Over the course of some eight hours of speechifying, videos and music at yesterday’s Rally For the Republic at the Target Center, I didn’t hear a single laudatory word uttered by Ron Paul or his supporters regarding the current state of the Republican Party. Considering that Paul garnered more votes than supposed party stalwarts (and fleeting presidential flavors of the moment) like Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson in the Republican primaries, the apparent loss of this constituency by John McCain and company would seem to be big news. Yet it has received scant attention in the perpetual horse race handicapping that frequently passes for political reportage in this country.
Anyone who assumes a majority of Paul supporters will pull the lever for McCain and other mainstream Republican candidates on election day obviously wasn’t around for yesterday’s rally. Their disaffection with the current state of governance as practiced by both Republicans and Democrats was rife was palpable emotion and elaborate policy prescriptions. Paul’s Libertarian-oriented philosophy of less government has always been to the right of the Republicans. But the umbrage he and his supporters have taken to the Bush Administration’s assault on the Constitution and assumption of greater executive power over the last eight years have also increasingly cast the Paul movement to the left of the Democrats, who have either enabled or offered feeble resistance to those power grabs.
No single day at the Democratic Convention in Denver focused on issues such as torture, illegal wiretapping, and preemptive war as much as the speakers at yesterday’s rally. No Democrat in Denver laid out the case for Bush’s impeachment as starkly and thoroughly as Bruce Fein, who served in the Justice Department under President Reagan. The scorn directed at any footage or mention of Republican media organ Fox News was loud and prolonged. It was matched by the scorn exhibited by upper level Paul supporters as they talked of their man being snubbed by RNC at the convention across the river in St. Paul.
Lest there be any doubt, Ron Paul himself explicitly ruled out endorsement or compromised accommodation with the Republicans in the evening address that climaxed the rally. “This is much bigger than the Republican Party,” he declared. “A true revolution isn’t reflected by one political party.”
Let there be no illusions about the darker side of the Paul movement. Fifteen of the 16 speaking slots listed in yesterday’s program contained the name of the person who would be appearing in front of the microphone. In the middle of the day, when the program noted that a “Special Guest” would speak, the person who strode to the podium was John McManus, current President of the John Birch Society. There is a reason why even the Paul campaign was abashed enough not to tip off McManus’s identity in advance. The JBS is a fringe-right organization founded by a dozen men in 1958—one of whom went on to co-found the Hitler-glorifying National Alliance. Birchers worked vociferously against the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and earlier accused President Dwight Eisenhower of being a communist. Ignoring this shameful history, Ron Paul instead lauds the JBS for its anti-government stance, and, as McManus announced from the podium, has agreed to speak at the John Birch Society’s 50th anniversary convention next month.
Beyond this despicable bedfellow, Paul would essentially bankrupt government’s social safety network. Last night he declared that even “a one-cent income tax is morally wrong because it sews the seeds of destruction” by allowing government influence into our lives. Yet when it comes to the mixing of church and state, or the right to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy, Paul’s unvarnished desire for freedom and liberty often take a back seat to his own staunchly conservative religious beliefs.
Both at the Target Center yesterday and across the nation during this political season, the broadening of Paul’s appeal came in large part due to his anti-war views and his defense of the Constitution against encroachments by the Bush Administration. A remarkable amount of time and care in Paul’s speech yesterday was devoted to peace issues. He asked why American history seems to confer greatness only on presidents who served during times of war instead of those who emphasized peace. “We have the threat of terrorism, but that is the consequence of a seriously flawed foreign policy,” he said.
To an arena of people who cherish the second amendment and fantasize about physically defending their constitutional liberties, he asked, “What if someone who looked different than us, with different values and culture invaded our country and set up an air base?”—an obvious reference to the experience of a variety of Muslim countries in the Middle East where the U.S. military is situated. Toward the end of the speech, Paul talked about how the lust for combat by leaders of both parties would inevitably lead to the reinstitution of the draft. Explicitly citing Gandhi and Martin Luther King, he said, “there is a time and a place for civil disobedience,” adding, “if there is a draft, there will be some very tough decisions.”
Eight years ago, the presence of Ralph Nader on the ballot damaged the candidacy of Al Gore in his razor-thin race with George Bush. While Ron Paul abandoned his own presidential run back in June, his lambasting of the Republican Party leadership yesterday will not be helpful to McCain. “Our message is growing,” Paul reminded his loyal audience. “It seems like even if they tried, they can’t stop us.”




16 Comments »
Comment posted September 3, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Obviously, there is no simple answer and even if Ron Paul is elected the change will not be overnight, however, “We the People” are no longer willing to be we the sheepole and need to move the this Democratic/Republic experiment back several decades.
In an engineering or science environment the control of an experiment must be based on a valid and solid hypothosis. In this case, we are changing the experiment and chasing the results based on who is controlling the experiment. OUT OF CONTROL !!
Look carefully at the trend of where we were and where we are now. The government does not represent us anymore, and “they” are no longer “us”. I am 53 and a previous Republican Navy/Vet. and the Republicans left me years ago to follow their own persuasions and promises.
Simply, its time to reset the experiment called The United States Government…..a revolution? Perhaps. Of course, our Constitution gives us this liberty to do just that. Take care my friend.
Comment posted September 3, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
“Paul’s unvarnished desire for freedom and liberty often take a back seat to his own staunchly conservative religious beliefs” - I was with you to this until this point. The only aspect I can think of that’s a “staunchly conservative religious belief” he may have is that he’s pro-life. I hardly consider this to be a “staunchly conservative religious belief”.
I for one am not part of the religious right at all but I’m pro-life. Before I had kids I was indifferent to the issue however I certainly can not say that now. Should I consider myself then to have “staunchly conservative religious beliefs”? I don’t have the answers by any stretch of the imagination but something about abortion just makes me sick. And please don’t go on about the extremely rare cases that it may be justified. In my humble opinion the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are inconvenient to the individual as opposed to some bizarre circumstance that it may be justifiable.
Sorry for the long reply, I would just like to be educated on what you may perceive (based on your insinuation) as a long list of “staunchly conservative religious beliefs”.
Thanks
Comment posted September 3, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Jimster–
Paul's position allowing prayer in the public schools seems directly at odds with his strict constitutionalist backing of the Bill of Rights (First Amendment, separation of church and state). Ditto his belief that creationism should be taught in the schools. If this is disinformation from Paul opponents and he does not believe in these things, I'd be happy to reconsider the sentence to which you object.
That said, it isn't Ron Paul's body that will ever be the locus point of a decision on abortion, is it? I imagine that many women find it galling that this theoretically uncompromising proponent of liberty and free will and personal responsibility wants to overturn laws that allow them to make up their own mind and endure whatever emotional consequences are involved in terminating a pregnancy.
Comment posted September 4, 2008 @ 4:17 am
Here`s a link re his school-related positions http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Educat...
Basically, his position on all of those is that all local questions should be left up to the local community and parents, not handed down by the Federales. so if the locals want to have prayer in their school or teach alternative theories to evolution, he thinks they should have that right. Personally, I believe that the government will let us do whatever we make it let us do and not one thing more. The fault, dear Brutus is in ourselves.
Regarding abortion, if it`s okay to kill people because they are an inconvenience and can`t fight back or hire themselves a lawyer, then how come we aren`t legally euthanizing the comatose (more often)? As I see it (and I am neither Christian nor conservative, see my plan below for evidence), if it isn`t your DNA then it is not part of your body. It is a person with just as much right to due process and constitutional protections as has its mother, and she has no more right to kill her baby in the womb as she has when it is out of the womb. How hard is that?
The JBS `bible`, None Dare Call it Conspiracy, is a great book that has opened the eyes of many people to the problems inherent under a central bank regime.
I wish I could have been there - so I could stand outside handing out “my plan to fix everything“ (see below).
Thanks to Dr. Paul for trying to stand up for “sanity in government“, but I`m in agreemnt with the title of your article. I think it is unconscionable that Rep. Paul is not at least mounting a write-in campaign, much less not creating a 3rd party to start taking back our country from the banks-and-oilgarchy that have been running it into the ground for the past 100 years. (Not that we weren`t busy creating an American Empire long before then.)
Regarding the Ron Paul hoopla over the Founding Fathers, I`m with Tom Paine on this. Most of the Founders were either slaveholders themselves or else they represented slave-profiteers (like New England textile manufacturers who could buy their raw goods for much less from American plantations than from European suppliers, and so undercut their prices). The Founders were willing to risk their lives and fortunes to help themselves to the American bounty but could not be bothered to lift one finger to include their black brothers in “We, the People“. “It was just the times“? Well, it was “just the times“ of monarchs, also, and they didn`t seem to have any problem going against THAT custom.
My plan to fix everything.
As we learned in `Quality Improvement Process 101`, the problem is never `the people`. The problem is always THE SYSTEM. Unless (and until) we fix THE SYSTEM, the same bad things will keep happening, over and over. The fault lies not with the borrowers and the banks who profit from THE SYSTEM, but with our ancestors for letting this SYSTEM get set up, and with ourselves for letting a SYSTEM continue which incentivizes activities that lead to our own destruction.
First thing we need for our NEW SYSTEM is our own, debt-free U.S. Government currency, backed by all the real estate within the nation`s borders (of which property the U.S. government is the actual owner…`legal` owners are granted `legal exclusive right of use` by an `actual` owner, valid until such time as the actual owner changes its mind or becomes unable to defend its ownership claim). Since banks will no longer be able to print the our new currency to cover their losses, and since we will no longer be dependent upon banks to maintain a flow of credit, banks should become more conservative in their lending and speculation. We should also get rid of FDIC insurance to further encourage such a change.
While we are at it, we should replace all income-related taxes with a 1/2% electronic transfer (aka debit) tax which will be avoidable by the use of cash. This will not only rid us of the IRS (saving us the billions of dollars currently spent on `tax reporting`), it will also end the current system`s penalization of work and entrepreneurism, and release for investment purposes untold billions currently spent on `tax avoidance`. This debit tax will not only be more of a tax on wealth than labor and be (arguably) voluntarily-paid, it will also act to discourage excessive short-term market speculation and will raise enough revenue to begin paying off the National Debt, a debt which will no longer be growing once we have switched over to our own debt-free currency. We will also apply any Federal Reserve dollars that are swapped for our new currency toward paying off the National Debt.
Since the U.S. government has, by granting `exclusive rights of use`, denied everyone free access to all of its property, and since the U.S. government has not compensated everyone for that `taking`, we should elect a Congress that will pay every legal U.S. resident `Adequate and Equal Just Compensation for Denial of Free Access to U.S. Property`, compensation which WILL FUNCTIONALLY REPLACE ALL FORMS OF PERSONAL AND CORPORATE WELFARE, SUBSIDIES AND BOONDOGGLES, including the rescindance of Federal Minimum Wage laws and a phase-out of the Social Security system. (Once everyone is getting `Denial of Free Access` compensation their whole lives, it would seem arguable that the vast majority of people will be able to save enough to be able to comfortably cease working at some point in their lives.)
As a starting point, $1000 per month (of the new, non-Federal-Reserve, non-Debt-Money, as described above) should be paid to every legal adult resident (compensation of minors should, of course, be held `in trust` to avoid incentivizing baby factories). Since everyone gets the same amount, this compensation plan is not wealth redistributive, but will give the least wealthy the biggest advantage (in terms of monthly percentage increase of wealth) and a better chance to `catch up` than the current system that keeps the rich getting relatively richer through good times and bad.
Once this NEW SYSTEM gets going, we should expect people in other countries to insist that their governments either emulate our NEW SYSTEM, or else apply for U.S. statehood as The Republic of Texas did in 1845.
Benefits of the new system should include better childcare, less poverty, less crime, cheaper government and a safer world. All in favor, help spread the word.
Comment posted September 4, 2008 @ 8:29 am
alajac: these are some unusual and new ideas about banking and taxes. I'm not sure I follow all of your suggestions entirely. I would like to hear more from you explaining these ideas more clearly, with a bit more detail on the basics of certain things. Is there some way we can connect to further discuss your ideas?
Comment posted September 4, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
You're mistaken, Britt. The real issue is whether the federal government is bound by the Constitution to the enumerated powers listed therein. Dr. Paul's position is that “Constitutionally” the issues that you chose to discuss are objects of State governance. That's why he is opposed to a Federal Law protecting what is properly in the domain of the several states. The Constitution set up a Republic - not a Democracy. Ours it is not a single Nation, but a federation of sovereign States. It's time that we enforce the Bill of Rights - especially the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Comment posted September 4, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Oh, but we do have a place to vote, albeit the lesser of two evils. This time we will vote for anyone but McBama!
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Ron Paul - the Antidote to Thought! Why is this neo-Nazi given the time of day, nevermind a space on this website? Ron Paul reminds one of chickens on speed. Lots of chatter - none of it matters.
“Our message is growing,” Paul reminded his audience. “It seems like even if they tried, they can’t stop us.”
Can't stop you from what, Mr. Paul? Stepping in your own s..t. We can only hope that Ron Paul siphons off a few hundred-K votes from McSame and Company. That way, the GOP will not be able to stuff the ballot box. Without Paul's siphone-effect, we're likely to see the election results like those in the Soviet Union, where the same-party candidate gets 100% of the vote. John McCain as George Bush's successor - Bush as Putin to McCain as Medvedyev.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
You shoulda kept it in your shorts, dude. Don't moralize us now that you have your own brood running around fouling up the earth.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
The fact that Ron Paul is for or against anything is of no significance. Paul is a Has-Been and with any luck at all, we'll never see his kind again.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
If you are sickened by abortion, don't have one. Stay away from my life. You have no right to tell me what I can and cannot do.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
If you have no answers, why are you wasting this space?
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
You are so typical of the “believers”who are Johnny-Come-Lately's to the important issues. Before you had kids you could care less, but now that you've become a parent, suddenly you are an expert and able to define how the rest of the world should live. To bad you didn't think some of this stuff through before you had kids.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
Paul's positions on most things are directly at odds with clear thinking. Why anyone would place their trust in this Ayn Rand sycophant is beyond me. Society does not exist SOLELY for the individual in spite of what Mr. Paul may have told you. There is a universe out there, filled with people who need and deserve assistance from those who can afford to give it. Anyone who claims otherwise, while claiming simultaneously to be a Christian is a flaming liar and a damnable hypocrite.
Comment posted September 5, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
“This time we will vote for anyone but McBama!”
Now this response by Kendall Young is precisely why we should all be praying for an end to the planet Earth. These kinds of moronic statements really do point out how imbecilic homo sapiens is as a species. We should adopt the Chinese 1-child per family plan and slowly get rid of ourselves. The air will be cleaner and we won't have to listen to the likes of Ron Paul or Kendall Young.
Comment posted September 13, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Dr. Paul's position on right to life, and religious issues are not positions thate undermine freedom. He rightly belives that the fedral government does not have the right to impose its will on the sovergn rule of law of the individule state constitutions. Just like the bs bush administration raiding pot pharmacies in Cali. States rights are a key issue in getting our country back from the globalist scum that are the puppet masters above Obama and Mccain. You better belive CFR, Trilateral Commision, and The Bilderburg group, totally reject states rights or any local sustainable control. Every issue comes down to local control / property rights. Liberty is the only way to truly nurture the human soul.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment