisory board.

What’s changed is that Ron Paul has now won the CPAC poll two years in a row, and on the very same day Ron Paul won the second one, YAL expels him. Coincidence? I don’t think so. This could best be explained as “The Neocon Empire Strikes Back”. They want to make him pay, humiliate him, and show that “Ron Paul doesn’t represent all the youth vote”.

I do, however, think that they’ve shot themselves in the foot. I expect YAL financing (unless the neocon wing ponies up) is going to drop off dramatically, and its youth membership is going to be leaving in droves.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” Ghandi

[Bokababe]

I need to correct that last post. I meant “YAF”, not “YAL”.

[WOBBLY BOB]

Mitt is younger and has nicer hair...and is “electable”.(to people like Trump)

[CPT Clay]

YAF National Board Expels Ron Paul From Advisory Board

You must be devastated...NOT

[Monorprise]

Im not sure we could continue to carry the wealth of the worlds security. Sometimes I think we might be better off pulling back to our own borders and having the military focus on protecting only the people who actual pay for that protection(the American people).

Maybe we should let the rest of the world deal with-itself by itself for a while.

[rlmorel]

I don’t think it will work. They are impervious.

[rlmorel]

"...I suspect that Ron Paul wins the CPAC poll every year because Tiny Tim and Yasser Arafat are dead and Barney Frank did not run and Ahmadinejad is probably on record as having been born in Iran. God bless..."

I vote this the best pithy post of a long and tedious thread.

[Mr. Silverback]

It's called a 'point'. Ron Paul has won numerous elections, often by margins of greater than 60% against his opponents. Mr. Mark has won exactly none. If Congressman Paul's constituents think he's a nutcase, they have recourse at the ballot box every two years.

Sheila Jackson Lee wins with margins like that, and won her 2008 election with 77% of the vote. Shall we figure that since she knows how to win elections she can't possibly be wrong on the issues? Shall we decide that the constituents in her district have a real good bead on foreign policy because they choose her every two years?

Good grief.

[rlmorel]

I already said "good grief" once tonight on another Ron Paul thread. My allotment has been used up.

You, however, said it much more effectively than I did...:)

[takenoprisoner]

He (Ron Paul) thinks Hamas is the legitimate goverment of Gaza and worthy of foreign aid.

Not true.

RP: "Diplomacy via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas, but the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends."

Sounds rational to me, and proves you don't know what you are talking about. Besides, most everyone knows RP doesn't support foreign aid. How is it you missed this little tidbit? Or did you?

[2CAVTrooper]

“I agree Ron Paul is too old to be President. But I respect him far more than most of what I've seen in the crop of politicians whose principles change based upon the direction of the wind and money from lobbyists. This guy has guts. Most have only interests.”

His “principles” have changed, and his only interest is getting reelected.

When compared to ron paul, an effeminate Frenchman has guts

[2CAVTrooper]

“incessantly fail to mention he is a staunch defender of the Constitution.”

No, he CLAIMS to be a “staunch defender” of the Constitution.

[apoliticalone]

Im not sure we could continue to carry the wealth of the worlds security. Sometimes I think we might be better off pulling back to our own borders and having the military focus on protecting only the people who actual pay for that protection(the American people).

Maybe we should let the rest of the world deal with-itself by itself for a while.

The problem with that theory is that big money doesn't make money in times of peace, and for today's politicians on the take, making money for big money is most important. They don't care about average Americans except to have them serve their interests. It ain't difficult to figure out.