Today on Blogcritics
Home » Ron Paul Endorses Radical Statism

Ron Paul Endorses Radical Statism

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

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.

Although Paul’s ostensible goal was to awaken the public to the idea of party diversity, what he ultimately did was to endorse three third parties with agendas completely at odds with his supposed libertarian beliefs. He ended up lending some of the respect which he has earned with his outsider presidential campaign to candidates with ideas so radical and dangerous that most of the public find them completely unacceptable, not because they are minority parties, but because they are crazy extremists. The only third party candidate with any real mass appeal and the potential to be competitive in an election is Bob Barr and he was smart enough not to take part in Paul’s little dog and pony show.

Just being an underdog does not automatically validate your ideas. If you believe in an oppressive state, the destruction of free enterprise and the elimination of basic constitutional rights, you’re still a bad guy, even if Ron Paul has the poor judgment to give you his stamp of approval. Nothing can make the anticapitalist message of Nader, the theocratic leanings of Baldwin or McKinney’s outright communism appealing to a wide audience.

I agree with Paul that we need more than two dominant political parties. Yet embracing McKinney, Baldwin and Nader just because they showed up demonstrates that he puts the opportunity for cheap publicity ahead of principle. If he stood by his libertarian beliefs he would have sent the statists away and brought in Bob Barr who was having his own press conference nearby, or he would have accepted Barr’s generous invitation to join the Libertarian Party ticket. A Barr/Paul ticket might have generated enough attention and support to actually break the two-party stranglehold in a way that all the other third party hopefuls together will never come close to.

But instead, here’s what Ron Paul the supposed libertarian and avowed constitutionalist endorsed:

Government seizure and equitable redistribution of wealth
A carbon tax on every man woman and child in America
Converting all elections to electronic voting
The reversal of all tort reforms
The elimination of the US Senate
Shutting down all immigration, including legal immigration

A federal ban on nuclear power
Forced conversion of all businesses to worker run collectives
Nationalizing all large banks and media companies
Repealing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Amendments
Criminalization of homosexuality
A 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay
A federal ban on all pornography
The universal right of states to secede from the union
Comprehensive, taxpayer supported socialized medicine

See if you can guess which candidates support which five positions. We’ll have a test later.

Ron Paul raised a lot of people’s hopes with his campaign, his remarkable fundraising success and his promise to continue to promote liberty from within the Republican party. But now, when the McCain campaign seems to be taking up the reform message, Paul seems to have lost track of his objectives. McCain actually had Phil Gramm call Paul on Tuesday to try to win his endorsement, but Paul rebuffed him and instead launched this attack on the party he is a member of and the beliefs he once promoted. It’s starting to look very much like Paul only supports reform and liberty if he’s the one carrying the torch. If someone else is taking the lead and getting all the attention, be it Bob Barr or John McCain or Sarah Palin, he’d rather be stirring the waters and promoting statist spoilers he doesn’t even agree with.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

Dave Nalle is Executive Director of the Texas Liberty Foundation, Chairman of the Center for Foreign and Defense Policy, South Central Regional Director for the Republican Liberty Caucus and an advisory board member at the Coalition to Reduce Spending. He was Texas State Director for the Gary Johnson Presidential campaign, an adviser to the Ted Cruz senatorial campaign, Communications Director for the Travis County Republican Party and National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has also consulted on many political campaigns, specializing in messaging. Before focusing on political activism, he owned or was a partner in several businesses in the publishing industry and taught college-level history for 20 years.
  • http:/ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave,

    The less publicity Paul gets from any source, the better. You are acting like an Israeli leftist, holding hate in your heart and pursuing a victim after he can do no damage. In the process, you are giving Paul publicity he doesn’t deserve.

    The fact that Jesse Ventura showed up for this “event” throws cold water on the numerous fools who voted for him in 1997. The question arises if he somehow helped Paul get the location. He would have been wiser to have attended Bob Barr’s event. I noticed that the Russian propaganda YouTube piece you quoted didn’t mention Ventura. Typical.

    Now to make a point for all the Palin-bashers out there. Ventura’s career and Palin’s track a great deal. He started ass a small town mayor, and so did she. He got elected as governor with an independent stance and so did she. Where do the two part ways? Palin’s career has been about serving Alaska. Ventura’s career was about using his office to score high paying gigs for Jesse Ventura.

    They have both been appropriately rewarded.

  • http://www.modified.in/footbag/viewtopic.php?t=6468 john

    You are crazy. That is not at all what was said or done. What Paul said is pay attention. We know that there is one party bent on corporatism. You have McCain shaping policies which effected billions on cross media ownership, Obama,Dodd,Clinton,McCain taking hundreds of thousands from Freddie Mac. Most importantly you have the imperialism danger of arming Georg. We have plenty of blow back from interventionist. Blow back because of rejection of the hundred years of war perpetuated by preemptive forced socialism. Paul’s message the the evil of two lessers. War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies as freedoms are stolen. It’s exactly like housing prices going to 3.5 times income… Just truth.. There were 18,000 people at the rally… Paul wants ideas and morals to rule. The first amendments has been blown up. The press, religions should be ashamed of themselves. Ron Paul is supporting free ideas not Statism.

  • Clavos

    Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane!

    Nah. It’s just another Paultard.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    That comment reads sort of like free association. And makes just about as little sense. I’m particularly amused by John’s assumption that corporatism is a bad thing, when in fact it’s the one power in the GOP which can stand up to the threat of real fascism from the religious right.

    Dave

  • spinnikerca

    I smell a rat, right here. Barr didn’t fail to get support because of anything Ron Paul did. On major media across the country since Barr was nominated by the LP Ron Paul said he or Baldwin best described Ron Paul’s own beliefs, and that is what led people to take Barr seriously to this point. I was going to vote for him, because Baldwin isn’t on the ballot in my state, and I figured that while Barr seemed a bit interventionist, not a true believer, and downright smarmy, it would help the Libertarian Party. I always had doubts Barr stood for the principles he had suddenly adopted. As a long time Republican, I had seen flip flops of that breadth before, and it never spoke well for the candidate’s sincerity.

    Ron Paul, on the other hand, has a 20 year record of sincerity.

    I’m voting for a principled third party this year, and it would have been Barr if Barr had shown up on the 10th.

    Now it won’t.

    Slur Paul, and you are putting your credibility against his. Do you really think you will be the one people believe?

  • troll

    I always enjoy Dave’s extrapolations…here’s a link to Paul’s presentation of the areas of agreement that came out of the meeting (I leave it to the reader’s imagination to explain why Dave left such a link out of his article)

  • Alexander

    I was at the event, video taped the entire thing at the request of the Nader campaign, its all up on YouTube for people who want to see it.

    Were you there, did you watch it? By what you wrote I think No. If “the Body” was there I did not see him and he sticks out in a group like that.

    Was anyone there endorsing every policy of the other. No
    What were they doing? They were agreeing to a set of principals, end the war, repeal the patriot act and restore habius corpus, end deficit spending and reduce the national debt, and investigate fraud in the national treasury.

    It was about giving all candidates with enough state ballots accessed the right to be in the national debate. To debate real issues, and not this people magazine political sphere.

    Anyone disagree with those ideas? Because if you do you are probably just a Republican or Democrat that cant get along with your own kind.

    Do we all disagree on how to solve the healthcare problem, yes, but we could work together better to solve it than the current oligarchy.

    There is a lot more in common between Greens and Libertarians than Republicans and Democrats, both value a smaller government than the one we have now, if you can’t see that and accept that I feel sorry for you.

  • lLumpy

    I can’t believe these people stick by paul when he has betrayed them again and again.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger
  • http://www.winchesterpc.com Benjamin Vander Jagt

    I was disappointed that Barr missed the meaning of the press conference. Nader understood.

    There are four key issues. The two major parties got them wrong. The four third parties got them right. The majority of the US gets them right.

    It has nothing to do with being underdogs. Paul didn’t endorse them just for showing up.

    The moral of the story is that the two major party candidates are very, very bad for the country. Any of the four third-party candidates would be very, very good for the country.

    If all of the third-party candidates have more support, then all of the registered voters who normally just sit at home will have someone good to choose. If ten times as many third-party voters show up to vote, then there would be a competitive six-way vote.

    Finally, endorsing support for four third-party candidates who share those four main points means that there’s now four times the chance to raise the important issues at debates.

    I find your article utterly skewed, but please keep writing! (-: It brings up good debate.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Slur Paul, and you are putting your credibility against his. Do you really think you will be the one people believe?

    I haven’t lied to them repeatedly and taken their money under false pretenses. Maybe that will count for something.

    I always enjoy Dave’s extrapolations…here’s a link to Paul’s presentation of the areas of agreement that came out of the meeting (I leave it to the reader’s imagination to explain why Dave left such a link out of his article)

    Bliffle, I have a link to a compressed version of the whole press conference from a news report. Paul’s lengthy rationalization was only available in separate videos which didn’t include the three candidates and I only wanted to have one video. In fact, at the time I was looking this video was the only one which showed anything other than Paul’s rationalizing introduction.

    Paul’s mendacity aside, by endorsing these candidates he isn’t just endorsing the things they say which he likes, he’s endorsing THEM and that means all the things they believe in, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not. What he has in common with Cynthia McKinney I can’t imagine – maybe their mutual love of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

    Dave

  • troll

    that was me Dave – and your posted compressed version didn’t cover the points of agreement

  • troll

    (btw – good luck with the storm…what’s expected for Austin – ?)

  • http://www.cade.org Cade Thacker

    First off, you obviously did not watch the press conference, or if you did you did not pay attention. This event had a very specific agenda. I sat down and watched the entire Press conference last night because I was hearing so much fuzz. I wanted to see what the deal was myself.

    Google Video (1 hour)

    1) There is a set of 4 points that all 4 candidates (Barr, Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney) agree upon: End Iraq War, Civil Liberties are critical, Federal Deficit is out of control, Federal Reserve needs sunshine on it. The 4 points as read by Dr. Paul

    2) The two major parties are ignoring these issues.

    3) The debates are a sham, and the Commission for Presidential Debates is a farce.

    4) The press should cover these issues rather than covering “Lipstick-Gate” and other equally useless items

    5) The majority of Americans agree on these issues.

    I don’t think that there is anything wrong with Ron Paul using his credentials to put these issues on the front burner if he can. I personally believe Bob Barr made a mistake by not showing up, but that is just my opinion.

    Dave — with all due respect, it appears that you did not watch the video before writing this article. If you had, then you would know that the 2nd half of your article is a blatant misrepresentation of the press conference. Paul did not endorse all the points of every candidate, instead all the candidates endorsed the 4 points together as a group. (ie a coalition).

    Finally to imply that John McCain or Sarah Palin are somehow carrying the banner of Liberty or reform is just laughable. I can only guess that you put that last sentence in your writing only to make a emotional point rather than to make a solid argument as the facts do not back you up.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    troll, the storm is turning north and it looks like Austin is going to get a mild breeze and scattered showers. Plus a hell of a lot of evacuees from the gulf coast – they’re like locusts.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    First off, you obviously did not watch the press conference, or if you did you did not pay attention. This event had a very specific agenda. I sat down and watched the entire Press conference last night because I was hearing so much fuzz. I wanted to see what the deal was myself.

    I eventually watched all of it bit by bit, actually. I replayed parts of it because I couldn’t believe what I was seeing.

    1) There is a set of 4 points that all 4 candidates (Barr, Nader, Baldwin, and McKinney) agree upon: End Iraq War, Civil Liberties are critical, Federal Deficit is out of control, Federal Reserve needs sunshine on it. The 4 points as read by Dr. Paul

    They can SAY they all support these things, but I think they all have very different interpretations of what civil liberties actually means. Paul didn’t make any effort to look into what these candidates actually believe and the platforms they are running on. He just let them use him as he used them for some cheap publicity.

    2) The two major parties are ignoring these issues.

    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.

    3) The debates are a sham, and the Commission for Presidential Debates is a farce.

    I agree on this one. Bob Barr ought to be included in the debates. No question.

    5) The majority of Americans agree on these issues.

    True. However they don’t agree with Paul or his statist friends.

    I don’t think that there is anything wrong with Ron Paul using his credentials to put these issues on the front burner if he can. I personally believe Bob Barr made a mistake by not showing up, but that is just my opinion.

    He went up several notches in my estimation by being wise enough not to share the stage with Cynthia McKinney. He reminded us that he’s a REAL candidate.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    The latest 5-day forecast map has Ike taking a hard right turn, then going through all or part of OK, AR, MO, IL, IN, and winding up on the fifth day, deep into Ohio, almost to Lake Erie, still at Tropical Storm strength! the southwest end of which will almost surely feel Ike’s effects

    Think of it…shipping on Lake Erie will have to be watching for a tropical storm!

    Al Gore must be having orgasms…

  • troll

    well the reporters certainly are – the mention of ‘certain death’ last night sent them all to the moon

  • NH

    I doubt Chuck Baldwin wants a ‘theocracy’. He understands the issues just as Paul does. But I can see why Barr did not want to associate with McKinney and Nader as they are outright communists.

    But here is the method to Ron’s madness: He realizes that some will NOT vote for a ‘conservative’ or another ‘republican’ so he presented them with the anti-world government leftists.

    They are for home grown socialism which is wrong, but at least it can be fought here and not internationally.

    In other words, Nader and McKinney are against NAFTA and managed trade that comes with that. They are for true free trade (I think)

  • Gnu Jorden

    Dave,

    Just because you arrogant, it doesn’t make you right. The Fed prints money to fund wars, the public has been lied to about 9-11, and Obama and McCain both supported FISA so they are undermining our civil liberties. Period.

    Some things are complicated and some are simple, and the American people are simply being f’d hard by their unethical leaders.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    NH, McKinney is an international socialist, not a homegrown socialist. She is a member of various organizations which are members of the Socialist International. And as for free trade, I doubt you can really have it when all of the businesses are collectivized or nationalized.

    Dave

  • troll

    She is a member of various organizations which are members of the Socialist International.

    …..it’s true – ! look at her relationship with that nasty House of Representatives

    outside the windows we hear: drum roll – thwack – cheers; drum roll – thwack – cheers

    “Are you now or have you ever been a human being – ?”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Good one, troll, but I was thinking more in terms of the Democratic Socialist Alliance which she used to be on the board of.

    Dave

  • Truthmonger

    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. 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.

    “Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” an aide to the congressman said.

    Paul said a strong showing by the third-party candidates would express the public’s frustration with the current system.

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    RON PAUL

  • Jordan Richardson

    RUPAUL ’08

  • troll
  • http://www.cade.org 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?”

  • 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.

  • http://www.cade.org 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

  • 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]

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • Don Jarrett

    Ron Paul feels like a corncob in the asshole of a neocon.

  • 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.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • http://www.cade.org 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.

  • 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.

  • Don Jarrett

    Cade Thacker:

    Stop jabbing the corncob in Dave Nalle.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • troll

    Uh Dave…everyone who appeared on that stage is politically dead(ended)

  • Neil

    Nalle, quit writing.. you give me a headache with your disinformation.

    Don’t waste your vote…
    Vote for a 3rd party candidate..

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    “the massive and very powerful transnational socialist movement”

    Dave, who are the players in this movement?

  • Clavos

    What’s a “bankster?”

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Yes, and smoking big fat Cuban cigars hand rolled on the thighs of virgins!

  • Lumpy

    Ryan. There is no Ron Paul candidacy. He’s a footnote in history.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com 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.

  • 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

  • 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..

  • 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.

  • 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

  • http://www.republicofdave.com 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

  • Don Jarrett

    I like the idea of having troops stationed all over the world.

    How else can “neocon capitalism” survive?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Neocons are not capitalists. And capitalism doesn’t need troops to succeed.

    Dave

  • cuervodeluna

    Maybe not, Dave, but the THREAT of troops has actually given capitalism the only measure of success that it has achieved.

  • 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.

  • 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.