Category Archives: Ron Paul

Students for Liberty vs. Ron Paul on Crimea

In case you haven’t been following this, there has been a bit of a dust up in non-interventionist circles. Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin publically criticized Ron Paul over his statements on the Crimean situatuion. Since then, it has been time, as they say, to “get the popcorn.” I’m working on a longer response to this. As you probably guess, I side with Ron Paul. But I figured I need to cover this situation so here is a list of links.

Here is the original McCorbin post that got it all started.

Here is the original, as far as I can tell, reaction from BuzzFeed.

The (anti-Paul) Washington Free Beacon quickly picked up the story.

Reason chimes in.

Ron Paul’s Institute responds. (Perhaps too harshly?)

McCorbin replies.

Dave Weigel of Slate opines. (Weigel is interesting in cases like these. Weigel currently has anti-paleo biases, but because he once traveled in our circles before going a different dirrection, he gets the subtext better than most.)

Justin Raimondo is his typical firey self at Anti-War.com.

John Glaser says not so fast.

Raimondo steps on the gas.

Anthont Gregory calls for a truce.

Robert Wenzel sides with Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com

Whew! See what I mean about getting the popcorn?

Establishment Hack Republicans in Georgia Legislature Attack Liberty Minded Republican

This story is a couple of days old now, but someohow I was asleep at the wheel and missed it. Once I started hearing about it I looked into the details and was outraged, but I wasn’t outraged at the naivete of an newly elected and obviously green Paulesq Campaign for Liberty backed Georgia House member. I was outraged by the calculated attack by Establishment hack Republicans who staged a piece of grand political theater to attack their right flank and put in his place a upstart who threatened to upset their old boys club.

In brief, Rep. Sam Moore submitted a bill to the Georgia legislature that was intended to decrease the authority of the police to  arrest people based on vague anti-loitering laws. It contained language that would have loosened some restrictions on sex offenders and the hacks saw their chance to pounce on an uppity new House member whose focus on liberty threatens their reason for being. Whether that particular language was good law or not, what is at issue here is not a particular piece of legislation. What is at issue is the fact that a bunch of shameless hacks chose to grandstand rather than attempt to govern rightly. If the language was bad, either from an actual legislative standpoint or from a looks bad politically standpoint, then just calmly suggest to Rep. Moore that he might want to make some changes. For several House members to take to the floor to publically express outrage reeks of an orchestrated political hit job.

Here is some commentary on this travesty that gets it right.

And here.

And here is one that gets it wrong.

I include this particular example, among many that get it wrong, because I posted a comment below it. My comment is a bit harsh, but hardball from hacks begets hardball back.

Give me a break Jason. The Establishment Republicans deliberately used this opportunity to attack someone they see as a threat and not part of the old boys club and YOU KNOW IT! To pretend like this was all a legitimate uprising because of some truly awful offense is a deliberate sham. Any issues with the bills, whether actual or just potential opportunities for grandstanders to make rhetorical political hay, could have been addressed in a measured sensible way in a back room somewhere as is usually the case. More senior members of the party who were actually interested in right governing instead of striking a blow against their right flank would have quietly made suggestions to Rep. Moore with an eye toward protecting a new member rather than grandstand like a bunch of shameless peacocks. They have taken a page stright from the PC Cultural Marxist rightthink enforcement playbook with their “point and sputter” and feigned outrage game playing. Pretending not to recognize this does not make you a “statist” or a “patsy.” It makes you a co-conspirator. And I dare you to forever sacrifice your credibility as a political commentator to here for all the world to see pretend that you don’t realize that this was about political game playing and not about the merits or lack thereof of any piece of legislation.

I hate it when the left uses these tactics, but I expect it from them. It’s what mindless morally stunted leftists do, but when supposed conservatives do it to their right flank, it makes my blood boil.

Update: Here is an article that gives an explanation of the background of the bill.

Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?

My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:

Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.

Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.

Read more…

I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.

