Posted by: Mike | April 16, 2008

Ron Paul’s Ideology: Brilliant or Hideous?

In the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was one of the most interesting, dynamic candidates in the race. Full of passion and unique ideas, he was able to raise millions from the Internet while enticing a small horde of young voters to his campaign. Anyone who watched the Republican debates knows that Ron Paul added flavor and entertainment to an otherwise bland occasion. As amusing as Ron Paul often was, however, his ideology presents an inescapable danger to the US.

It has been said by Howard Dean that Republicans want to take the US back to the 1950’s. Ron Paul, however, has no interest in taking America back to those “good old days”. Instead, Ron Paul is the ultimate reactionary; he wants to take America’s foreign and fiscal policy back to the 1930’s. In addition to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a good thing), Ron Paul would yank US troops out of every corner of the world. This not only means withdrawing from places where we are no longer needed (e.g. Eastern Europe), but also places where US troops are crucial to maintaining regional security (e.g. Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and possibly South Korea). Ron Paul would withdraw the US from NATO, severing our long-standing alliance with western Europe. In effect, Ron Paul advocates a return to the foreign policy of the isolationists and the America First crowd that got us into so much trouble before WWII (many historians speculate that WWII could have been prevented if the US hadn’t been so isolationist).

If Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unsettling, his fiscal policy is downright frightening. Not content to take our fiscal policy back to the 1930’s, Paul would instead take it back to pre-WWI days. He has advocated for the implementation of the gold standard and the abolition of the Federal Reserve. He would like to abolish the income tax – the tax by which the US government raises most of its revenue (this is an example of one of the attractive but unrealistic views held by Paul). Ron Paul would effectively end FICA by allowing young people to opt out of the program. He would withdraw from NAFTA and implement a trade policy similar to that of the laissez faire era. Ron Paul’s fiscal policies would exacerbate income disparity and leave the US economy wide open for devastating recessions.

If there is one issue that I agree with libertarians on, it is that of personal liberty. But Ron Paul is no advocate of personal liberty. Ron Paul describes himself as an “unshakable foe” of abortion rights. Ron Paul spoke out strongly against the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence vs Texas (2003), in which it was ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Paul justified his criticism of the court by saying that the individual states should have the right to decide whether or not to have such laws. In essence, Paul puts the rights of the states to pass discriminatory laws above individual liberty. Ron Paul refused to take a stand against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a Republican debate, when asked about it. He has even said that he would not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it were reintroduced today, arguing that the courts can’t read people’s minds to tell if they are discriminating against minorities in employment or access to services. Lastly, Ron Paul has stated that he does not believe in evolution, though he claims that such a belief is irrelevant (in my view, it most definitely is not).

Ron Paul derives his views on everything from economics to foreign and social policy from a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He is notorious for citing the “original intent” of the Constitution in justifying his views (e.g. the Founder’s sought to avoid entangling alliances; therefore, we must withdraw from NATO). While there is absolutely nothing wrong with idolizing our nation’s Founders, it is wholeheartedly foolish to allow the dead hand of generations long past to dictate our nation’s policies. The world has changed so much since the Constitution’s birth; only a flexible interpretation of the founding document will allow it to stand the test of time.

To answer the question posed by this article’s title, Ron Paul’s ideology is thoroughly hideous. Because Paul is so earnest and because his ideas are so unique, there is a deep temptation for those wanting change to support him. But the only change that Ron Paul plans to deliver would be grossly reactionary. His ideas would stifle progress by decentralizing political power and by taking this country back to the pre-WWII era. That, needless to say, would be most hideous.

