Ron Paul throws principle to the wind and gives some free promotion to candidates who represent every kind of statist oppression.
Earlier this week Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC. His purpose was to announce that he was definitely not endorsing John McCain for the presidency and that he wanted to urge people to support third party candidates in the presidential election. On the stage with him were several candidates and political allies and representatives of groups Paul wanted to promote. They were Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and independent candidate Ralph Nader. Former Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura and John McManus, President of the John Birch Society were also there to lend support. Although invited, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr smelled a rat (in the tradition of Patrick Henry's response to the Constitutional Convention) and chose not to attend.…
Article comments
26 - Jordan Richardson
RUPAUL '08
27 - troll
RON PAUL '08
28 - Cade Thacker
Hi Dave,
[I tried to publish this but when I clicked "Publish" it said it was spam, so I removed some links, so you will just need to google some of the points I made]
[forgive any typos, I typed it quick and lightly proofed it]
I would like to thank you for the respectful response. I really enjoy having civil conversations, so I will return the favor.
I have to strongly disagree with this statement you made:
Bull. No one is ignoring the war. Both major candidates have well established positions on it. They also have clear positions on civil liberties, and neither of them is for taking them away, unlike the people Paul endorsed. And the federal reserve is not an issue.
Wrong. Read the statement that the gang of 4+1 made. The statement was *all* troops need to return home. Korea, Japan, Iraq, Europe, etc. I did not make that clear on my first post.
We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East.
The point was we needed to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy, instead of the isolationist foreign policy of the Bush administration. So yes, both major candidates have staked their position on Iraq, but I do believe that both candidates would not hesitate to escalate tensions with Iran, send more troops to Afghanistan, and escalate tensions with Russia which is actually happening now. Seriously, what does it matter to us if Russia invades Georgia. It is awful, but not our issue. Diplomacy is key. Now you have Palin saying that if Georgia was in Nato, then we would need to go to war with Russia to defend Georgia? Talk about a waste of our blood and treasure.
As per the civil liberties, you are right, they have clear positions that taking them away is not a big deal. I had some hope for Obama on this issue, but at the end, they both votes for the FISA bill. You can never say you are for civil liberties and then vote for that. Also, I do not hear either of them saying that the PATRIOT act needs to be heavily change, or the Military Commissions Act. Obama may hint at it, but the last thing he want to do, is show some guts about those laws. Instead he was dance around it to keep the Civil Liberties crowd somewhat at bay. But in the end he will go with the totalitarian answer. Big Brother is very happy.
As per the Federal Reserve, you need to do some reading, so here are some books to read. Seriously. I was also agnostic about the Federal Reserve until I started reading. Now I'm firmly convinced that it is one of that major sources of the demise of our country. Go and read:
The Case Against the Fed by Murray N. Rothbard
The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin.
The Edward book is a mouthful, but it is well documented.
Also did you know that a Central Bank was one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto?
If you read the 10 planks you will see that, sadly, we are already 100% on some, and have partially implemented most of the others. This bothers me terribly. As it should any liberty minded individual.
I guess in short, from your statement, it does not sound like the issues that Ron Paul raised really bother you the way they bother me, so that may be why you did not get the same reaction from the press conference that I did. I feel very strongly about these issues, so anytime they are raised, even if it is by people that I don't naturally agree with, I'm glad.
29 - spinnikerca
"I haven't lied to them repeatedly and taken their money under false pretenses. Maybe that will count for something."
Kindly cite a link to a single lie. Show where he took money under false pretenses. When I maxed out on his campaign, I turned management of that money over to him. I'm perfectly ok with how he used it, on an integrity point, although I know that between here and November I would have been riding an absolute high of political involvement had he stayed in the race. Would that have been worth losing his Texas seat? I don't know. With McCain or Obama in the white house, I think we need Ron Paul in congress more than ever.
30 - Clavos
instead of the isolationist foreign policy of the Bush administration.
That's a typo, right?
The Bush administration, is fighting a war in not one, but two countries. In what way is that "isolationist?"
31 - PainfullyAware
Things Are Bleak.
Anyone Advocating A Return Toward The Constitution Is An Ally.
Dave, You Will Full Understand In 2009 Just How Bad Things Have Become. To Give You A Clue.
When The "President's Working Group On Financial Markets" Stops Meddling After The Election The "Financial Engineering" Will Be Allowed To Unravel. Fractional Reserve Banking And Fiat Monetary Policy Bring About The Same Result In Every "Down Turn"; Consolidation Of Wealth And Power. There have been many cycles since its inception. Things will truly be dire for our children and descendants.
It Is Too Bad You Will Let Your Emotions Make Your Decisions For You. Emotions Make Bad Decisions And You Will Likely Misidentify A Symptom As The Cause Rather Than The Disease.
Divided We Fall Again.
I Wish More People Had Debated Ron Paul Rather Than Dismissed Him. Debate Is The Distillation Of Reality.
The Endorsement Was Ancillary. The Need For Debate With More Than Just Two Advocates Was The Real Message.
Sorry You Missed It And Chose To Focus On The "My Team VS Your Team". Labels Betray The Mentally Minuscule.
The Message Is More Important Than The Man.
May You Prosper In All Your Endeavors.
32 - Cade Thacker
September 12, 2008 @ 13:44PM " Clavos
instead of the isolationist foreign policy of the Bush administration.
That's a typo, right?
The Bush administration, is fighting a war in not one, but two countries. In what way is that "isolationist?"
====
Good question, in my mind, it was typed very specifically. War, by definition, is Isolationist. It divides the world into "you are either with us, or against us". I wish the world was that simple, but it just is not.
It comes back to how you view the use of the American Foreign policy and American Military around the world. I believe that the Iraq war was a mistake from the start. Now, some wars are necessary (WWII for example), but many are not (Most all of the rest of them).
I'm not a pacifist. We *must* defend ourselves. But we need a strong National Defense, Not and International Offense.
This is way to big a discussion for a blog post, but in short, when you start wars with countries that do not post a threat to our immediate national security, subvert the constitution in doing so, curtail civil liberties for the sake of the "good fight", then you isolate yourself and your country. I would hope that oneday we can return to the Switzerland that our Founding Fathers envisioned us to be rather than, search around the world for "monsters to destroy".
[America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
Full quote by John Quincy Adams
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821
33 - Ralph Nader Cynthia McKinney
(Ron Paul & Ralph Nader)
And what you say about his company
Is what you say about society.
Catch the mist, catch the myth
Catch the mystery, catch the drift.
(McKinney Gravel Kucinich Ventura Perot)
A modern-day warrior
Mean mean stride,
Todays tom sawyer
Mean mean pride.
[msm lip gloss]
34 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave once again you horribly mislead your readers (all 3 of them) and spew lies from your corrupted pie hole. None of the ideas that you talk about can exist if they support the 4 ideas listed below. <<
I agree. So they were either lying while they were there with Dr. Paul or they have been lying throughout the campaign and are lying on their websites. I go with the conclusion that they lied to Dr. Paul and since it is so absolutely obvious that they were lying and since he's not a stupid man, the only conclusion is that he accomodated and enabled the deception.
Dave at this point, I'm not sure if you just have a mental disorder or are outright evil. It has to be one of the two.
Well, someone has a delusional disorder, but it's not me.
Dave
35 - Don Jarrett
Ron Paul feels like a corncob in the asshole of a neocon.
36 - JP
What will Dave have to write about once this election is over with? The woody he has for Ron Paul never ceases to amaze me.
37 - Dave Nalle
[I tried to publish this but when I clicked "Publish" it said it was spam, so I removed some links, so you will just need to google some of the points I made]
I'm already intimately familiar with the issues you raise and the arguments for them. BTW, the comment system limits you to 2 links per comment because of the popularity of high link-content comment spam.
[forgive any typos, I typed it quick and lightly proofed it]
I have to strongly disagree with this statement you made:
Well, my statement was correct in the context which you presented. When it comes to total worldwide military withdrawal that's an entirely different issues.
Wrong. Read the statement that the gang of 4+1 made. The statement was *all* troops need to return home. Korea, Japan, Iraq, Europe, etc. I did not make that clear on my first post.
The problem I have with this, despite generally being for removing most or all of our overseas troops, is that the reason why McKinney and possibly Nader want troop withdrawal is that they want to remove the US as an impediment to the expansion of the power of transnational socialism. I'm against unnecessary troop deployments, but the moment I see McKinney wanting the troops brought home it makes me think that maybe we need to keep at least some of them where they are. She and the interests she is allied with are far more of a threat to the US than al Qaeda, all of Dr. Paul's conspiracy groups and George W. Bush put together.