Update: This article has now been added to my personal blog.

Pat Buchanan: Syria Gas Attack “Reeks of a False Flag Operation”

Pat Buchanan says the Syria gas attack “reeks of a false flag operation.”

“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”

See more…

When I first saw the stories about a chemical weapons attack in Syria, my very first thought was “false flag.” It just didn’t make any sense to me. Why would Assad do that so openly and risk retaliation? How would it benefit him or his cause? He is reportedly winning the war. But I’m skeptical and not inclined to believe the official story when it comes to dragging us into another war in the Middle East. What has surprised me is how many people are throwing around the “false flag” allegation. Normally mainstreamish types avoid that charge directly so as not to get themselves labled as conspiracy theorists, but with regard to Syria I am seeing people saying it with impunity. Has there been a sea change when it comes to peoples’ willingness to believe the official story.

Ron Paul has also called the attack a false flag.

More Jack Hunter Thoughts and Reactions

Here is an article at VDARE on the Jack Hunter smear campaign. It’s good because it links to a lot of the sites that picked up the story, but the author, Alexander Hart, pretty much throws Hunter under the bus on account of Rand’s backtracking on the immigration issue.

Here is Hunter’s own statement. It’s pretty much a disaster. Hunter goes into full backpedal and placate mode. This is highly unfortunate. First, the PC Beast can not be placated. Just ask Jason Richwine. Just ask Paula Deen. The PC Beast must be resisted head on. Second, whenever you say some version of “I’m not a racist” you have already lost because you have conceded the other sides terms. Third, as I wrote yesterday, nothing in these revelations is really that damaging. Some of it is rather mundane. Just explain yourself forcefully without backpedalling or dodging.

That said, I do not think that now is the time to attack Jack for backpedalling. Here is what I posted on Facebook:

I am disappointed that Jack Hunter has chosen to backtrack and concede to the PC Rightthink Police rather than fight back, but that said, now is not the time for anti-PC forces to attack Jack. Now is the time for us to attack the PC Beast that is attacking him. We can attempt to drag Jack back to paleodom after we have countered the PC Cultural Marxists Gestapo.
I felt the need to say that because some folks have gone after Jack pretty hard for his backpedalling.
 
 
and Michael Hill (via Hunter Wallace)
 
I’ll explain why I think overly attacking Jack Hunter (as opposed to expressing disappointment), is unhelpful at this point in a separate post.

Jack Hunter’s mistake

An anonymous commenter posted this complaint yesterday in response to Jack Hunter’s disavowal of pro-Southern (and therefore heretical) thoughts he expressed many years ago:

“You think you know somebody, and they turn out to be a defender of sodomy and God cursed sodomites. I’ll never read Jack Hunter again. Is there never any GOOD news anymore???????????”

I share the commenter’s pain. Yes, Jack Hunter has tossed secession, border security, and traditional marriage the same way Butch Cassidy would toss the loot when the posse started closing in. (Here’s a summary of Jack’s earlier statements, as well as his disavowal of them, as presented by the “conservative” Washington Free Beacon, which broke this story.)

Jack Hunter, like Ron and Rand Paul, tried to work within the system to restrain an interventionist, activist government. Now he’s being scourged as a “racist” who shares his boss’s “radical antiwar views.” That’s because only a “racist” would want to deny the Third World the joys of American liberation — as DC’s apologists have made abundantly clear.

Hunter’s and the Paul’s mistake was that they thought “compromise” and “moderation” were good things. Now, in a healthy political system, those things are virtues, as John Calhoun argued. But they have been fighting a losing battle against a system that is, as Robert E. Lee predicted, “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.” That’s why we have a massive domestic surveillance system supporting a military-industrial complex — it’s the inevitable result of an overgrown, centralized government.

As Michael Hill noted yesterday, DC is open only to those who adopt the regime’s globalist agenda. With a regime based on demographic revolution and permanent war, no compromise is possible. Those policies are the foundation of the Empire’s power. Trying to find common ground with the Evil Empire is like offering to sacrifice only your children to psychopaths who want to murder your entire family. So Jack Hunter and the Pauls have been saying, “Okay, you want to invade the entire Middle East, so I’ll support a war in Afghanistan. And I’ll vote for amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens if you’ll agree to a border fence.”

One way or another, it’s all or nothing with the DC regime. That’s what Jack Hunter and the Pauls — and their supporters — have failed to see.

The PC Thought Police Go After Jack Hunter (a.k.a. the Southern Avenger)

The Cultural Marxist PC Thought Police are frothing at the mouth again. They’ve identified a new thoughtcriminal for their Two Minutes Hate, Jack Hunter, a.k.a. the Southern Avenger.

Here is the Washington Free Beacon fatwa … err … article that got the jihad started. When I first heard rumblings that the PC Gestapo was going after Jack, I suspected the author might be the loathsome PC enforcer Jamie Kirchick, but it wasn’t. It’s some writer I’ve never heard of named Alana Goodman. Here is Goodman’s bio per the Free Beacon:

Alana Goodman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Prior to joining the Beacon, she was assistant online editor at Commentary (neocon alert!). She has written for the Weekly Standard, the New York Post and the Washington Examiner. Goodman graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2010, and lives in Washington, D.C. Her Twitter handle is @alanagoodman. Her email address is goodman@freebeacon.com.

Jonathan Chait picked up on the story here. Chait isn’t someone I normally associate with this type of PC Thought Enforcement campaign (I could be wrong), but this drive by smear job is inexcusable. He says this:

But his son and progeny Rand Paul also has a close aide who is a huge racist, reports Alana Goodman.

A “huge racist?” Actually Chait, Goodman isn’t even shameless enough to say that in so many words even though her “article” is a transparent PC/neocon rightthink enforcement hitpiece. (I say neocon in addition to PC because she heavily focuses on foreign policy and highlights among other things his belief that the nuking of Japanese civilians was unjustified.)

Salon piles on here.

What’s noteworthy about the Goodman piece is just how lame the allegations are. Anyone who has followed Jack’s career at all knows that he is pro-South and supports the right of secession. As Dave Weigle points out in a semi-snarky pile on of his own, this is not news, but the PC Rightthink Enforcers thinks this is a scandalous revelation. Beyond that she presents a laundry list of statements and policy positions that are supposed to scandalize all decent rightthinkers. I could defend each of Hunter’s statements individually, but I don’t have time for that now. In general, taken together the quotes and positions place Hunter in an identifiable paleocon/paleolibertarian sphere, but there is nothing here that is not routine opinion in those circles and each individual opinion can be found in mainstream conservatism as well.

Looked at as objectively as I can as an interested co-combatant, the thing that might be most shocking to the ears that the Rightthink Enforcers are aiming to prick is his use of the word terrorism to describe the nuking of Japanese civilians and his comparison of that act to 9/11. (FTR, I don’t think terrorism is the right word to describe our use of nukes against the Japanese civilian population. It is needlessly inflamatory and isn’t really an accurate word choice. It is more accurate to describe it as a war crime, but that is for a separate thread.) Beyond that Hunter is accused of saying that there is a double standard against whites. Other races can celebrate their race but whites can’t celebrate theirs. Well no duh! This is a thoroughly mundane and unarguable observation. He’s also acused of saying our foreign policy in the Middle East is influenced by Israel. Is there anyone who seriously denies this? In fact, the interventionist at the Free Beacon celebrate this as right and good. He is excoriated for suggesting that immigration alters the culture. Again, no duh! Does anyone seriously deny this? In fact, immigration boosters celebrate the fact that immigration brings about change in the culture. You know, that whole “Diversity is our greatest strength” mantra.

I could go on, but you get the point. Unfortunately, Jack concedes too much in what was I’m sure a damage control interview with the Free Beacon. Those of us who have followed Hunter’s career for a while have recognized that he has become more politically pragmatic over the years, thus his defense of some of Rand Paul’s misguided concessions. But I have always hoped that that old self-described “right-wing radical” still lurked beneath the surface. But this is not the time to criticize Hunter. Now is the time to defend him against the baying PC Rightthink mob. They’ll be time for dragging him fully back into the fold once the PC Enforcers have been called out for their rightthink policing shenanigans.

The Interventionists Aren’t Happy About Ron Paul’s New Foreign Policy Think Tank

The memo has apparently gone out. Smear Ron Paul’s new think tank.

Jamie (now James?) Kirchick writes this for The Daily Beast. I’m Shocked! Just Shocked! That PC enforcer hack Jamie Kirchick has written another PC smear job about Ron Paul. Who would have guessed it?

Jamie Weinstein writes this at The Daily Caller. What’s up with Jamies being PC thought policers?

Walter Russell Meade says Ron Paul’s Institute will hurt Rand’s chance at becoming President. This is a not so veiled threat. “Shut up with the wrongthink Ron, or your kid gets it!”

The Week piles on, attempting to reinforce the Rand Paul link.

Tom Woods replies here and here.

Woods does what libertarians are wont to do and immediately appeals to libertarian first principles. Appealing to first principles is fine. I appeal to Constitutionalist first principles all the time. But when it comes to this thought policing nonsense, I think the thought policers need to be called out for being the pathetic little weeniefied thought slaves that they are.

Kirchick, Weinstein and Meade, grow a pair of intellectual balls, and quit being rightthink enforcers for the Conventional Wisdom. I do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don’t go running for the tall grass like some sort of intellectual fraidy cat at the suggestion. This desire to stamp out wrongthink is MUCH more dangerous than the wrongthink itself. Perhaps you should actually engage an argument rather than point and ridicule like some sort of middle school mean girl.

You have to wonder what is going on inside the head of people like Kirchick who seem to relish the role of righthink hit-man. Man up, develop some intellectual testosterone, and HAVE A FREE THOUGHT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE!

Update on Ron Paul’s New Foreign Policy Institute

We discussed this before, but here is an update. Paul will hold a press conference on Wednesday to discuss his new institute. It will be called the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. I complained in the post linked above that I didn’t like the name Peace and Prosperity because I thought it sounded vaguely lefty, but I’m OK with it if it is the ”Ron Paul Institute for…” because having his name attached to it will avoid confusion.

This part is interesting:

Founder and Chairman Dr. Paul has invited the Institute’s board of advisors to speak at the conference, including Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (NC), Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (TN), Judge Andrew Napolitano, Ambassador Faith Whittlesey, and Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

War and Health

I came of age on ‘alarmist’ rhetoric with rightwing implications, though my brain was well schooled in modern political science, here in the Northeast.  Worse then the effects of Heavy Metal on my brain, I have spent most of my adult life waiting for the fall, which I thought came in the year 2008, but by then, I just assumed that nothing, not even that, was going to alter the course.

From a political science perspective, I agree with the non-interventionists.  The weight of noise from Babylon on the Potomac is simply a smokescreen for the various foreign and domestic lobbies to operate and fleece the ever so humble citizens, save their never ending desire to have their egos massaged, and genitals groped to get on an airplane to prove their piousness.

Who else suffers such humiliations save a true believer?

Non-interventionism is a tactic.

But I hate all the wars–hence I agree with the non-interventionist from the heart as well.  I really do.  My Great Uncle carried grief to his grave for the hideous things he saw in Nagasaki—when Truman wiped out the Christians of Japan (to be repeated in Iraq.)  A portrait of my Great Great Great Grandfather hangs in the dining room; he hired a substitute for the War Between the States, was always a good contributor to the various veterans groups, and rather vague on that time period, as far as I can draw from published accounts.

I read an account from his bitter brother, though, who allegedly marched for some Union Iowa outfit, who called him out.

I often see Great Great Great Grandpa looking at me as if to say: ‘Screw them.’  This is tied to a film I enjoy, Legends of the Fall (read the short story from William Harrison and see the movie), where the stroke affected Sir Anthony Hopkins suggests to his son, Tristian (Brad Pitt) that since his brother had voted for the Volstead Act—‘screw the government’ and the implication to become a smuggler–the traditional Anglo-Celtic response.

I cannot argue with Dr. Ron Paul to continue to focus on foreign policy in the abstract attempt that Old People might yet figure it out, but I consider the cause hopeless.   Obama’s drones were the workaround to any hesitation.

I would rather see Dr. Paul continue to work his unique, grandpa connection to the youth with a symposium on healthcare—not from a natural/free market perspective, if that could be a subplot, but from a workaround perspective.  Have lawyers and insurance/financial specialists discuss ideas that entrepreneurs might develop along the lines of the Christian based medishare programs.  And if all else fails, support massive civil disobedience, dropping out, and neighborly love (and a fleet of lawyers and film crews)….and be clear on the more darker implications, of family members, even oneself, going to the grave early, rather than take a bill from those people—present a story of martyrdom.

Seriously, get life insurance, not hospital insurance.  And legalize cheap pain killers.

Ron Paul to form a Foreign Policy Institute

This is good news. There are very few institutional voices for non-interventionism. There are voices for neoconservatism. There are voices for internationalist realism. There are voices for liberal internationalism. But non-interventionism has very few voices outside general libertarian outfits.

Rumor has it that it is going to be called the Peace and Prosperity Institute. If so, this is an unfortunate choice of names. It sounds lefty. We need to convince conservatives that non-interventionism is the authentic expression of conservatism, not contribute to their bias that it is leftist.

Italy Goes Gonzo

Italians have elections this coming weekend, and the Anglo press, to the extent it has an interest, is focused on the generally neocon, but popular in the paleosphere for his ties to Lega Nord, Berlusconi, as he seeks a Lazarus like return.

The  populist standard bearer is Beppe Grillo,  a television star, who is using modern technology, and campaign barnstorming in tandem.  The Ron Paul parallels are obvious.

Mr. Grillo is running on an ‘out of the EU’, repudiate the debt, expand Internet access, platform.

While not exactly Tea Party, the most interesting development was that this populist leader refused to join the antifa’s, or ‘anti-racists’ in Anglo terms, when it came to denouncing Casa Pound  (Casa Pound, Pound as in Ezra, being considered beyond the pale, fascist to polite company, of course.)   Good luck finding an Anglo-press article on this development–I can only offer a google translate.

Censorship and technology have such a ying yang relationship.

Internet metapolitics  had arrived  when Marie Le Pen visited Ron Paul back in April 2012–she went to see the Occupy folks right after.

Mr. Grillo, the latest to embody a very new political tradition.  God’s speed.

Speaking of Judge Napolitano for President

In a thread below, I said that I thought Rand Paul had disqualified himself from carrying the Paul mantle and that any Paulite candidate in 2016 was likely to come from the activist and/or punditry ranks because there are so few if any Paulite elected officials at the national level. I also said that the name I heard tossed around most often was Judge Andrew Napolitano who has really hitched his wagon to the Paulite “Revolution.” Well whaddaya know, a Judge Nap for President ad has been popping up on my Facebook page recently.

The site is “Paid for by The Committee to Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano for President. Not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.” And supporters are urged to go here to sign a petition to draft the Judge.

Judge Napolitano would be a good candidate IMO except for one thing, he is horrible on immigration. He has swallowed the ideological libertarian line that immigration is a “right.” This appeals to some purist libertarians who can’t see past their ideological noses, but it is a suicidal position. Current demographic trends already doom the GOP at the national level. Any libertarian who thinks we are going to have a country that is politically favorable to the “liberty movement” if those demographic trends accelerate is living in ideological la la land.

Todd Welch Loses Battle With Dunn County (WI) Republican Party

From the Wisconsin Campaign for Liberty website.

This Saturday February 2nd of 2013 the Dunn County Republican Party assembled at caucus voted 16 to 34 to deny my membership for being too Republican and holding Republican’s accountable to their principles and the constitution.

I call on all of my friends that believe in Liberty, Freedom, and the Constitution to join their local political party because the changes we all seek will only happen if we make them.

I vow that I will continue the fight for liberty, will continue to consider myself a Republican and will fight to regain my membership.

Read more…

Rand Paul Foreign Policy Speech Reactions

Rand Paul gave a speech on foreign policy today at the Heritage Foundation. He is clearly trying to split the difference. He isn’t going to please the neocon faithful. He isn’t going to please the hard-core non-interventionists. Can he please GOP primary voters? That remains to be seen. I”ll have more to say later, but I’m not impressed.

Here is Jim Antle’s article on the speech. Note the tweets from Justin Raimondo he cites. Justin is clearly not impressed.

Reason says Rand is clearly trying to distance himself from his father on foreign policy.

Neocon hawk Jennifer Rubin didn’t like it.

Update: Philip Giraldi is not impressed.

This is pre-speech, but Matt Welch at Reason is impressed.

 

More than just a game

Jack Hunter’s latest Southern Avenger article was critical of those who weren’t exactly enamored of Rand Paul’s recent statement concerning Israel and U.S. protection thereof if said nation was ever attacked.

Jack was critical of libertarians who tend to focus in one area of disagreement of the 20 areas of agreement. Well, if was just one thing I would agree. It is not I can assure you. It is multiple “things” that go all the way back to the campaign and beyond.

Continue reading

Some Alternate Opinions on Mali

Here are a couple of articles on Mali. I’m not picking on Patroon, I just wanted to counterbalance his post below.

Here are Ron Paul’s thoughts. He wants to know why there has been no Congressional approval for our actions in Mali.

There is a reason why the framers of our Constitution placed the authority to declare war strictly with the Legislative Branch of government. They knew well that kings were all too willing to go to war without the consent of those who would do the killing and dying — and funding. By placing that authority in Congress, the people’s branch of government, they intended to blunt the executive branch’s enthusiasm toward overseas adventurism. The consequences of this steady erosion of our system toward the unitary executive are dire.

Here is Philip Giraldi’s take. He seems to generally concur with Patroon’s take on the causes and potential implications of the rebel war in Mali, but he reaches a different conclusion about  the wisdom of intervention.

It is an all too typical situation wrapped in Washington’s ignorance that is just waiting to become the next crisis. The White House knows almost nothing about the militants in Mali and even less about what happened in Algeria. General Carter Ham, who heads the Army’s Stuttgart-based Africa Command, admits that it is difficult to get reliable intelligence about what he perhaps conveniently refers to as the terrorist “safe haven” in Mali. The New York Times notes that Washington has only an “impressionistic understanding” of the militants involved. The perceived wisdom mandating the suppression of insurgencies everywhere coupled with the belief that all militancies tend to metastasize creates a U.S. interest in Africa that might not be credible. The fall of Timbuktu to extremists who have a local agenda does not actually threaten the United States and the ability of such groups to strike the U.S. is nil, so one might well plausibly decide that Washington has no real interest in Mali at all. Based on the performance of the Malian Army, one would also have to conclude that Africa Command is possibly not worth the time, money, and effort that is being committed to it in support of an agenda that continues to be somewhat opaque.

Rand Paul Has Officially Sold Out on Israel

This is outrageous. Rand is now officially off the list of potentially acceptable 2016 candidates. His dad needs to put that boy over his knee and give him a good whipping and send him to his room.

“…absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and I think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United Sta tes.”

Read more…

We really need to start to identify potential candidates who can carry the non-interventionist banner in 2016, because Rand Paul is not one of them.