AndÂ criticizesÂ the ADL while he is at it. Apparently the ADL is getting in on the Ron Paul bashing act.
Of course the ADL’s real objective here is to force a candidate whom they see as theirideological enemy (once again, much more a matter of the eye of the beholder than of any character flaw their enemy may possess) to do a little dance for them whenever they feel like it. They want to push him through the ceremonial meat-slicer of renunciation, regret, and remorse that so many others have been pushed through in recent years. The trouble is that, like every other form of blackmail, it never ends. The instant he complies with their demands, he becomes their property, their toy, their organ-grinder’s monkey, no longer a threat to the anti-Constitutional establishment they are part of.
Zelman hitsÂ the nailÂ on the head. The problem with responding to the charges of guilt by association and demands to renounce this person or that organization or that website is thatÂ the charge is likeÂ the Tar Baby. The more you try to fight it, the more you get stuck. Let’s say he returns the money from the Stormfront guy and denounces Stormfront. Well then why isn’t he denouncing Amren? Why isn’t he denouncing the 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Does that mean he agrees with them? It will never stop.
Personally, I would issue a statement about what I believe without denouncing anyone in particular, and then move own. It is very clear what Ron PaulÂ believes so that shouldn’t be necessary, but it might be best to do it anyway.Â Then the guilt by association smearsÂ will just seem slimy, underhanded and desperate.
Pat hits the nail on the head as per usual in his latest column on Chronicles website: Democracy Versus Security.
Good article here on the Ron Paul smear brigade.
All this buzz, however, has generated a counter-buzz, a sinister stream of smears and jeers coming from both Right and Left. What’s instructive is how similar these attacks are in their viciousness, and, in the case of the “serious” mainstream critics, their juvenility. Whether coming from the liberal and ostensibly antiwar Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly and Matt Yglesias of The Atlantic, or from some neocon hack over at the Weekly Standard, the “Ron-is-crazy” meme is being furiously pushed upstream against the raging current of the Paul phenomenon â€“ so far, to little avail. He’s a “fruitcake,” sniffs Drum, and the beat is taken up by Yglesias, who chimes in with charges of “extremism.” The Weekly Standard takes it a bit further, and, with its characteristic snark, dubs Ron the “don’t tase me, bro!” candidate, complete with an illustration of Paul being hustled off the stage by uniformed thugs â€“ which is what they’d like to do to all of their political opponents.
David Weigel was absolutely right when he predicted it months ago, although the trepidation in his tone was, I think, unwarranted. Yes, the smears are getting really ugly, but precisely because of that the Smear Bund is generating a pro-Paul backlash, particularly among those who consider themselves liberals of the old school. Glenn Greenwald, whose popular “Unclaimed Territory” blog was claimed by Salon a while back, has risen as Ron’s champion on the Left: Paul’s is “a campaign that defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be,” he writes. Greenwald “gets it,” in a way that shows his own awareness of the change liberalism is undergoing, as it faces the all-out assault of the neocons and the War Party on every front.
Let’s hope he is right that these attacks will backfire and make Paul seem more sympathetic. I think that remains to be seen. What is certain is that Paul’s defenders need to stay vigilant defending him from these shameless critics.
â€œTo pretend that somehow Mexicans or Americans are immune to attachment to land, to custom, to language and to culture — that they do not possess patriotic instincts and ethnic attachments is fanciful wishful thinking. Mexican and American people are human — and they will behave as all other peoples everywhere in all of human history, in predictable ways. Why on earth would we want to create the conditions in the American Southwest or for that matter all across America, for future civil strife, or in a worst case scenario, civil war? We have heard the “reconquista” diatribe all our adult lives. As the numbers swell to tens of millions, the “reconquista” doesn’t sound as fanciful as it once did. Just check out the Web site for La Voz de Aztlan.â€ ~ Ron Maxwell, director of Gods and Generals
I just came across this gem. Itâ€™s worth reading in its entirety.
Wow. I am stunned to see this in print. I wonder what the reaction will be?
Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn’t “the same as ours.” “Racist, vicious and unsupported by science,” said the Federation of American Scientists. “Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence,” declared the U.S. government’s supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied “that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn’t a scientific leg to stand on.”
I wish these assurances were true. They aren’t. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
This is a useful rebutal of Mona Charen’s Ron Paul smear job, but it is not without some serious flaws. Radley gets all PC himself and slimes the Council of Conservative Citizens and Southern Partisan.
I suspect that Radley Balko is a leftist libertarian. But this first paragraph is good.
My colleague Dave Wiegel calls it “Ron Paul Derangement Syndrome,” and there certainly seems to be something to it. Here you have a Republican running for president who’s actually serious about downsizing the federal government, who gives a damn about individual rights, and who understands that big government overseas breeds big government at home, and reaction from the Beltway right is to dismiss the guy with eye rolls, patronizing lectures about “seriousness,” and lame ad hominem attacks.
Some news on the secession front from the Middlebury Institute:
In the shameful tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Ted Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton, hereâ€™s yet another politician claiming his enhanced sense of morality somehow trumps the law of the land:
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
â€œItâ€™s the logic of the Civil War,â€ Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. â€œIf morality is the point here, and if itâ€™s right or wrong, not just a political question, then you canâ€™t have 50 different versions of whatâ€™s right and whatâ€™s wrong.â€
â€œFor those of us for whom this is a moral question, you canâ€™t simply have 50 different versions of whatâ€™s right,â€ he said in an interview on â€œFox News Sunday.â€
Whatever Huckabee might have once been, his record reveals that of a pagan worshipping at the altar of the secular, globalist, superstate.Â
This is how the warfare state treats some its most patrioic citizens.
Of course, it’s not as thought the Feds already own plenty of land in Colorado and out West that they could use for training purposes. They just want more.
The blog postÂ is about all the GOP candidates. The offending paragraphsÂ are here.
Ron Paul is a tempting protest vote, and I did support him in 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian, but he strikes me as running less of a “libertarian” campaign than a pacifist, populist campaign that does have some appeal to young and idealistic libertarians, but has too much appeal to the old, paranoid, and racist pseudo-conservatives. There seems to be a right-wing version of the Popular Front mentality among many Paul supporters: just like it was okay for Social Democrats to ally with Stalinists for “Progressive” ends in the old days, it’s okay to ally with 9/11 and various other conspiracy theorists, southern secessionists, Nazis and fascists, anti-Semites and racists, against the common enemy of the modern “welfare-warfare” state. Count me out!…
UPDATE: Not surprisingly, I’ve heard from some Paul supporters urging me to reconsider. Also not surprisingly, none of them have provided any indication that my description of the Paul coalition is inaccurate, or that Paul has gone out of his way to discourage support from the conspiracy-mongers and “white nationalists.”
Note that southern secessionists are lumped in with the rest of the laundry list. So support of a political tactic of disunion and decentralization has also become a thought crime?
As we have explained at length, it is obvious why people of many persuasions who oppose the current Regime are supporting Ron Paul even though they don’t agree with him on some things. Ron Paul is the only candidate who threatens the current Regime. Hence, the hysterical reaction from the shills for the “mainstream.”
Evangelical scholar Wayne Grudem explains himself here. There is so much wrong with this politically and theologically that I don’t even know where to start. This really deserves a full length article in response. Briefly, Grudem seems to say that evangelical Christians should support Romney because it would prove to their critics that they are not the closed minded religious bigots that their detractors claim they are.
Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a â€œChristian nationâ€ and only want evangelical Christians in office.
Ugh! With friends like this, who needs enemies? Instead of arguing with our detractors based on first principles, we should just give in to them.
IMO, evangelicalism is correct on the fundamentals of the Faith, but is intellectually bankrupt. They believe they can conserve the fundamental Christian doctrine “once delivered to all the saints,” while at the same time adopting entirely liberal ideas about what constitutes a good and Christian social order. It won’t work, as the last hundred plus years in this country have clearly demonstrated.
Unlike the simple-minded anti-intervention and anti-foreign aid equals anti-Jew and anti-Israel silliness proposed by the author linked to below, this author makes some sense.
He argues that American foreign aid and other support of Israel has tied Israel’s hands in dealing with her neighbors.
The Republican Jewish Coalition (a fervent supporter of the Bush administration, which it claims is a great friend of Israel) refused to invite Dr. Paul to its candidates forum because he opposes aid to Israel. But, as we can see, Dr. Paul’s position is based upon a principled, modest, non-interventionist foreign policy – not upon anti-Zionism. Indeed, in a way, his foreign policy is mirrored by his small government domestic policy. Both recognize there are real limits to what a government can usefully do.
Via the Lew Rockwell blog.
Well it looks like one of the leaders of Jews for Ron Paul has some identity issues. I guess Ron Paul is personally responsible for this fellow’s independent effort according to the smear bund. They know they can’t smear the man himself so they go for a little guilt by association.
Here is a line from the article.
The simple reality is that the Ron Paul campaign is Anti-Jewish and Anti-Israel…
Get that? If you are across the board anti-intervention on foreign policy and across the board anti-foreign aid, then you are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. Do you think these smear artists really believe such drivel?
Hat tip to Weaver.
“I am deeply disappointed by how Charles Johnson has handled this situation. It was dishonest when he presented the Vlaams Belang in Belgium as refusing to denounce the Holocaust. The truth is that the European Union is directly responsible for much of the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe, both by importing Muslims and by appeasing Jihad at home and abroad. The EU hardly cares about live Jews, certainly not about dead ones. The Holocaust is shamelessly exploited as an excuse for creating an artificial superstate and above all for imposing restrictions on free speech for everybody who wants to oppose this project. Thatâ€™s what the VB objected to in this case…. Splitting Belgium, the ideological and geographical heart of the EU, is the policy of the Vlaams Belang. This would contribute significantly to undermining the EU and, by extension, Eurabia.” ~ Fjordman
To continue Harrison Bergon’s previous post, Norwegian blogger, Fjordman, has left Little Green Footballs. Rather, the neocons there closed his account for his support of Vlaams Belang. It is rather disconcerting that for the neocon it is fine to wage endless war in the Middle East but if a true patriot like Fjordman wants to combat the invasion of his homeland, well, it isn’t allowed.
The neocon motto seems to be: Endless war in the Middle East, Asia for Asians, Africa for Africans, Mexico for Mestizos, Europe for Arabs, and the U.S. for Everyone.
After months of saying that he won’t run, Lou Dobbs posted commentary on his website last week saying there will be a surprise candidate in November.
I don’t agree with Dobbs on everything, but heâ€™s dead right when it comes to his opposition to immigration, free trade, and the neocon war in Iraq. And he is so popular (his show is the #2 news program in the nation), he could actually cause a political realignment in one of the major parties (or in a new party) along the issues of immigration, free trade and the war. In a Barack Clinton vs. Rudolph McRomney race, the choice of Lou Dobbs would be a no brainer.
Hat Tip: Paul Streitz
One of the beauties of our democracy is that political factions, no matter how scary, are enticed to promote candidates rather than to resort to violence. Political disputes are handled peacefully.
Out of curiosity I visited stormfront.org to discover why it backs Ron Paul (a libertarian, its ideological antithesis) for the Presidency. The reasons given in post after post are best summed up by Continue reading
Rudy Giuliani continues to associate with a priest, credibly accused not only of molesting young boys, but of being involved in covering up not only his own crimes but those of other priests that have molested young boys.
Read more about it at Lone Star Times.
I can’t say I’m surprised considering the type who support Giuliani in my state of South Carolina.
The Daily Paul blog has the story.
This thing is snowballing on them. They can no longer control it, and they know it.
Editor’s Note: There are a couple of different versions of this story floating around on the web including contradictory versions from people who claimed to have been there.
This attempted smearÂ is pathetically weak. Especially the first point. Ron Paul really has them concerned. I don’t think they think he can win the nomination, but they do fear that he can change the dynamic on the right. The neocons will no longer be the only ones who can call the shots about what is and is not acceptable discourse.
A really bad idea has been gaining currency among Americaâ€™s political class: a “Marshall Plan for Mexico”â€”a massive transfer of U.S. taxpayer money to Mexico in the guise of foreign aid. A Google search shows more than 200,000 references….. “North America” is [Vicente] Fox’s favorite new term for uniting the continent in a way that pipelines massive funds to Mexico by ripping off the American taxpayer. Fox also removed any hope that this proposed North American Union was a delusion of loony right-wing conspiracy theorists by admitting to it openly on CNN’s Larry King Showâ€”including his desire that a continental currency replace the national currencies. ~ Brenda Walker
TheyÂ are alreadyÂ driving to bankruptcyÂ the hospitals and public schools along the border. Let’s give them even more money.