MR

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Yes i have several things i find incorrect in what you’re saying. I have heard often the “take us back to the old days” and that we can’t go back when we’ve come so far. He’s not advocating a return to horse and buggys, he’s saying that you can’t inflate a currency tied to a commodity such as gold. The business cycle which has been witnessed through the last 30 years is a direct result of central economic planning. He’s only advocating a free market economy in the beliefs of the austrian school and of Ludwig Von Mises who is Ron Paul’s greatest influence in economics. I suggest you read the book “Human Action” and check out Peter Schiff from http://www.Euro-pac.net who is his Economic advisor. I have posted several videos on my site from Peter Schiff to help you better understand. He’s not advocating anything new, its not a new interpretation of the constitution its directly what the founders intended and considering it’s already the basis of all law of the land it truly shows how far we’ve swayed from it if Ron Paul’s ideas sound reactionary. They are what made this country great, its a return to greatness not a return to the dark ages as so many believe. If the free market was allowed to function properly we would have probably had electric cars ten or more years ago. We probably wouldn’t even recognize our society. You should really go back and read Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine as well to explore the history of America. you can’t say he doesn’t advocate personal liberty, your bias as to abortion is clearly in that you agree that it shouldn’t be abolished. The fact is there is a large portion of the country that thinks it should, their rights are not being listened to and that isn’t fair thats why he advocates states rights and not an amendment. I used to disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but he said how can you value freedom and liberty if you don’t protect human life and the right of the fetus. He as a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 children was liable for the fetus if he damaged it, yet if he aborted it it was ok. He found this to be a contradiction and clearly i see why but none the less i agree states rights are the most important aspect. It’s too hard to try to change things once they hit the federal level. You need to understand free market capitalism, and realize our dollar is worth 0.04$ compared to what it was in the early 1900’s. Thats purchasing power being taken away. Here watch these buddy.


    Part 1


    Part 2

    he also just wrote an article about the state of the economy which you can read here.

    http://mises.org/story/2895

    hope to hear from you after you’ve checked these things out.

  2. I am grateful for this type of debate and discussion.
    One of my concerns in this country is that we have a sheeple mentality.
    Just follow the crowd. Don’t actually think for yourself. I still don’t have much hope for America considering our up coming choices for Pres.
    While I do not agree with RP on some things, I, nevertheless, am glad that he showed up.
    I think that some of us are more alert.
    I supported every Republican since Reagan. Now I wish I had researched more.
    I, in the last year of my fourth decade, am becoming more anarchist in my leanings. Not the left wing/bomb throwing type(though I diagree more with their philosophy than their methods)
    I do not desire to hurt anyone just make people aware. The greater government interference the worse we seem to be.
    I am reading Lysander Spooner lately. Check him out at my wordpress blog

    NO TREASON. No. 1.

    http://tjcoop3.wordpress.com/no-treason-no-1/

    NO TREASON No. II The Constitution

    http://tjcoop3.wordpress.com/no-treason-no-1/no-treason-no-ii-the-constitution/

    No Treason VI. The Constitution of No Authority

    http://tjcoop3.wordpress.com/no-treason-no-1/no-treason-vi-the-constitution-of-no-authority/

    All written in the 1860’s, rather long, but very clear
    about how (I think) things need to change.

    Baruch Atah
    Ephraiyim

  3. Citizenbrain, I understand that one of the major points of your comment was to support Paul’s economic notions, but I have to say something briefly about abortion in your comment.

    Obviously, whether or not Mike’s claim that banning abortion denies personal liberties is a question of if the fetus (or the developing human at any stage) has a right to life. This distinction can be made, but from Mike’s viewpoint, there is no contradiction due to his “bias” (opinion) that abortion is the right of the mother. The truth of this could be argued elsewhere, though.

    The law in the US, I think, is potentially contradictory regarding abortion. (This does not mean abortion should be banned.) If the doctor damage’s the fetus (which would be against the mother’s wishes), of course that’s going to get charges. But if someone kills a fetus, how does that person end up with murder charges? The law needs to be consistent, and it isn’t.

    Every time I hear someone advocate “State’s rights,” I shudder … Time and time again it has been used as an excuse for otherwise unsupportable causes. Further, I don’t see too much good inherent in the idea of “state’s rights.” Do you really think state’s rights means making everybody who disagrees happy? No! It merely fragments representation, definitively divides us on an issue, and this shouldn’t be done if the issue at hand involves something like liberty of choice or life. For something that serious, it needs to be on the federal level to define the whole country.

    (It doesn’t conform to the rights of voters to ban a practice; to make that sort of “liberty” argument against abortion would have to involve the right to life of the fetus instead of the right of some people to restrict others.)

    I suppose now I’ll check out some of the resources you have posted.

