Monthly Archives: August 2011

Thomas Fleming on the Ron Paul Story or Lack Thereof

Dr. Fleming discussed the lack of media attention that the Ron Paul campaign is getting.

The article is surprisingly deferential to Paul, and I don’t mean that as a swipe at Dr. Fleming. I mean that Fleming usually has little use for libertarian ideologues and even less use for the modern political process, so I was a bit surprised to see something this deferential.

What I have noticed a lot recently is that many people, left, right and center, are starting to give Paul grudging respect. That he is the “last honest man” in Washington or that he “calls it as he sees it” are frequent comments you might see coming from people who don’t necessarily agree with his politics.

In this way Paul is starting to remind me of Ralph Nader - whatever you think of Nader’s politics, you respect him. He is a hard man to dislike. Likewise, rational, dispassionate people tend to respect Paul regardless of what they think of his politics. It is the emotional stakeholders in the system left and right (stakeholders in interventionism, three-legs-of-the-stoolism, anti-racism, Lincoln fetishism, etc.) who react so viscerally to Paul.

The GOP Establishment vs the Tea Party in New Hampshire

The Establishment wing of the GOP is threatening to throw out the Tea Party affiliated state chairman in New Hampshire. This could get ugly. There is much more to it, but one issue is that he signed a petition to allow the Libertarian Party on the ballot. As a matter of propriety, the acting GOP Chair should probably not sign a petition to get another party on the ballot, but as a matter of basic fairness and decency no Dem or Rep Chair should oppose equal ballot access. Differential ballot access rules for “third parties” is the most blatant example of power politics I know of, and it should shame decent people to be associated with it.

More Evidence Obama Did Not Write Dreams From My Father

Jack Cashill has come across another example of Obama’s early writing that demonstrates further, as if any additional evidence is needed, that Obama did not write Dreams From My Father.

I really wish that PJ Foggy and Dr. Conspiracy and all the other prominent debunkers would come on here and state categorically that they think Obama wrote Dreams. I don’t think they’ll do it because I think they KNOW good and well he didn’t. They may be apologists, but they are not stupid.

Update: Lew Rockwell is running this story on his frong page today (1 Sep). This should bring it to the attention of a different set of readers.

Warmongers love MLK

Charles Krauthammer’s latest column on MLK is an embarrassing, gushy love letter to the Empire’s official mascot.

Krauthammer swoons that Martin Luther King, Jr., is part of the “greatest cohort of political thinkers ever.” And it gets worse. In Krauthammer’s fevered imagination, MLK is “miraculous,” a “prophet” who possesses a “supremely nuanced, creative, humane soul.”

Really, Charles? A man who hired prostitutes, plagiarized, and consorted with known communists?

Sadly, yes. Krauthammer means it. But let’s not forget his motives, which are to pretty up the Empire’s bloody crusades. He was one of the most vocal supporters of Bush’s illegal and idiotic invasion of Iraq. Krauthammer’s latest project is to rally Americans to invade and overthrow Iran, another country that has not threatened us.

You see, to Charles Krauthammer, as well as to lesser-known pro-war, any-war cheerleaders, it’s not militarism, but a “freedom agenda,” taking King’s “civil rights” crusade on the road, so to speak. What cynics (like me!) dismiss and despise as an out-of-control military-industrial complex is portrayed by the Empire’s apologists as a force for global liberation.

King is the face of a dying empire that thinks it can still create a world government under its domination. No wonder the King monument is festooned with quotes from the Great Man himself urging Americans to “develop a world perspective” and “develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole.”

My problem with King and with militarism is that both aim to boost big government at the expense of our liberty. So no wonder the two are in cahoots together.

VDare is back up

VDare is back up…with a pleasant redesign.  I didn’t dislike the design of the old site as much as other people seemed to dislike it, but the new site is quite an improvement:  clean, elegant, easy to navigate.  VDare is without doubt one of the best three political webzines in existence.  Add it to your daily reading.

The real Left wing threat to Obama

The real left wing threat to President isn’t a primary challenge from someone in his own party like Bernie Sanders, Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich. The real threat comes from Leftists who will support Ron Paul if the latter has a chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Indeed, it may be why more attacks are coming Paul’s way like today at the Washington Monthly or at AlterNet or  from Steve Kornacki at Salon or from Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. Apparently they don’t want Leftists or checking Paul out and perhaps liking what they at least have in common. Maybe they don’t want them voting for Paul in open primaries (of which their are 18 in which independents and or Democrats can vote in for a grand total of 874 delegates) to help Paul win the GOP nomination which would really put President Obama in a tight spot being the pro-war, pro-big bank candidate (and probably getting the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh on top of that). No, they don’t want this to happen.

Here are some Left win voice sympathetic to Ron Paul from Glenn Greenwald  and Charles Davis over at Counterpunch. And there’s the Facebook page “Blue Republican”

In Search of Anti-Semitism II – The Jeffery Lord hit piece on Ron Paul

Jeffery Lord‘s ridiculous piece in the American Spectator cannot be taken seriously as an intellectual argument.  Using an early 1980s term which once described Democrats like Gary Hart and Paul Tsongas  and which came to fruition in the Clinton/Blair era to try and make Ron Paul be the “other”, as it were in our modern politics, has nothing to do with trying to make people think. But Lord knows this as well as anyone because it is not his intention to make a cohesive argument for opinion makers. Instead he is making a political argument with a specific purpose in mind. He is trying to discourage the presumably conservative readers of the magazine and others who will read the article online from even considering Paul as a second or third choice among many, but to rule him out completely. And he is doing so with similar tactics one finds by reading SPLC manifestos or listening to Cultural Marxian critics within the academe.

Then again, being “politically correct” has never been the sole discretion of Left. It is a tactic which can be employed by any ideologue of any persuasion wishing to damage a political opponent or cause or movement by separating the candidate or activists as individuals and making them part of something bigger, more sinister in its design by either the company they keep, intentional or not; by what they’ve written, even if out of context or long ago (or in the case of Ron Paul not at all) and by their supposed place in history and what they connect back to. Lord employed the entire arsenal in order to go after Paul and no doubt the people who published this article thought they were getting “In Search of Anti-Semitism II” referring back to infamous essay written by National Review founder and editor William F. Buckley whose basic design, like Lord’s, was to forever connect Buchanan with fever swamps of anti-Jewish conspiracy mongers regardless that Buchanan, the so-called extremist, worked for two Presidents, had a syndicated column and was a pundit for many media shows.

Buckley’s smears did not keep Buchanan from the mainstream (although that wasn’t true for Joe Sobran)  anymore than Lord’s load of filth will affect Ron Paul’s impact on politics. But having insulted the Lord’s piece from being anything worth reading, I wish to dwell upon it if only to marvel at the obsession those within the “conservative establishment” (or as I have called it “Conservative INC.“) with anything which has to deal with the state Israel and or anti-Semitism. Like the Left when it comes to race, those who would call themselves conservatives seem to have their ears more wide open on this topic than anything else.

Continue reading

Breaking News: Ron Paul Places Second in Georgia Straw Poll

It’s breaking news because I was there. :-)

Herman Cain beat Paul by three votes.

The Atlanta Journal – Constitution has the results.

– Herman Cain, 232 or 26 percent;

– Ron Paul, 229 or 25.7 percent;

– Rick Perry, 179 or 20 percent;

– Newt Gingrich, 162 or 18 percent;

– Mitt Romney, 51 or 6 percent;

– Michele Bachman, 29 or 3 percent;

– Rick Santorum, 4 or .4 percent

– Jon Huntsman, 3 or .3 percent;

– Thad McCotter, 1 or .1 percent;

– Buddy Roemer, 0;

– Gary Johnson, 0;

We Are Politics also covered the results.

Putting aside my Ron Paul supporter hat for a moment and putting on my analysis hat, Perry had  little presence on the ground, so I suspect that a lot op people who didn’t come to vote for a specific person voted for Perry. Perry seems to have really hurt Bachmann and Romney. He is taking “conservative alternative” space from Bachmann and “establishment” space from Romney. Herman Cain and Ron Paul clearly had the best ground game at the poll. Newt Gingrich was the only candidate who personally appeared, so his 4th place finish seems disappointing.

Now back on with the Ron Paul supporter hat.

Update: They’re talking about the results at Peach Pundit.

More on the Paul, Lord, Levin, Hunter, Church etc. Internet Brawl

Mike Church responded to Levin on Facebook.

Mark Levin responds here.

Then Church responds here.

Mark Levin’s response is further evidence of what a nasty piece of work he is. It lacks nearly any real substance. It is mostly gotcha, guilt by association grandstanding PC rightthink enforcement that would make the Cultural Marxist at the SPLC blush. It is also grandstanding EC (Establishment correct) and CWC (conventional wisdom correct) rightthink enforcement.

I simply can not understand what motivates any red-blooded male to play this role. It’s just icky. You might as well tattoo “No unapproved thought” on your forehead. (I actually can understand what motivates it. What I can’t understand is how any self-respecting man can diminish himself by agreeing to the role.)