The point was we needed to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy,
Why? Aside from the cost, which I agree is a concern, there's nothing in the constitution which prohibits a proactive foreign policy. Many of the founding fathers supported a proactive foreign policy. In the past some of our best presidents have done a great deal of good with proactive foreign policies. Admittedly some of our worst presidents (Wilson, Carter) have also done a lot of harm.
Non-interventionism is nothing but code for isolationism and for the kind of selfish, Randian libertarianism which abandons the principles of the founding fathers who believed that liberty was a universal good and tries to turn it into a privilege reserved for a chosen elite.
I agree we should bring all long-term deployments to an end, but I think we should still retain the ability and the will to support and encourage freedom and oppose oppression around the world.
Seriously, what does it matter to us if Russia invades Georgia. It is awful, but not our issue. Diplomacy is key.
Indeed, what does it matter if the whole world is enslaved and people are rendered down for their fat to make biodiesel. It's not happening HERE or to ME, so what does it matter. I have no responsibility to humanity. I'm a sovereign individual. If you need help, screw you. Your suffering doesn't diminish my pleasure at all.
You see, you're forgotten the basic axiom that freedom is inseparable from responsibility. You want the freedom but you don't want to accept the responsibility that comes with it. Read some Thomas Paine sometime.
As per the civil liberties, you are right, they have clear positions that taking them away is not a big deal.
You seem to have misunderstood me. Both McCain and Obama oppose diminishment of our civil liberties and Palin has actively spoken out against the PATRIOT Act.
I had some hope for Obama on this issue, but at the end, they both votes for the FISA bill. You can never say you are for civil liberties and then vote for that.
Sure you can. You can say anything you want and even mean it. Some people believe that the FISA act has no real impact on US citizens, even in its new and expanded form. There's always a tradeoff between civil liberties and security and McCain and Obama clearly feel that the risk of FISA is small enough to justify it. They don't agree with you that it's a violation of civil liberties.
Also, I do not hear either of them saying that the PATRIOT act needs to be heavily change, or the Military Commissions Act.
To be fair, the MCA was originally conceived as a way to expand the civil rights available to accused terrorists and enemy combatants and to a large extent it did accomplish that objective. The provisions which supposedly apply it to US citizens are debatable and unenforceable.
As per the Federal Reserve, you need to do some reading, so here are some books to read.
Oh please, I've read both of them. Rothbard is naive and reactionary and Griffin is just a fool. The Fed is not the problem. The mismanagement of the money supply is the problem.
Also did you know that a Central Bank was one of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto?
So William Paterson and Alexander Hamilton were communists? Quite an accomplishment for people who died before Marx published a single word. A central bank is an important element of any modern economy regardless of the particular economic system.
If you read the 10 planks you will see that, sadly, we are already 100% on some, and have partially implemented most of the others. This bothers me terribly. As it should any liberty minded individual.
As far as I can tell we've achieved two of them and it was done long ago before communism even existed, and we haven't made significant progress on any of the others since then.
If you have something against the Communist Manifesto - as you should - take a closer look at Cynthia McKinney. It's her platform and Ron Paul endorsed her.
Dave
38 - Cade Thacker
Great Discussion. Though we have probably reached the point were we agree to disagree.
I'll respond to one point.
Indeed, what does it matter if the whole world is enslaved and people are rendered down for their fat to make biodiesel. It's not happening HERE or to ME, so what does it matter. I have no responsibility to humanity. I'm a sovereign individual. If you need help, screw you. Your suffering doesn't diminish my pleasure at all.
You see, you're forgotten the basic axiom that freedom is inseparable from responsibility. You want the freedom but you don't want to accept the responsibility that comes with it. Read some Thomas Paine sometime.
One of the problems with your response is that it takes my response and runs to the extreme, therefore turning it into a strawman argument instead of an intellectual discussion. "Me: Drugs should be legal. You: So you are saying we should give weed to kindergartners?" Lets keep this reasonable and not talk about melting people down for biodiesel please. Read the part where I said said "Diplomacy is key.". So if I take your argument to a reasonable conclusion, then is Darfur a responsible place for intervention? How about Tibet? North Korea? How about Clinton's wars of the late 90s? Vietnam? Korea from the 50s? What about current day Albania? How about most of Central African countries that Americans can't even name? Zimbabwe? What about the Ossetia people? The Ossetia people voted twice to secede from Georgia and join Russia. So in theory we should side with them? In theory the Georgia government was being oppressive to their wishes. We are not the policeman of the world. There was and always will be evil in this world. If we make it our policy to go and conquer each and every one, then we will eventually fall apart as a nation. We will go broke. Tyranny is as old as human beings. Why do you think we can be so arrogant that we can stomp it out. If war is called for, then so be, but it should be called for by Congress through a proper declaration of war. (Not through the junk Congress pulled back in 2002 with Iraq).
In summary, I never said we should do *nothing* instead what I said was that "Diplomacy is key." We should exhaust every available option before going to war. And if the cause has no direct relation to the security of the United States, then I don't think we need to commit our "blood and treasures" unless it truly is a last resort, and even then, we should think long and hard about it.
I think sending our Secretary of State to talk with all parties ASAP is the correct position. But there is no need for saber rattling. We have no dog in the fight. Like I said in an earlier post, do you see Switzerland landing military ships in the Ossetia port with humanitarian supplies? I think not.
39 - Ryan
Dave,
The bottom line is that Paul is encouraging a vote against the establishment. They outlined those 4 points to show that there are issues that need to be covered by the media and debated before the public. Obviously each has their own way of how they would address each issue and all candidates want to talk about these issues to educate the public on why they are important and how they feel they should be addressed.
The point is that these issues are not being debated between the two major parties because there is hardly any distinction between them. Both believe in the same thing whether it be corporate welfare, domestic spying, pre-emptive strikes, military adventurism, or the president "managing" the economy just to name a few. Both parties are responsible for stifling debate and at this moment civil liberties, foreign policy, the federal reserve, and our deficit are the four major themes that are threatening the ruin of the US if left unaddressed.
It's not endorsing each candidate's extreme ideas but to pursuade voters to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. The desired result is to wake up the two parties and the media--the latter, I'm sure you'll agree, is atrocious when it comes to covering politics. It's unfortunate that our watchdog is nothing but a lap dog and pursues the most trivial stories that have nothing to do with the extreme challenges we face as a nation.
If American politics is being re-aligned, and I truly believe it will with Ron Paul's candidacy, then the first step is to vote against the establishment and that includes any 3rd party candidacy. Although I believe McKinney to be a loon and wrong on almost every issue she has supporters and hopefully they will vote for her rather than their choice of the lesser of two evils.
You would have to be a complete fool to believe that Ron Paul is endorsing the ideas of every third party cadidate. You can find the ideas that Paul endorses by viewing his consistent voting record for the past two decades.
40 - Don Jarrett
Cade Thacker:
Stop jabbing the corncob in Dave Nalle.
41 - Dave Nalle
You guys really don't get the implications of Paul's actions.
Anyone who even appeared on the stage with Cynthia McKinney ought to immediately be declared politically dead, including Ron Paul. Go read her platform. The link is in the article. She wants to nationalize everything, turn businesses into worker owned collectives and tax away all income and use it to provide every person in the country with a guaranteed income.
McKinney represents the REAL threat that the pipe-dream NWO and the feeble neocons are supposed to be. She is what the democrats are working towards slowly. To endorse her as Paul has done here is completely insane even if she has no chance of winning. Every bit of legitimacy he gives her rubs off a little bit on the dems so that they can make their agenda a little more radical each year until we're all screwed.
We need to stop being 'penny wise and pound foolish' and come to grips with what the real threats to our freedom are. We can't afford to be dupes like Ron Paul. McKinney is a nothing here in the US, but she is the spearhead of the massive and very powerful transnational socialist movement which is not going to go away just because we turn our backs on it and worry about the fake conspiracies on the JBS agenda.
End rant mode.
Dave
42 - troll
Uh Dave...everyone who appeared on that stage is politically dead(ended)
43 - Neil
Nalle, quit writing.. you give me a headache with your disinformation.
Don't waste your vote...
Vote for a 3rd party candidate..
44 - Don Jarrett
"We need to... come to grips with what the real threats to our freedom are."
Psst... Dave... it't the neocons who are the real threat.
It really isn't a secret.
45 - Joe
Ending the income tax, getting rid of private banksters, promoting sound (gold/silver) money backed by something real, ending unnecessary wars, not allowing thieves to steal money for bailouts, restoring the Constitution & Bill of Rights is pretty radical. If these ideas are radical then count me in. This is one nice blog for the haters of Liberty. Don't ever again use the great name of Patrick Henry. Mr.Give me liberty or give me death would kill the writer of this hit piece. I can’t wait till the fun begins.
46 - Christopher Rose
"the massive and very powerful transnational socialist movement"
Dave, who are the players in this movement?
47 - Clavos
What's a "bankster?"
48 - Christopher Rose
I think it is a mixing of bank and gangster, Clavos. Not a term I've encountered before but pretty valid, at least as far as UK bank charges are concerned.
49 - Clavos
Fits the Yanks, too.
I had envisioned a bankster as a teller all decked out in lots of bling, partying on South Beach.
Or perhaps an executive at Citi who enjoys practical jokes.
50 - Christopher Rose
Yes, and smoking big fat Cuban cigars hand rolled on the thighs of virgins!
51 - Lumpy
Ryan. There is no Ron Paul candidacy. He's a footnote in history.
52 - Dave Nalle
Christopher, I was sure we'd discussed Transnational Socialism/Progressivism before. The players in the movement are the international anti-sovereignty NGOs and advocacy groups and various quasi-governmental agencies associated with the UN, plus political parties and some national governments which subscribe to the Tranzi ideology.
John Fonte put forward the first clear explanation of what Transnational Progressivism is in an article in 2001. You can find a much more partisan (pro-American) take on the subject from Dan Beste.
I've been thinking of writing up a more complete analysis of the subject. With your interest, perhaps I can get inspired.
Oh, and you might enjoy Samizdata an anti-tranzi site run by some of your fellow Brits.
Dave
53 - Christopher Rose
Dave, I looked at the three sites you linked to and learned only that they are as boring as, well, you. If you think these people are a "massive and very powerful" group, tilt at them. Personally, I found them to be of precious little interest, no power to speak of and yet another political deadend talking shop, aka wonkfest.
54 - troll
I see no significant difference between Nationalists and Transnationalists - both groups assume the necessity and primacy of standing government to insure the 'rights' of the individual
55 - ken - Florida
The point I got from Ron Pauls endorsements was simple. Don't vote for parties controlled by big business. They support big businness's interests not working America..
56 - Cannonshop
#54 Um, yeah, Troll, about that?
"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Full Text here
So yer sayin' that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were...not significantly different from Transnationalists? I'm confused, educate me.
57 - troll
So yer sayin' that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were...not significantly different from Transnationalists?
as regards the necessity of States (as in standing governments)to insure the rights of the individual - no significant difference
btw - I see nothing self-evident about those claims in that document
58 - Dave Nalle
I do believe that the signers believed that their principles were universal, but there's a different between that and believing in socialism.
It's the socialism/progressivism which denies the idea of individual rights which makes the transnational progressives so dangerous.
Dave
59 - Don Jarrett
I like the idea of having troops stationed all over the world.
How else can "neocon capitalism" survive?
60 - Dave Nalle
Neocons are not capitalists. And capitalism doesn't need troops to succeed.
Dave
61 - cuervodeluna
Maybe not, Dave, but the THREAT of troops has actually given capitalism the only measure of success that it has achieved.
62 - Don Jarrett
Another reason for not liking the idea of having troops stationed all over the world...
Dave likes the idea.
If Dave likes the idea -- it can't be good for the country.
btw, "neocon capitalism" explains the Iraq War.
63 - Don Jarrett
Even though the country is in deep doo-doo, the dodo’s in the media whose eyes glossed over when Ron Paul spoke of our errant monetary policy and fiscal policy, they still don’t understand what he was talking about.
Monetary policy? Fiscal policy? What’s he talking about? Doesn’t he know the economy is sound?
If the MSM was intelligent enough and had been diligent and informed the public about our dismal policies, perhaps at least we would have a reasonable choice in who will lead the country for the next four years.