  4. You claim in your post that Ron Paul’s ideas are nothing new, and that they would allow for a return to greatness. I believe this reasoning is flawed – so many of our nation’s greatest moments have been marked by dissent from strict construction. Marbury vs. Madison is an excellent example of loose constructionism producing a positive result; we owe our whole process of judicial review to that single case. Civil rights legislation in the 1960’s completely disregarded the right of the states to pass their own laws regarding segregation in favor of a national standard.

    I am also greatly disturbed by how Ron Paul applies his interpretation of the Constitution to cases like Lawrence vs Texas. As I stated in my original post, Paul prioritizes the right of states to pass anti- sodomy laws (which unfairly and maliciously target one group of people) over individual liberty. Strict construction is indeed marred by deep flaws if it cannot see the violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment inherent in such statutes.

    I watched the videos you recommended, and I found them to be quite interesting. In them, Ron Paul railed against central planning in all cases, mentioning how government planning of agriculture had failed in the past. But this is not true – FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act created artificial scarcity of crop prices at a time of chronic overproduction, and managed to successfully help many farmers out of poverty. FDR’s use of federal money to fight the Great Depression showed how central planning can reduce unemployment. The Federal Reserve’s actions after the Vietnam war successfully fought off bloated inflation rates.

    Ron Paul also prophesied that there would be a deep recession or depression by 1986 or 1987- he was wrong. He was also wrong in asserting that the purchasing power of US citizens had been imperiled by inflation. In fact, America’s purchasing power has increased substantially since FDR took us off the gold standard.

    Finally, I disagree with Ron Paul’s assertion that central planning has a negative effect on personal liberty. The freest countries in the world are those of western Europe. These countries adhere to governments and economies that are far more centralized than the federalism found in the US.

  5. FDR never took us off the gold standard, nixon did. over production of food is not a problem, its a good thing and you’ll find that out soon enough. delaying a market correction is not fixing it, you will soon see the results of delaying the market correction for this long as the fed has done for decades. Look around the world at countries whos currencys are so inflated to prop up our phoney economy that the people cannot afford food and are starving to death. Egypt is one example. As far as abortion on a federal level i still disagree, just as i disagree with federal executions. It’s immoral on both accounts. Whats so unfortunate is that now adays so many people look at having children as a financial burden, something that would make their lives worse. I believe states rights on abortion would allow the religious right to focus on other what i consider more important issues and not be swayed to vote for the guy who says he’s “against” abortion like Bush did. I am not religious, i’m only saying it on an ethical basis. As far as the great depression goes, it was created by the central bank. I think that alone pretty much goes against everything you try to defend socialism with, and this next depression will be the direct result of a central bank as well. its a means by which to transfer wealth. We’ll probably be forced to eat the same slave to the state policys fdr has or we’ll engage in a world war, or maybe both. you can’t ignore history, and free market capitalism is by far the ideal system. Our purchasing power has been raped, look at the price of a barrel of oil. that’s a direct result of inflation.

  6. http://thebivouac.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/ron-paul-why-are-americans-so-angry-bitter/

    this is good but the video/sound sync is off. i just listened to it, pointless to watch anyways.

  7. Firstly, the overproduction of agricultural goods is NOT a good thing. During the 1920’s and 30’s, farm overproduction led to low income for farmers and helped exacerbate the Great Depression. FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 was enormously successful in that it restored parity (the ratio of farm income to non- farm product prices) to 90% by 1936.

    Secondly, the Great Depression was not a product of the central bank. Overproduction of consumer goods, government policies (ex. trade restraints on European goods), World War I, and the stock market crash all worked together to create the Great Depression. Mind you, the Great Depression occurred under the watch of laissez faire free marketers like Hoover and Coolidge.

    I am not a socialist, as you accuse me of being. A socialist is someone who thinks the state should own the means of production. However, I do believe that capitalism must be tempered with safety mechanisms, and that some government regulation (ex. banning child labor, minimum wage, trust-busting) can help the economy.

    High oil prices are not the direct result of inflation. I am sure that you know about the oil embargo of the OPEC nations. Instability in places like the Middle East, as well as African nations like Nigeria, have also served to raise oil prices. I will agree with you, however, that inflation is a major problem. Of all of Ron Paul’s reactionary ideas, I find his adherence to the gold standard to be the most palatable.