Jeffrey Lord – Another Paul Hater

I had held off on commenting on this dust-up in conservative webdom because I commented in the replies to the article, and after fighting the same battle over and over again I just get emotionally exhausted. Some people are just not educable, and it is a waste of time and bandwidth to continue to argue with them.

But since it has blown up even more and become a story of its own, I guess I should cover it for thoroughness sake.

Yesterday Jeffrey Lord wrote this sloppy hatchet piece that appeared on American Spectator. As of this morning it had nearly 600 comments. Now the comments appear to have been taken down. I don’t know if they became too overwhelming in number or just too rancorous. Hopefully AmSpec will explain.

Then today AmSpec posted a reply from Jack Hunter and a reply to the reply by Jeffrey Lord. (189 comments at the time of this posting.)

This morning Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods appeared on the Mike Church show to discuss the Lord article. (Gutzman also corrected some of Lord’s faulty history in the comments section of the original article before comments were taken down.)

Today Mark Levin posted this attack on Hunter and all things Paul on his Facebook page.

There is simply too much here to cover so I will just allow our readers to click on the links and see for themselves. I will note that Mark Levin is an unusually nasty piece of work. He says that Lord makes “mincemeat” of Hunter. This is delusional. Hunter destroys Lord. I know I’m biased, but I think any unbiased observer would easily recognize that Hunter gets the better of the argument. Hunter is calm and rational. Lord’s reply is emotional and quickly resorts to spurious attempts to smear. Levin as well does not argue the substance of the debate at all, whether non-interventionism is a conservative policy. He goes immediately to frothing smear mode. He even calls Woods a lightweight. This too is delusional. Levin clearly does not like to have “conservative” interventionist groupthink criticized and his defense of choice appears to be attack instead of rational intellectual discourse.

Here is Jack’s Facebook reply to Levin:

Mark Levin, you can write Facebook posts, trash me on the air, trash Tom Woods, call me a sissy, use surrogates to attack me or Congressman Paul in different forums–but the one thing you will not do is debate me. Ever. Sean Hannity deserves credit for allowing different guests on, even when he disagrees them. Levin is still afraid to step foot outside his bunker.

Here is Jack’s comment introducing his AmSpec reply.

Note that in Lord’s response, he simply asserts that Paul’s foreign policy is still “leftist,” ignoring that I note that everyone from Bill Buckley to Jack Kemp disagreed.

I made this same observation in my comment. Lord essentially says Ron Paul’s foreign policy is liberal because it is.

Now have fun with the links.

Update: Jack Hunter has written this follow up on Facebook.


Daily Reading & Open Thread

James Kirkpatrick looks at Rick Perry and the religious right.

Zero Hedge asks whether the gold scramble has begun now that Venezuela is pulling gold reserves from US and UK.

Dennis Mangan discusses black vs. Chinese fight at basketball game in China.  Irish Savant comments on the fight.

Thomas Fleming writes about jerks in arrested development.

Pat Buchanan asks why Obama is trying to start a war with Russia.

C’est human biodiversity en francais.

ECB looks at the real unemployment in the US and what Obama is doing to make it worse (e.g. importing more cheap labor).

Srdja Trifkovic discusses the Libyan endgame.

Richard Spencer notes that the US involvement in Libya signifies the death throes of empire.

Chris Brand discusses the London riots.

Rep. Lamar Smith calls Obama’s work permit policy a backdoor amnesty.

BBC reports on a new genetic study that showing that Europeans have been living in Europe for 40,000 years.

The Inductivist points to a poll showing Ron Paul could beat Obama.

One Radical observes that the Rush Limbaugh show has become ridiculous on immigration.

One STDV notes how accusations of “racism” are becoming simply absurd.

Classics Corner:

Heather Mac Donald: “The Immigrant Gang Plague

Bubba “Phillips,” R.I.P.

My faithful English Bulldog, Bubba, passed away today. He would have been 11 on the 31st which is old by Bulldog standards. He had all the typical Bulldog quirks. He slobbered. He huffed and puffed. He snored. He was territorial with his food. And he thought he could whip every other dog regardless of their size. But he was a good dog. Sweat and loving and still followed you around like a puppy. He will be greatly missed.

He hadn’t been doing well recently, and I knew he didn’t have much time.I’m sure he had developed what in people we call heart failure, which is a risk in Bulldogs. So his passing comes as no big surprise, but you are never entirely ready.

Farewell Bubba. You were a good dog. 31 Aug 2000 – 22 Aug 2011. May he rest in peace.

The US Navy – A Global Force for Good?

Over the weekend I was watching a television program that was sponsored by the US Navy, thus I was inundated with ads exclaiming the Navy’s new slogan: “America’s Navy: a Global Force for Good.”

“A global force for good?” Seriously? Have neocons taken over advertising and image making as well as policy? Is this seriously supposed to sway the wavering potential enlistee? If it is just about “accelerating his life” (the old slogan) then maybe not. But if it is about being part of “a global force for good” then were can he sign? What is the Navy now? The Peace Corp at sea?

Call me old fashioned, but I thought the purpose of the US Navy was the protection of America and our proximate vital national interests, not playing globo cop. When I argue with interventionists they often object that they have no interest in policing the world, they just want to respond to potential threats to America. The problem is they see every little conflict in every little backwater or dust bin around the world as a potential threat. (Look at the situation in Syria and all the interventionists clamoring for the US to “do something” as a current example.) But the Navy’s new slogan undermines their objections. The Navy is clearly advertising itself as something other than a defensive force. If I was an interventionist I would be telling the Navy to shut the hell up. Don’t they realize this playing globo cop thing is supposed to be on the down low? How can interventionists continue to maintain plausible deniability with the Navy’s own image people blaring the truth?

Daily Reading & Open Thread

Ferdinand Bardamu asks whether HBD and free-market capitalism are incompatible.

Russian senator blames London riots on multiculturalism and immigration.

Al Fin discusses global atrophy and the coming idiocracy and notes problems with peak oil theory.

Michael Levin writes about the evolution of differences in morality.

The WSJ notes that white voters are fleeing Obama.

Nick Griffin claims he predicted the London riots in 2008 (but no one listened).

Audacious Epigone traces the popularity of term ‘isolationism’.

NumbersUSA asks why the Obama regime wants to give illegal aliens work permits.

Spain is paying Third World immigrants to leave (which, in the long term, is cheaper than allowing them to stay).

Larry Arnhart notes that even before evolution Aristotle saw the roots of human behavior in animal behavior.

Dienekes discusses breaking down intelligence to environmental and genetic components.

Peter Frost argues that evolutionary psychology must undergo paradigm shift since recent evolutionary adaptations did not occur in all human populations.

FAIR notes that the Obama regime has in effect just issued an (illegal) executive order amnesty.

Irish Savant points out the BBC’s poor reporting on the London riots.

Dennis Mangan reports that the NYSE is suppressing price information to attempt to curb sell offs.

Srdja Trifkovic notes that things are heating up in the Middle East.

ECB lists 20 signs that we’re headed for an economic apocalypse in 2012.

Richard Spencer points out Daily Show video showing MSM ignoring Ron Paul.

Classics Corner:

J Enoch Powell: “Rivers of Blood

John Hawkins – Another Paul Hater

I am going to highlight typical Paul critics, as I did below with Judson Phillips, when I run across them and have the time. I am on A LOT of e-mail lists. (If I ever don’t reply to your e-mail it is probably because it got buried under a bunch of e-mails before I got to it.) One site that sends me e-mails is Conservative Byte. Normally it is typical stuff, but yesterday I got one that caught my attention. The subject line read “The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul” so I clicked on it. The Conservative Byte’s story is an excerpt from a TownHall column by John Hawkins. The column looked familiar to me, which it was because it is from 2007, and I am sure I saw it at that time. My first question was why is Conservative Byte sending an e-mail touting a column from 2007? To me that suggests an agenda.

To be clear, Ron Paul is not above criticism. As a conservative of the paleo persuasion, I think there are a lot of problems with philosophical libertarianism, but I also recognize them as co-belligerents against a common enemy, the modern state. But it should be pointed out by fair critics that Paul’s brand of paleolibertarianism is more compatible with authentic conservatism than is other forms of often God rejecting libertarianism. And the political application of Paul’s paleolibertarianism, which is rigorous Constitutionalism, is entirely conservative in effect.

It would take considerable time to respond to Hawkins’ article point by point so here is what I wrote in the comments section. Some additional thoughts follow.

First of all, this article is from 2007. Why is Conservative Byte highlighting it now?

Second, Hawkins should be ashamed of himself. NO SELF-RESPECTING CONSERVATIVE should ever play grandstanding liberal Political Correctness thought enforcer as Hawkins does in #4. I expect that kind of Cultural Marxist nonsense from the SPLC, not from alleged “conservatives.”

Third, I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I have less use for grandstanding anti-conspiracy theorists than I do the most outrageous conspiracy theorists. This is a shameless mainstream establishment attempt to purge and shut down wayward thought. Heaven forbid somebody somewhere have a stray non-establishment approved thought. It is the same dynamic that motivates the PC grandstanding on race I mentioned above. And memo to Mr. Hawkins: the North American Union is not a conspiracy. It is a documented fact. This is easily discovered by this thing some of us call research.

Forth, interventionism IS NOT conservative. Non-interventionism is the foreign policy that flows from an authentic conservative mindset. Mr. Hawkins needs a lesson in political philosophy 101.

Even if I was a PC anti-racist ideologue and conspiracy phobic, I could never bring myself to publicly grandstand about it. Playing thought enforcer for the establishment just feels icky to me. I’m sure Hawkins is a decent guy. I’m sure we agree on much. He is even my Facebook friend. I just don’t see how anyone who imagines himself as against the establishment, as mainstream conservatives usually do, could think it is helpful to play thought policer for said establishment.

Also, I am not a philosophical libertarian so I do not agree with the idea that people have an inherent “right” to use drugs or utilize prostitutes. I think legalizing drugs would have disastrous consequences. But it is not enough for conservative critics of Paul to simply say he is a libertarian and wants to legalize drugs. The political application of Paul’s libertarianism, as I state above, is rigorous Constitutionalism. Therefore the effect of Paul’s politics would be to return drug laws to the state and local level where they should be. The Constitution nowhere authorizes drug laws at the federal level. This is why we had to amend the Constitution to ban alcohol. Any conservative who supports federal drug laws despite no Constitutional authority for them can not call themselves a Constitutionalist and has not right to object to the individual mandates in Obamacare, for example, on enumerated powers grounds.

My first recall of Hawkins, who runs Right Wing News, was a debate I had with him and others at Right Wing News about Lincoln, the War Between the States, and secession. I don’t recall the exact context, but I recall those topics being debated. Predictably Hawkins was pro-Union, pro-Lincoln and anti-secession. This centralist mindset goes along entirely with Hawkins’ interventionism. You see, how could the US play its “role” as global maintainer of order if it was divided into two or more parts? A Lincoln style central Union is essential to the interventionist enterprise. This mindset is consistent. It makes sense. It flows together. There is just one problem for Hawkins. It is NOT CONSERVATIVE. As I said, Hawkins needs a lesson in political philosophy 101. Non-interventionism is the foreign policy that naturally flows from an authentic conservative mindset. The idea that the US  is uniquely responsible for maintaining global order is an ideological imposition that has more in common with Jacobins or global Marxist ideologues than it does with conservatives.

Also, at the time of this posting the Conservative Byte article is up to 458 comments. On course not all of them are supportive of Paul. Paul brings out the haters as well as his supporters. But many of them are supportive. This illustrates the dynamic I mentioned with Judson Phillips below. Mainstream conservatives who think they can brush aside Paul with simple-minded hit-pieces are mistaken. It is no longer 2007, and the conservative playing field has changed.

Articles for your consideration

I wrote  this in the comments sections on a post on the The Washington Monthly website. I hope you all like it.

Some more articles:

Representation, Secession and Taxation  by SARTRE at BATR.

“Welcome to the New Weimar” by J.J. Jackson at Liberty Roberts

“The Media are Paid to Lie for the State” by Scott Lazarowitz at Lew

“C.S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism “ on Front Porch Republic

Three Martyrs by Philip Jenkins at TAC

Do you really want this man to be your President?


Take a good look at this picture.

Yeah, it scared the hell out of me too.

It reminded me of this:

Okay, now maybe that’s a little too extreme. But what you have here is a man who is known to say anything, do anything and be anything to win higher office. It may be politics to some but hopefully, as in the case with Tim Pawlenty, people will see it for what it is.

And to have this man, sadly, be the face of our country for the next four years?


More on the Paul Ames Media Blackout

The media blackout of Ron Paul’s impressive 2nd place finish in the Ames Straw Poll must be pretty obvious, because a lot of people are noticing it.

See Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner.

If Paul had garnered 153 more votes on Saturday, winning the straw poll, you can be sure that every wrap-up story would have focused on the event’s irrelevance…

So, again, why doesn’t Paul get the attention he seems to deserve? Mostly because the mainstream media and the Republican establishment wish he would just go away.

Jim Antle has a article on how differently the press has treated Pawlenty vs. Paul.

And here is Jim Antle on Paul and the media.

And here Philip Klein tells us why the media is right to not take Paul seriously. Make sure you read the comments. Klein is getting brutalized.