    I was mistaken in saying FDR took us off the gold standard- it was Nixon. However, you still have not addressed my points about Lawrence vs Texas. I shudder to think what kinds of Supreme Court Justices Ron Paul would appoint – especially when you consider that our two oldest Justices are both loose constructionists.

  8. plith how many depressions happened between the founding of this country and when the fed was created? how many bubbles have popped in the last 20 years? tech bubble, housing bubble etc, these are not results of a free market. this is just absurd, you say you’re not a socialist then you preach socialist policies. altruism will be the death of us all, only objectivism will free us. you seem to think ron paul is some kind of bible thumping racist, and you’re incorrect. read ludwig von mises, and watch peter schiff when he’s on tv.

    http://thebivouac.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/economist-peter-schiff-on-the-state-of-the-us-economy/

  9. i appologize for the hostility in my last post, i’m a little drunk. heh sorry. some of what i wrote upon re-reading your post makes me see some of what i said was incorrect. but i know im right about the depression, because the business cycle is a direct result of central economic planning and so are the depressions and recessions.

  10. So if we implemented an undiluted free market system, do you think that severe recessions and depressions would not occur?

  11. i dont think so, because it would have a broad back and be able to substain itself under collapses of businesses. but the free market is driven by individual creative human action through personal decisionmaking. like i said before you need to read “human action” by ludwig von mises. Where there is no interference like in the technology sector in hardware for computers you see rapid advances and a consistent drop in price of computers. Where in sectors like energy, education, and healthcare through intervention prices have risen dramatically. The inflating of bubbles has to do with dropping rates in sectors of the economy to stimulate and make them grow but its inevitable that there will be mal investment, in the housing bubble there’s predatory lending, in the dot com bubble there were websites that didn’t produce anything but had an exorbitant amount of employees and were doomed to fail. how many times did websites simply spend a million to get a commercial on the superbowl and next day have massive stock increases? the free market would not allow businesses to corner a sector in the market and exploit it because they would be destroyed by the market itself. The market will eventually correct itself. you can’t hold back a tsunami of debt forever. i think we’re already on that downward slope, we’re just moving down it slowly. thats why ron paul’s policies make so much sense, because they raise the land above the tsunami.

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/1057/statement-on-competing-currencies/

  12. as far as supreme court justices i think he’d appoint judge andrew napolitano who loosely endorsed him but was unable to full endorse because of his job at fox news. here’s a four part talk by him its worth watching and i think you’ll learn a lot.


    Part 1


    Part 2


    Part 3


    Part 4

  13. I recall from my history class that the Federal Reserve System was the result of a market panic. Teddy Roosevelt ordered an investigation of the market and banking systems after the panic, and Woodrow Wilson eventually implemented the recommendations of the investigation into the Federal Reserve Act.

    I don’t quite understand your argument that the free market would destroy or prevent monopolies. Once a company or corporation achieved economy of scale status over their competitors, they would be able to drive down the price of their commodities to kill off competition. Then, they would be able to underproduce to create artificial scarcity in order to get higher profits at the expense of the public. If a competitor attempted to re-enter the market, they could be easily crushed due to economy of scale status. Without government intervention, I believe such monopolies could exist.

    I completely agree with you that inflation is a big concern in today’s economy. That is why I find notions of a gold standard to be attractive. But I am concerned that deflating our currency might make it more difficult to pay back our gargantuan national debt.

  14. see that can’t create artificial scarcity, and people have the right to choose. for example imagine if like exon mobil owned all the gas stations, and started to jack the prices up. well yes they could do that for a while, but eventually alternative energy would rise up out of the market through consumer demand and exon mobil would lose money. plus they can’t just extort completely in the market because people would just refuse to buy it. we’ve had tension in the populous in gas prices for a long time and we would have had an alternative had we had a real free market system. go watch the movie “who killed the electric car?” the market is the creative expression of our individual human action, so that we may live our lives and prosper maximizing our enjoyment of life because the market is constantly molding in its massive network to each of our individual choices. find a copy of th book

    The Creature from Jekyll Island
    By G. Edward Griffin

    and read it, its all about the federal reserve system and how it was formed.

  15. I’ll try to read the book about the Fed when I get the time. But I’m not buying your argument about monopolies. Did people refuse to buy petroleum from Standard Oil when it had a monopoly on the oil market? Did people demand an alternative to steel when U.S. Steel had a virtual monopoly on the market? I think not. And creating artificial scarcity was the right thing to do during the Great Depression. It’s just not the best thing to do when there is no pressing emergency.

    • Tom Woods

  16. “He would like to abolish the income tax – the tax by which the US government raises most of its revenue.”

    Without the income tax our government’s revenue would be reverted back to that of 1997, not Pre-WWI as you misleadingly point out.

    That is one of many economic fallacies contained in your blog.

    Sorry.

  17. “So if we implemented an undiluted free market system, do you think that severe recessions and depressions would not occur?”

    Assuming that an “undiluted free market” refers to one with sound money, then yes, severe recessions and depressions would probably not occur because there is a built in mechanism for avoiding the inflation and overheating of economic bubbles.

    Bubble economies are the direct result of centrally organized banking, plain and simple. And bubble economies are the sole cause of depressions.

    Don’t forget, though, there are a group of people who benefit from these bubble bursts: the bankers and others who touch the inflated currency.

  18. 1) Without the income tax, our government would sink hopelessly into debt. The IRS collects more than one trillion dollars in income taxes every year. Though the tax system itself is in desperate need of reform, abolishing the income tax would be fiscal suicide.

    2) The creation of the Federal Reserve was spurred by economic instability. To say that there would be no severe recessions in a system with “sound money” (I assume you mean currency backed by a commodity) is absurd. The US had its fair share of panics before the Fed and during the time of the gold standard. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907)

    3) It is incredibly annoying (and a bit arrogant) when people criticize my articles for being riddled with fallacies, only to avoid referencing those errors. Just because I disagree with you does not mean that my post is error- ridden. If you find errors in my arguments, please point them out to me so that I can address them.

  19. Mike,

    Your big government nonsense is so far off the mark I don’t know where to start with you, obviously your a Keynesian. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    In the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was one of the most interesting, dynamic candidates in the race.

    Yes he was.

    Full of passion and unique ideas, he was able to raise millions from the Internet while enticing a small horde of young voters to his campaign.

    Relatively small, compared to the long tongue liar you worship, but not all were young, as Mike charges, were they?

    Anyone who watched the Republican debates knows that Ron Paul added flavor and entertainment to an otherwise bland occasion. As amusing as Ron Paul often was, however, his ideology presents an inescapable danger to the US.

    Inescapable danger? How so Mike?

    It has been said by Howard Dean that Republicans want to take the US back to the 1950’s.

    More straw man language? Is this the best you can do brother? And when did he say this, I thought Ron Paul said that he wants the US government to follow the constitution? Please clear this up. Maybe you can ask Mike.

    Ron Paul, however, has no interest in taking America back to those “good old days”. Instead, Ron Paul is the ultimate reactionary; he wants to take America’s foreign and fiscal policy back to the 1930’s.

    I thought Ron Paul said that he wants the US government to follow the constitution? Please clear this up. Maybe you can ask Mike.
    In addition to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq (a good thing),

    How is the long tongue liar you worship doing with this? Did he or did he not say that he would end the war in/on Iraq? What is he waiting for? Hmm?

    Ron Paul would yank US troops out of every corner of the world.

    That would be a good start.

    This not only means withdrawing from places where we are no longer needed (e.g. Eastern Europe), but also places where US troops are crucial to maintaining regional security (e.g. Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and possibly South Korea).

    So Mike is for expensive interventionalism. Sounds like a good ol neocon to me.

    Ron Paul would withdraw the US from NATO, severing our long-standing alliance with western Europe.

    A NATO withdraw would be good, and I have plenty of supportive info as to why this would be good, but the 2nd part is another lie. This in itself would not “severe” our long-standing alliance with western europe. How would it, please explain, or ask Mike to explain if you can’t.

    In effect, Ron Paul advocates a return to the foreign policy of the isolationists and the America First crowd that got us into so much trouble before WWII (many historians speculate that WWII could have been prevented if the US hadn’t been so isolationist).

    “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliance with none.”

    Do you know how many presidents repeated this quote of Jefferson’s or made variation to it? Ron Paul is not an isolationist, that is a RNC talking point. Mike needs to read a bit about the root causes of WW1, which cause WW2 before he plays more strawman games with weak minds. WW2 happened because of the Churchill manipulation of his dolt Wilson in the White House. WW2 happened because of the US intervention in WW1, which in turned caused the cold war and the rise of Wahabiism. Mike, you don’t know what you are talking about.

    If Ron Paul’s foreign policy is unsettling, his fiscal policy is downright frightening.

    Oh, now this is getting good. Paul’s fiscal influence is:

    1. Carl Menger
    2. Eugen von Bohn-Bawerk
    3. Ludwig von Mises
    4. Fredrich von Hayek
    5. Henry Hazlitt
    6. Murray Rothbard

    And to call out this men as fiscal policy challenged is the naval equivalent of setting of a depth charge before you drop it into this sea, and you scold me for sending “silly shit”. This is silly shit. This is very silly shit.

    Not content to take our fiscal policy back to the 1930’s, Paul would instead take it back to pre-WWI days.

    More strawman arguments. There has never been one time that Paul has said “I will take America back to….days”. The projection is Paul’s pro-constitutional stance. Do you smell shit when your head is up your ass or do you get used to it. This is strawman shit. Silly sophomoric strawman shit.

    He has advocated for the implementation of the gold standard and the abolition of the Federal Reserve.

    So has Tom Woods, Mises, Rockwell, Kidd, and Rothbard! What the hell is wrong with that? I’m sure Mike can NOT explain it either.

    He would like to abolish the income tax – the tax by which the US government raises most of its revenue (this is an example of one of the attractive but unrealistic views held by Paul).

    And by doing so would render the govt to a 1998 purse. A very good start, and think of all the jobs that this extra money would create. Oh that’s right, you’re for big government, nevermind.

    Ron Paul would effectively end FICA by allowing young people to opt out of the program. He would withdraw from NAFTA and implement a trade policy similar to that of the laissez faire era.

    And this is bad? Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Jackson, and Grover Cleveland were wrong? Excuse me?

    Ron Paul’s fiscal policies would exacerbate income disparity and leave the US economy wide open for devastating recessions.

    Really? Sure about that? How so? Explain please.

    If there is one issue that I agree with libertarians on, it is that of personal liberty.

    Well duh

    But Ron Paul is no advocate of personal liberty. Ron Paul describes himself as an “unshakable foe” of abortion rights.

    The unborn has no rights, then? They are not worth protecting? Explain this shit.

    Ron Paul spoke out strongly against the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence vs Texas (2003), in which it was ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. Paul justified his criticism of the court by saying that the individual states should have the right to decide whether or not to have such laws.

    Why should the federal court get bogged down in buttfucking laws? Why? Is Mike aware of the 10th amendment?

    In essence, Paul puts the rights of the states to pass discriminatory laws above individual liberty.

    More posted by Mike strawman arguments. This is a gross falsification, if there is a need for buttfucking laws, and why would there be??? Then yes the state is where this matter needs to be settled, but Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul has said about 100,000 times as a politician, “the government has not business in the bedroom”. Donald, why do you send me this knuckle dragging drivel? Huh?

    Ron Paul refused to take a stand against Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a Republican debate, when asked about it.

    More posted by Mike strawman arguments. This is a another lie

    http://www.americablog.com/2007/08/ron-paul-on-homosexuality-sin-and-dont.html

    see for yourself

    He has even said that he would not vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it were reintroduced today, arguing that the courts can’t read people’s minds to tell if they are discriminating against minorities in employment or access to services.

    That’s because the Civil Rights Act has done nothing but enslave blacks: recall the article by Star Parker that I send you:

    Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam’s Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

    I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas — a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism. I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job
    Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

    A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned
    government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.

    A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”

    Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems
    — the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

    The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

    Through God’s grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

    I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

    I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

    But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

    Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

    Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, “Thank you, Suh.”

    Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

    There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

    Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

    In an op-ed on the opinion page of the
    Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic
    stimulus.

    “This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending — it’s a strategy for America ‘s
    long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education.”

    Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place “with
    unprecedented transparency and
    accountability.”

    Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

    Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 — The War on Poverty — which President Johnson said “….does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the
    causes, not just the consequences of poverty..”

    Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

    It’s not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama’s invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

    Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

    http://www.amazon.com/Uncle-Sams-Plantation-Government-Enslaves/dp/0785262199

    Lastly, Ron Paul has stated that he does not believe in evolution, though he claims that such a belief is irrelevant (in my view, it most definitely is not).

    Maybe because he’s a Christian, maybe because he believes the Bible?

    Ron Paul derives his views on everything from economics to foreign and social policy from a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    Again no, his economics comes, as I previously stated from these men:

    1. Carl Menger
    2. Eugen von Bohn-Bawerk
    3. Ludwig von Mises
    4. Fredrich von Hayek
    5. Henry Hazlitt
    6. Murray Rothbard

    And they were mostly Austrians. They didn’t have a strict interpretation of the Constitution, did they?

    He is notorious for citing the “original intent” of the Constitution in justifying his views (e.g. the Founder’s sought to avoid entangling alliances; therefore, we must withdraw from NATO). While there is absolutely nothing wrong with idolizing our nation’s Founders, it is wholeheartedly foolish to allow the dead hand of generations long past to dictate our nation’s policies. The world has changed so much since the Constitution’s birth; only a flexible interpretation of the founding document will allow it to stand the test of time.
    To answer the question posed by this article’s title, Ron Paul’s ideology is thoroughly hideous. Because Paul is so earnest and because his ideas are so unique, there is a deep temptation for those wanting change to support him. But the only change that Ron Paul plans to deliver would be grossly reactionary. His ideas would stifle progress by decentralizing political power and by taking this country back to the pre-WWII era. That, needless to say, would be most hideous.

    Only an idiot would believe this shit. Let’s debunk this “flexible” constitution theory using the words of Ron Paul:

    Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?
    It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today. The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. If anything, today’s more complex world cries out for the moral clarity provided by a noninterventionist foreign policy.
    It is time for Americans to rethink the interventionist foreign policy that is accepted without question in Washington. It is time to understand the obvious harm that results from our being dragged time and time again into intractable and endless Middle East conflicts, whether in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or Palestine. It is definitely time to ask ourselves whether further American lives and tax dollars should be lost trying to remake the Middle East in our image.

    • Truth be told, I agree with most of what Ron Paul has to say regarding foreign policy- I just think he goes a bit too far. I do not, however, agree with your arguments supporting a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Did strict constructionism lead to the Brown vs Board decision? How about Loving vs Virginia, a case in which the Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage? Or Lawrence vs Texas? No, all of these court rulings are the product of loose constructionism, dubbed “judicial activism” by some. The Constitution was written several hundred years ago by men who lived in a very different atmosphere. While I don’t suggest that we abandon the principles of the Constitution, taking a rigidly literal interpretation of that document is nonsense.

      Likewise, your attack on socialism seems a bit hollow when one considers a few simple facts. Studies consistently show that people living in Western Europe are the happiest in the world. And, of course, Western Europe is notorious for its “horrendous” socialism. Horrendous indeed. I’ll admit, America’s social welfare programs are far from perfect, and have a long way to go. However, there’s probably a reason why every industrialized country except the U.S. has embraced universal healthcare, and other similar programs.

      And yes, it is important that Ron Paul rejects evolution. Even if this won’t directly affect how he governs, it says something about how he forms his beliefs. The evidence supporting Darwin’s theory is irrefutable. Anyone who can bury his (or her) head in the sand and reject this proof is being quite a fool. If that person is a politician, it is downright disturbing.

      You accused me of lying about Ron Paul’s views on homosexuality, but it seems you didn’t even bother to read the article you provided a link to. In his interview, Ron Paul waffled on the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, and said he didn’t have a problem with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This is perfectly consistent with what I put in my original post.

      Derek, you make some good points, but your post is full of unwarranted vitriol, especially towards our president (and myself). However, Obama has nothing but the best interests of the African American community in mind. He was a community organizer in his youth, and has been fighting injustices all his life. Don’t suggest otherwise.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: