Saturday, December 31, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: Mossad Chief Says Iranian Nukes No Threat To Israel

But the lame stream mediots, warmongers in DC and GOP hopefuls, save Ron Paul, continue to deceive the American sheeple on the need to enter into another unconstitutional war with an attack on Iran based on the same flawed propaganda as was used to invade Iraq because of Sadaam's WMDs. Even the neocon American Enterprise Institute admits that any such invasion would be more to continue US control of the region rather than to prevent any hypothetical attack on Israel.

Washington Times
The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

“What is the significance of the term ‘existential?’” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”

The intelligence chief did not comment on an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which the Islamic republic has said is engaged only in peaceful research.

Mr. Pardo’s remarks contradict those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly has sought consensus among Israeli officials to attack Iran’s nuclear centers.

However, Mr. Pardo’s comments echo those of his predecessor at Mossad, Meir Dagan, and of other former and current Israeli security officials.

Mr. Dagan had vigorously opposed an attack and expressed his position publicly after retiring earlier this year. Gabi Ashkenazi, former armed forces chief of staff, also reportedly opposed an attack.

Opponents to an attack plan say that Iran, as a rational state, would not launch a nuclear assault that would ensure a retaliatory Israeli strike on its cities, including holy sites.

Zeevi Farkash, Israel’s former military intelligence chief, has said that Iran’s main drive for acquiring atomic weapons is not for use against Israel but as a deterrent against U.S. intervention, in much the same way that nuclear-armed North Korea feels secure against a U.S. attack.

Happy New Year And Thanks From The Libertarian Patriot!

As 2011 comes to a close, I'd like to wish everyone a happy and safe New Year. It was certainly another bumpy ride for the US as our economy continues to sputter along and Leviathan increased it's stranglehold on the American people.

I'd also like to give a big thank you to all the readers of The Libertarian Patriot. 2011 was a big year here, with readership more than doubling from 2010. I am honored that you have all taken time out of your busy lives to visit and hope to continue to earn your support in 2012.

I do need to thank my fellow bloggers for their promotion of TLP too. Without their blogroll listings and direct links to posts, there is no way this blog could have grown the way it has in this past year. I salute you all.

Going forward in 2012 I hope to continue to grow TLP into one of the top libertarian blogs on the interwebz. Your support is important to me so feel free to let me know what I can do to make TLP even better.

2012 is shaping up to be one of the most important years in recent history, with the fate of our republic hanging in the balance. It will only be through our eternal vigilance that we will be able to stop Leviathan in it's tracks and reverse the trend in the growth of government and it's usurpation of our liberties and freedoms.

With the help of my fellow Patriots in 2012, we can protect our country from our government.

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year Citizen - Obama Signs NDAA Despite "Reservations"

Citizen, welcome to the Police State 2012.

Barry can issue all the signing statements he wants but, at the end of the day this is now law and is just another further usurpation of powers granted by the Constitution.

It's also interesting that he chose to sign it on New Years Eve when the American public is more concerned with how drunk they are going to get tonight rather than they are on the erosion of their liberties.

This law, along with the PATRIOT Act, makes all Americans subject to provisions that we deride other nations for using when we attempt to import our brand of democracy on them at the point of a gun.

"America, land of the free" is now nothing more than a not so funny joke.

Atlantic Wire
Despite having once threatened to veto the bill due to controversial language about the treatment of suspected terrorists, the president signed the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law on Saturday. Barack Obama did not keep his lingering concerns about aspects of the bill law a secret, however. In justifying his decision to sign NDAA into law, Obama said in a statement, "I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed." He continued, "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." (We've pasted the full statement at the bottom of this post.)

Of the controversial detention provisions, Obama concludes, "My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office."

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: An Israeli For Ron Paul

Obviously Rafi Farber didn't get the memo that Ron Paul is an anti-Semite.

LRC
I first got interested in the whole freedom movement when I heard that Ron Paul wanted to end all foreign aid, including to my country, Israel. This seemed like a spectacular idea to me. I hate the idea of taking American tax payer money I don’t need. The only reason we take it, by the way, is not because we need it. It’s that we don’t want to feel alone, and Jews always feel a deep existential isolation and loneliness. “As I see them from the mountain tops, gaze on them from the heights, this is a people that dwells alone, not counted among the Nations,” says Balaam of the People of Israel in Numbers 23:9. We still feel that loneliness. So we take the money. It’s shameful, it’s theft, it’s destructive, it’s morally wrong, and it makes people hate us for tying them into a conflict they have no business trying to solve. I wanted it to end and didn’t trust any Israeli leader to give it up on his own, so I looked up more about Ron Paul.

The essential soul of a human being is by definition free. The idea that men are free as determined by God is a concept that is foreign to most men. This is because most men want to control others, to take away their freedom. This is usually referred to as the drive for power. The drive for power is antithetical to freedom because power means the ability to control others. There is only one legitimate thing that power can and should be used for, whether it be military, legislative, or executive power. That is, to legalize freedom.

Ron Paul doesn’t want to be President to “give” me freedom. He doesn’t own my freedom and he didn’t give it to me. The only reason Ron Paul wants to be President is to stop punishing people for using their freedom that is rightfully theirs. He wants no power. This is clear to anyone who listens to him speak.

American Jews! Wake up! Set your brothers in Israel free! We were the first nation ever to be set free by God, and we brought the concept of liberty to the world when we left Egypt over 3000 years ago. It’s about time we set the example we were chosen to set.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: Jesse Venture Endorses Ron Paul

Infowars
“Ron Paul has Governor Jesse Ventura’s endorsement without a doubt,” he said. “It’s not even close. Because I want a new president that is going to change the direction of this country. I want a new president that is going to follow the Constitution. I want a new president that is going to believe in states’ rights. I want somebody that will shock the status quo.”

Jesse said Ron Paul is the only candidate that will put an end to the establishment’s wars and foreign adventures.

“It’s a simple as this,” he said. “If people truly are looking for an attempt at change in this country – changing who are and what we will be in the future – then there is only one candidate, and that is congressman Ron Paul. He’s the only candidate that wants to audit the Federal Reserve… he is the only candidate that wants to talk rather than wage war, so I think this will truly be an agenda for the United States of America, an agenda to determine what we stand for. Do we stand for being the most aggressive, war-mongering country in the world who is all set to go to war with Iran, too, or are we going to be a country that stands for peace?”

Larry Winget's Ten ANTI-Resolutions For The New Year

Larry Winget is my type of guy; straight shooting, no BS, tell it like it is.

Just a look at his book titles tells you he is not for people who are looking for touchy-feely advise; Shut Up, Stop Whining & Get A Life, People Are Idiots And I Can Prove It, You're Broke Because You Want To Be, Your Kids Are Your Own Fault and my favorite It's Called WORK For A Reason.

If you are looking to get yourself on track, Larry makes it clear that you are your own worst enemy and only you have the power to make changes.

Now if you are interested in improving yourself in the upcoming New Year, you can either take Larry's advice and be your own man (or woman) or you can make a bunch of meaningless resolutions that you'll have already given up on by January 3rd.

It's too bad that we don't have anyone like him in DC.
Ten ANTI-Resolutions For The New Year

1. Last year is OVER – let it go. No good comes from dwelling on the past.

2. Don’t whine about the bad in your life. Whining prolongs the problem and irritates the rest of us.

3. Keep your problems to yourself. The tolerant are your enemy, not your friend.

4. Keep your dreams to yourself. Naysayers can destroy your dreams by shaking your confidence.

5. Never make resolutions- they don’t work. They are task focused, not end-result focused.

6. Start with the end in mind. Know EXACTLY what you want your life to look like and make a plan.

7. Write things down. Problems get smaller when written down, goals become more real.

8. Expect derailment. You will experience setbacks. Big deal. Get over it and move on.

9. Don’t stop – unless you need to stop. Sometimes you discover it was a bad goal, or you need to rest, or you need to start over completely – otherwise, stay focused and keep the momentum going.

10. Celebrate. Not just at the end, but all along the way.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Latest PPP Poll - Ron Paul Still Leading In Iowa

Up one point from the last poll on 12/18

Paul 24%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 13%
Bachmann 11%
Perry 10%
Santorum 10%
Huntsman 4%
Roemer 2%

PPP
The last week and a half has brought little change in the standings for the Iowa Republican caucus: Ron Paul continues to lead Mitt Romney by a modest margin, 24-20. Newt Gingrich is in 3rd at 13% followed by Michele Bachmann at 11%, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum at 10%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%.

Iowa looks like a 2 person race between Paul and Romney as the campaign enters its final week. If Paul can really change the electorate by turning out all these young people and independents who don't usually vote in Republican caucuses, he'll win. If turnout ends up looking a little bit more traditional, Romney will probably prevail. And given all the strange twists and turns to this point don't expect to see a surprise in the final week...and based on the innards of this poll the person best positioned to provide that surprise in the closing stretch is Santorum.

TLP Quik Hits: Judge Napolitano On The Fall Of The American Empire

"Want to end the madness, just say no to more debt."



Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Ron Paul Is Not Anti-Israel Says Former Aide

Bibi Netanyahu agrees with Ron Paul too.

Haaretz
Speaking with Haaretz on Tuesday, [Dr Leon] Hadar discounted Paul's characterization as anti-Israel, saying: "He is against Israel as I am against January. He is just against foreign aid, and does not see any reason to grant an aid to the country that is a member of OECD."

"We should remember it's the primaries, and the Republican party establishment is not happy about his popularity, because on many issues his positions run contrary to the traditional party's agenda," Hadar added.

The former aide also indicated that Rep. Paul was in favor of "economic cooperation with Israel, he was interested in the economic reforms in Israel."

"He will be glad to see the conflict resolved and he said it's the right of Israel to attack Iran if it thinks that is necessary - but it shouldn't expect the U.S. to clean the mess," he said, adding that Paul is "very familiar with Israel's history. I didn't hear his conversations with his former aide, but I personally have never heard him say anything against Israel or the Jews."

Referring to claims according to which Paul was in favor of "handing Israel back" to the Arabs, Hadar said it was "absurd to say he is more supportive of Arabs or Iran than Israel - he just thinks the U.S. shouldn't meddle in other countries issues."

"I think it's quite pro-Israeli, because the U.S. won't stay in the Middle East forever, and Israel should figure out how to deal with its challenges," Hadar said, adding that there "is little doubt the current campaign against him and the attempts to paint him as anti-Israeli might cause him harm among the Evangelicals, whose support is more significant during the primaries than the Republican Jewish support."
Via Memeorandum

After A Brief Interruption,The Libertarian Patriot Is Back

I apologize to readers of The Libertarian Patriot for being AWOL yesterday but unfortunately it was due to some circumstances beyond my control.

Being in opposition to any government control of the internet, I decided that I could not in good conscience do business with a company that supports the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and therefore moved my domains from Go Daddy to NameCheap.

Go Daddy, you see, initially supported SOPA and had even claimed that they consulted on the legislation (they even received an exemption from lawsuits in the act) but after an online backlash for supporting the measure, Go Daddy backtracked. Now the company says they no longer support the legislation but reserves the right to flip-flop again and "will support it when and if the Internet community supports it."

How comforting.

Now normally, the transfer of a domain is a fairly easy automated process but Go Daddy apparently made it more difficult than it had to be by blocking NameCheap from getting the info they needed to facilitate the transfers. I have 4 urls for TLP and the .us and .mobi ones went through quickly but .com and .net were held up. Because of this I had no service for most of the day.

Thanks Go Daddy.

SOPA, along with the Senate's version, PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), are both attempts to give Leviathan power over the internet and must be stopped. Companies like Go Daddy who choose to play both sides of the fence also need to be put on notice that their shenanigans will not be tolerated.

This is also a lesson on how the free market works when the government stays out of the way. People are free to choose who they use for a product or service and when a company does something that harms or is against the wishes of it's patron, they are free to go elsewhere.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

The Christmas Truce Of 1914

LRC

The Christmas Truce, which occurred primarily between the British and German soldiers along the Western Front in December 1914, is an event the official histories of the "Great War" leave out, and the Orwellian historians hide from the public. Stanley Weintraub has broken through this barrier of silence and written a moving account of this significant event by compiling letters sent home from the front, as well as diaries of the soldiers involved. His book is entitled Silent Night: The Story of the World War I Christmas Truce. The book contains many pictures of the actual events showing the opposing forces mixing and celebrating together that first Christmas of the war. This remarkable story begins to unfold, according to Weintraub, on the morning of December 19, 1914:
"Lieutenant Geoffrey Heinekey, new to the 2nd Queen’s Westminster Rifles, wrote to his mother, ‘A most extraordinary thing happened. . . Some Germans came out and held up their hands and began to take in some of their wounded and so we ourselves immediately got out of our trenches and began bringing in our wounded also. The Germans then beckoned to us and a lot of us went over and talked to them and they helped us to bury our dead. This lasted the whole morning and I talked to several of them and I must say they seemed extraordinarily fine men . . . . It seemed too ironical for words. There, the night before we had been having a terrific battle and the morning after, there we were smoking their cigarettes and they smoking ours." (p. 5)
As night fell on Christmas Eve the British soldiers noticed the Germans putting up small Christmas trees along with candles at the top of their trenches and many began to shout in English "We no shoot if you no shoot."(p. 25). The firing stopped along the many miles of the trenches and the British began to notice that the Germans were coming out of the trenches toward the British who responded by coming out to meet them. They mixed and mingled in No Man’s Land and soon began to exchange chocolates for cigars and various newspaper accounts of the war which contained the propaganda from their respective homelands. Many of the officers on each side attempted to prevent the event from occurring but the soldiers ignored the risk of a court-martial or of being shot.

Some of the meetings reported in diaries were between Anglo-Saxons and German Saxons and the Germans joked that they should join together and fight the Prussians. The massive amount of fraternization, or maybe just the Christmas spirit, deterred the officers from taking action and many of them began to go out into No Man’s Land and exchange Christmas greetings with their opposing officers. Each side helped bury their dead and remove the wounded so that by Christmas morning there was a large open area about as wide as the size of two football fields separating the opposing trenches. The soldiers emerged again on Christmas morning and began singing Christmas carols, especially "Silent Night." They recited the 23rd Psalm together and played soccer and football. Again, Christmas gifts were exchanged and meals were prepared openly and attended by the opposing forces. Weintraub quotes one soldier’s observation of the event: "Never . . . was I so keenly aware of the insanity of war." (p. 33).

A Little Lite Christmas Music: Vince Guaraldi Trio

Enjoy







The CNN Hit Job On Ron Paul

This all makes for great theater and has generated some juicy headlines for those that don't want to see Ron Paul win the GOP nomination but is this honest journalism by Gloria Borger and CNN?





For the record I think that this episode has been handled poorly by Ron Paul and that he really hasn't been consistent in his explanations over the years of what he did and didn't know.

Even in the full clip, Paul appears to contradict himself when Borger asks if he read them at the time they were published and he replied that he read them on occasion but later states that he had no knowledge of those comments until 10 years after they were written.

Sorry, but if Obama is going to get heat for attending Rev Wright's church for years but never heard any of the Reverend's inflammatory sermons, Ron Paul needs to be held to the same standard.

As we have seen time and time again, it's the coverup that kills politicians and Dr Paul should should just come clean and be saying is something like this,
I owned a newsletter and had hired several people to ghostwrite in my name. Unfortunately, some very racist, offensive and disparaging remarks were made in it that I do not approve of. I do apologize for my neglect of that newsletter and understand the pain those remarks can inflict on some people. I do want the American people to know that I will not tolerate things like that in my campaign, in my life, or in a Paul presidency.
That said, I also think that a lot of this has been blown out of proportion by anti-Paul people because, as Justin Raimondo wrote in 2008, some of the "offending" passages have also been taken out of context.

For example this excerpt seems pretty clear, right?
“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
Now read in the full context of the passage it means something entirely different.
“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.”
What the author seems to be saying is that white Americans, particularly the progressives, will refuse to see the folly of the welfare state and how it actually prevents blacks and other minorities from from rising out of poverty. The "racist" statement actually points out, correctly, that race is the first criteria used by many others in white America to identify the bad guys.

Here's another quote that has been used to point to "racism" in the newsletters,
“only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"
Now in it's full context,
“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”
What the author is saying here is that only 5% of black agree with his or her position on limited government and the welfare state, which the author considers to be "sensible political opinions". Maybe a poor choice of words but is that racist? I guess in today's political climate it is, since it is a fairly standard claim by the left that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist regardless of why they oppose him.

This issue needs to be put to bed by the Paul campaign and that can only be done by taking full responsibility, regardless of the blowback.

Via Memeorandum

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Bob Tate For Gun Owner Of The Year

How's this for dedication?

My father-in-law had some trouble with his pacemaker last week so he went in to consult with his cardiologist today and the doctor decided that the pacemaker would be moved to near his right shoulder. When he asked Bob if he had any questions or concerns, Bob thought for a minute and only had one question; would it get in the way of him shooting his prized 1920's Parker Brothers shotgun.

Bob is 78, but still shoots traps with "Mr Parker" regularly and there's no way he'd give up the enjoyment it brings him. His cardiologist, after hearing the story, laughed and said "that's fantastic"; telling Bob he'd put the pacemaker somewhere else.

Bob goes in tomorrow for surgery and if all goes will will be home for Christmas.

I salute you Bob, here's to a speedy recovery.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: Gary Johnson To Announce Jump To Libertarian Party on 12/28

My preference is that he announces a run for Senate in New Mexico but he didn't ask my opinion.

Politico
Gary Johnson will quit the Republican primaries and seek the Libertarian Party nomination instead, POLITICO has learned.

The former two-term New Mexico governor, whose campaign for the GOP nomination never caught fire, will make the announcement at a press conference in Santa Fe on Dec. 28. Johnson state directors will be informed of his plans on a campaign conference call Tuesday night, a Johnson campaign source told POLITICO.

The move has been expected for weeks — Johnson had run a New Hampshire-centric effort that never got him past a blip in the polls. He appeared at only two nationally televised debates, and only one in which other major candidates took part.

Johnson has announced the Dec. 28 event on his Facebook page. Campaign spokesman Joe Hunter said only that it would be “a significant announcement.”

Calling news of the switch “the worst kept secret,” Libertarian Party Chairman Mark Hinkle said the Santa Fe event will include a press conference at which Johnson will switch his voter registration to Libertarian.
Via Memeorandum

Monday, December 19, 2011

Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura - 'Police State' - Full Episode

Want to know what the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could mean to you?

This episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Venture called Police State uncovers the secrets behind FEMA Camps and Fusion Centers.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Hitler Reacts To Ron Paul's Rise In Polls

H/T Right Coast Conservative

Ron Paul Leads Latest PPP Iowa Poll

With less than two weeks before Iowans caucus, who's smiling now?

Paul 23%
Romney 20%
Gingrich 14%
Santorum 10%
Perry 10%
Bachmann 10%
Huntsman 4%
Johnson 2%

PPP
Newt Gingrich's campaign is rapidly imploding, and Ron Paul has now taken the lead in Iowa. He's at 23% to 20% for Mitt Romney, 14% for Gingrich, 10% each for Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, 4% for Jon Huntsman, and 2% for Gary Johnson.

Paul's ascendancy is a sign that perhaps campaigns do matter at least a little, in a year where there has been a lot of discussion about whether they still do in Iowa. 22% of voters think he's run the best campaign in the state compared to only 8% for Gingrich and 5% for Romney. The only other candidate to hit double digits on that question is Bachmann at 19%. Paul also leads Romney 26-5 (with Gingrich at 13%) with the 22% of voters who say it's 'very important' that a candidate spends a lot of time in Iowa. Finally Paul leads Romney 29-19 among the 26% of likely voters who have seen one of the candidates in person.

Paul's base of support continues to rely on some unusual groups for a Republican contest. Among voters under 45 he's at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He's really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney's blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Kim Jong No Longer Ill... He's Dead

Hell is sure filling up this year.

BBC
Mr Kim, who has led the communist nation since the death of his father in 1994, died on a train while visiting an area outside the capital, the announcement said.

He suffered a stroke in 2008 and was absent from public view for months.

His designated successor is believed to be his third son, Kim Jong-un, who is thought to be in his late 20s.

The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Seoul says Mr Kim's death will cause huge shock waves across North Korea.

The announcement came in an emotional statement read out on national television.

The announcer, wearing black, said he had died of physical and mental over-work.
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Eric Holder Plays The Race Card

This is rich.

The outcry against the Attorney General has nothing to do with the DOJ enabling the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels and their subsequent use in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, the laundering cartel money, letting the New Black Panther Party skate on voter intimidation charges or a host of other screw ups. Rather it is because both he and Barry are black.

NYT
In the interview, Mr. Holder offered a glimpse of how he viewed the criticism. He said he thought some critics — like Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who favors allowing the military to handle terrorism suspects over the criminal justice system — are expressing “good faith” arguments about their policy disagreements.

But Mr. Holder contended that many of his other critics — not only elected Republicans but also a broader universe of conservative commentators and bloggers — were instead playing “Washington gotcha” games, portraying them as frequently “conflating things, conveniently leaving some stuff out, construing things to make it seem not quite what it was” to paint him and other department figures in the worst possible light.

Of that group of critics, Mr. Holder said he believed that a few — the “more extreme segment” — were motivated by animus against Mr. Obama and that he served as a stand-in for him. “This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” he said, “both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Demonizing The Tenth

Something to remember as the Bill of Rights celebrates it's 220th year.

Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Why do so many politicians and pundits condemn those who support invoking the Tenth Amendment to check federal power? Because they are invested in the benefits of big government, and the Tenth Amendment is designed to keep government small.

Invoking the Tenth is viewed by the mainstream media as a radical concept today, but it wasn’t considered radical when it was added to the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Constitution likely would not have been ratified if limits on federal authority had not been added to the document. The country’s founders sought to constrain the power of government because, having just fought a war for independence, they knew how oppressive a centralized government could be.

When the Alien and Sedition Acts infringed on constitutional liberties, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. These argued that states had the power under the Tenth Amendment to nullify federal laws they believed to be unconstitutional.

Northerners invoked the Tenth Amendment to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act, which forced citizens to help federal authorities to catch runaway slaves. Many outraged northerners refused to abide by this repugnant law. Wisconsin and Ohio officially nullified the act, citing both the Tenth Amendment and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as justification.

Today, the mechanisms that the founders had provided for the people to guard their own liberty have somehow become dangerous to invoke. We are routinely told by those in power that there is no recourse against federal power today, no matter how oppressive it may become.

Politicians naturally seek to centralize government because centralization enhances their power. They justify their actions and downplay the Tenth Amendment by using jargon like the federal government has “implied powers” to promote the “general welfare,” and after all, what they do helps the general welfare of the country.

This is why the federal government has seized control over citizens’ healthcare, education, auto industry, mortgage industry, energy, financial institutions, and personal lives through taxation. If the Tenth Amendment was properly applied, the federal government would never have been able to seize the power it has. The governing philosophy in our country today runs almost completely counter to the founders’ intent.

Those who support big government seek to minimize the Tenth Amendment because it’s the power check that forces federal politicians to behave within the constitutional framework. Without this power check, government grows and liberty shrinks.

The people must take their freedom back, regardless of what the big government benefactors may say. And the Tenth Amendment is the way to do it.

Saturday, December 17, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: Gingrich Of Freddie Mac

$1.6M is small potatoes, Newt's Center for Health Transformation took $37M to "consult" the Health-Care Industry.

Him likes his government big.

WSJ
Newt Gingrich's opponents aren't letting up in their criticism of his lucrative ties to the failed mortgage giant Freddie Mac after he resigned as House Speaker in the late 1990s. More damaging to his Presidential candidacy is that Mr. Gingrich doesn't seem to understand why anyone is offended.

In his first response after news broke that he'd made $300,000 working for Freddie, Mr. Gingrich claimed he had "offered them advice on precisely what they didn't do." As a "historian," he said during a November 9 debate, he had concluded last decade that "this is a bubble," and that Freddie and its sister Fannie Mae should stop making loans to people who have no credit history. He added that now they should be broken up.

A week later Bloomberg reported that Mr. Gingrich had made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in two separate contracts with Freddie between 1999 and 2008. The former Speaker stuck to his line that "I was approached to offer strategic advice" and had warned the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to stop lending to bad credit risks.

Then on December 2 our colleagues at the Journal reported that as late as April 2007 Mr. Gingrich had defended Fannie and Freddie as examples of conservative governance. "While we need to improve the regulation of the GSEs, I would be very cautious about fundamentally changing their role or the model itself," Mr. Gingrich said in an interview at the time.

Mr. Gingrich added in that interview that there are times "when you need government to help spur private enterprise and economic development." He cited electricity and telephone network expansion. "It's not a point of view libertarians would embrace, but I am more in the Alexander Hamilton-Teddy Roosevelt tradition of conservatism," he said, adding "I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we probably would be on Mars today."
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Foreign Policy Blowback

Michael Scheuer, former CIA Chief of the bin Laden Issue Station (96-99) and Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit (01-04), shares Ron Paul's opinion.

Gary Johnson For Senate

With the former Governor of New Mexico being shut out of the GOP Presidential race by the mediots and pollsters, he is seriously weighing a run for the Libertarian Party nomination.

But is this the best course of action?

Gary Johnson's voice is too important to be silenced on the national level but due to factors, some of his own making, he has failed to gain traction with the national electorate. A run on the LP ticket is, in my opinion, a quixotic fantasy for Gov Johnson and while it may influence the Presidential race somewhat and give him an opportunity to be on the same stage as Obama and the GOP nominee during the debates, I don't see his chances of winning in the General Election any better than they were in the GOP primaries.

In the past, Gov Johnson has ruled out a run for retiring NM Senator Jeff Bingaman's seat (much in the same way he ruled out jumping to the LP, it should be mentioned) stating that he does not believe in a Senator's ability to make a difference.

That is all well and good but we have seen that a limited-government, pro-liberty Senator can make a difference and that man, Rand Paul, needs all the allies he can get.

Gary Johnson also has a chance to actually win the NM Senate seat. While the latest PPP poll shows that he would have some ground to make up against current GOP frontrunner and favorite Rep Heather Wilson who leads the former Governor by a 42-31% margin, remember that he is not even campaigning for the seat while Wilson is.

But that's the bad news. Looking deeper at the PPP numbers, Johnson has 45/39 favorable/unfavorable opinion by those polled while Wilson is almost the opposite at 37/46.

Better still, when compared to Democratic frontrunners Rep Martin Heinrich and State Auditor Hector Balderas (Heinrich leads Balderas 47-30), Gov Johnson is tied with Heinrich at 43% and beating Balderas 44-38. Meanwhile, Rep Wilson trails Heinrich 47-40 and is tied with Balderas at 43%.

As you can see, this race is Gary Johnson's for the taking. He's not even campaigning for the spot and is still well positioned to win.

Gov Johnson, I beg you, stop tilting at windmills and take what you are being given. Six years of Gary Johnson in the Senate is far better than nothing.

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Ron Paul Doesn't Matter To 'Time'

How ironic is it that in Time's Person of the Year issue honoring The Protester, the grandfather of the Tea Party doesn't get a mention in their People Who Mattered section?

Other GOP hopefuls such as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Herman Cain, along with Newt and Mitt made the cut, but no Ron Paul.

[I'm actually surprised that mediot darling Rick Santorum didn't get a mention or that John Huntsman's daddy didn't buy him one, but that's a discussion for their handful of supports to have.]

To Time, it seems that the one man who stands out among the pretenders, the one man who understands what got us into this mess and how we can get out of it, the one man who predicted the meltdown and predicts the dire days ahead if we don't make drastic changes, is irrelevant. Never you mind that he has the best organization, is drawing the biggest crowds and is close to the top in Iowa polls, with a Tuesday PPP poll having him within one point of the lead and gaining ground in NH according to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll.

Maybe they're right, maybe Ron Paul doesn't matter now, but they'll be forced to take notice in a few short weeks when the good Doctor gives a shock treatment to the American political landscape.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Chinese Villagers Stand Up To Communist Party

I fear for the people of Wukan because given the track record of the ChiComs, it is only a matter of time before this village goes down the memory hole.

Occupiers take note; this is real civil disobedience.

Telegraph UK
For the first time on record, the Chinese Communist party has lost all control, with the population of 20,000 in this southern fishing village now in open revolt.

The last of Wukan’s dozen party officials fled on Monday after thousands of people blocked armed police from retaking the village, standing firm against tear gas and water cannons.

Since then, the police have retreated to a roadblock, some three miles away, in order to prevent food and water from entering, and villagers from leaving. Wukan’s fishing fleet, its main source of income, has also been stopped from leaving harbour.

The plan appears to be to lay siege to Wukan and choke a rebellion which began three months ago when an angry mob, incensed at having the village’s land sold off, rampaged through the streets and overturned cars.

Although China suffers an estimated 180,000 “mass incidents” a year, it is unheard of for the Party to sound a retreat.

But on Tuesday The Daily Telegraph managed to gain access through a tight security cordon and witnessed the new reality in this coastal village.

Thousands of Wukan’s residents, incensed at the death of one of their leaders in police custody, gathered for a second day in front of a triple-roofed pagoda that serves as the village hall.

For five hours they sat on long benches, chanting, punching the air in unison and working themselves into a fury.

At the end of the day, a fifteen minute period of mourning for their fallen villager saw the crowd convulsed in sobs and wailing for revenge against the local government.
Via Memeorandum

Monday, December 12, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: What's Dumberer, A Box Of Rocks Or Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Hey Deb, I'll make this simple for ya ==>




She was great in Twisted Sister though.

Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: Marco Rubio vs. Rand Paul

Marco's been hanging around My Idiot Senator too long. Why else would he want to provoke another Cold War, if not a shooting war, with Russia?

Patrick J. Buchanan
Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone’s short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia’s plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann’s ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it — Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio’s effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

Sunday, December 11, 2011

TLP Quik Hits: Why Americans No Longer Trust Washington

Yet the Corruptocrats keep getting re-elected.

Washington Examiner
Survey after survey in recent months has shown an alarming decline in public confidence in the nation's chief federal institutions, as well as a deepening pessimism about America's future. Congressional approval is at an all-time low of 13 percent, according to the Gallup Poll, and three-quarters of the public wouldn't re-elect most members of Congress. There is cold comfort in the numbers for President Obama. Barely 41 percent of the public approves of his job performance, according to Gallup. Most worrisome is the fact that a majority of Americans, 52 percent, told pollster Scott Rasmussen this week that they believe the country's best days are behind it, the first time a majority has so responded.

Anybody puzzled by these trends, however, need look no further than the performance of some of our leaders in recent days. Obama gave a bitterly partisan address in Kansas, which featured, as The Washington Examiner's Michael Barone pointed out, a crude, straw-man caricature meant to portray Republicans falsely as believing "we are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules." The chief executive also claimed -- without evidence, his aides later conceded -- that "some billionaires have a tax rate as low as one percent." Such deceptions and inventions destroy a president's credibility.

Next, there is Attorney General Eric Holder, the man Obama appointed as the nation's chief law enforcement official. For months Holder has claimed, in the face of steadily mounting evidence to the contrary, that he knew nothing about Operation Fast and Furious until he read about it in the newspapers earlier this year. Fast and Furious is the Justice Department program in which officials allowed thousands of weapons to be sold by U.S. dealers to Mexican drug cartels. Just before Christmas, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of those weapons. Hundreds of Mexican citizens, including multiple government officials, have also been killed with Fast and Furious guns.

As Examiner legal affairs contributor Ken Klukowski pointed out Friday, a steady drip-drip of evidence has become public in recent months as Justice Department officials grudgingly released documents sought by Congress. Those documents make clear that many senior Justice Department officials knew about Fast and Furious from soon after its inception in 2009, as did high-ranking officials at the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the White House. Yet if Holder is to be believed, he was the last man in Washington to know about something happening right under his nose.

Then we learn from Examiner columnist Diana West in today's edition that National Archivist David Ferriero recently sealed for 20 years millions of documents from the U.S. Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have been hundreds of credible reports in recent years of outrageous waste and corruption in such spending, yet it will now be decades before we will learn all of the facts. Last year alone, according to the New York Times, federal officials sealed 77 million official documents. Something else was recently sealed -- the court records concerning Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's murder. Washington's solution is to bury potentially embarrassing documents. No wonder America no longer trusts Washington.
Via Memeorandum

TLP Quik Hits: ECB Research Shows That Government Spending Undermines Economic Performance

Further proof that Keynesian Theory is a failure.

International Liberty
Europe is in the midst of a fiscal crisis caused by too much government spending, yet many of the continent’s politicians want the European Central Bank to purchase the dodgy debt of reckless welfare states such as Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal in order to prop up these big government policies.

So it’s especially noteworthy that economists at the European Central Bank have just produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).
There are two very interesting takeaways from this new research. First, the evidence shows that the problem is government spending, and that problem exists regardless of whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. Unfortunately, too many supposedly conservative policy makers fail to grasp this key distinction and mistakenly focus on the symptom (deficits) rather than the underlying disease (big government).

The second key takeaway is that Europe’s corrupt political elite is engaging in a classic case of Mitchell’s Law, which is when one bad government policy is used to justify another bad government policy. In this case, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending, and they’re now using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary monetary policy by the European Central Bank.
Read the rest here

Response To A Jewish Opponent Of Ron Paul by Walter Block

Reprinted from LewRockwell.com

Response to a Jewish Opponent of Ron Paul
by Walter Block

Aaron Biterman posted his list of "Top 25 Reasons to Oppose RON PAUL's 2012 Campaign." I repeat his list below, exactly as it appeared on the web site Jewish Libertarians on 12/7/11, interspersed with my commentary (<<) on each of his objections. I have no idea whether his first or 25th reason is the most important, but I follow the order of these reasons that Mr. Biterman set out in his missive.

25) Jon Huntsman
<< It is greatly to his credit that Huntsman turned down the invitation to debate from "moderator" Donald Trump. And, of course, Ron Paul did so too. Heck, even "Mr. Principled" Mitt Romney turned up his nose at this "debate." However, Huntsman is a weather socialist, and has supported the poisonous individual healthcare mandate, along with his spiritual and moral counterparts, Romney, Gingrich and Obama, all unlike Ron Paul. ‘Nuff said. No, I’ll say more: Huntsman does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath, at least from a libertarian perspective, as Ron Paul. That Biterman would place him above the congressman from Texas indicates that his own libertarian credentials are hanging by a thread.
24) Gary Johnson
<< Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is not all bad. I go further: he is an excellent candidate. On a scale of libertarianism, I would award him a passing grade of 65 (Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman and Perry all clock in at less than 5 out of 100. Ron, in my view, hits the 95 level.) When asked, at one of the few debates he joined, who he would pick as his Vice President, Gary Johnson chose Ron Paul. No one can be all bad who articulates such a thought. Indeed, in my own publications about who Ron should pick as his Veep, Gary Johnson was prominently mentioned; see here and here. This is what my co-author and I said about him then, and I stand by it now: "Gary Johnson. It is too bad that the former governor of New Mexico as of the time of this writing has not been able to enter into the debates. If he did so, then there would be not one but two libertarians on stage at these important events. On the other hand, we know Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson is no Ron Paul. He is more of a ‘beltway’ or Reason Magazine libertarian than a real one. He is better than the neocons on foreign policy, but does not call for a purely defensive stance for our military. He wants to legalize drugs, but only some of them; he did not pardon any victimless criminals when he could have. He favors the legalization of prostitution, but not based on a matter of rights; merely utilitarianism. He urges reform of the Fed, not abolition. Go down the entire list: he is pretty good on most issues from a libertarian point of view, but doesn’t hit the bull’s eye on any of them."

23) The Libertarian Party
<<I am a fan of the Libertarian Party. I ran for office under its auspices in 1972. I have been an active member of it (well, except for the debacle of Bob Barr in 2008 when I quit in protest) for its entire existence. I have spoken often at its conventions. I am a card carrying member of the LP. My expectation is that if Ron wants to make a third party run, which he now denies, 99% of the Libertarian Party members would vote to nominate him. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination for president, I have no doubt that the LP will support him as their standard bearer too, and do everything they can to see him beat Obama. But, the Libertarian Party usually polls some 1-3% of the electorate, and is brutally ignored by the mainstream media.
How does that compare with the inroads Ron Paul is now making into the consciousness of the American electorate? To ask this is to answer it. Ron, even though all too often ignored by the mainstream media, is still burning up the airwaves and dominating the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines. Anyone who refuses to support Ron Paul on the ground that the Libertarian Party exists is surely smoking some controlled substances. Lots of them. Is this point really worthy of sober comment? No. But, I am determined to refute each and every one of these 25 points, and this is one of them.
22) Paul claims to support free trade, but the truth is otherwise (find Paul's Cato ratings).
<< Ron Paul subscribes to the Murray Rothbard–Milton Friedman–Hong Kong–Singapore view of free trade; inaugurate a policy of full free trade, no barriers, with all countries of the world. He opposes "fair trade," "managed trade," customs unions, and treaties such as Nafta, Cafta, etc. He wants a unilateral declaration of free trade with all nations, whether or not they reciprocate. Would that the Cato Institute adopt such a strong principled viewpoint. When an inside the beltway "libertarian" organization such as the Cato Institute is proposed as the rating agency for Ron Paul, we are all in trouble.

21) Paul endorsed the Constitution Party nominee for president in 2008; have you read the Constitution Party platform?
<< The Libertarian Party platform, although egregiously watered down from the days that Murray Rothbard was active in this organization, is still far superior to that of the Constitution Party. Here, I agree with Biterman. However, a case can be made out that Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party’s nominee that year was more libertarian than was Bob Barr. So, Ron is to be blamed for supporting the man, and not the party platform? That seems to be more than just a bit harsh.
20) Paul's campaign team consists of folks who have spent considerable time working for Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, and various other unsavory causes.
<< It is time for an economics joke. Economist A asks economist B, "How is your wife?" Comes the reply from B: "Compared to what?" Yes, the two men mentioned, and the two organizations, each have "unsavory" (e.g., non libertarian elements). But compared to what? In 2008 the Libertarian Party, favored by Biterman, nominated Bob Barr as president, and Wayne Allyn Root as vice president. Root is a war monger and Barr is a drug warrior. Neither was much of a libertarian. I would place Barr and Root in roughly the same political economic category as Buchanan and Robertson, and rate the LP for nominating these two non libertarians in 2008, in a similar manner to the Christian Coalition and the Family Research Council. No, worse. At least these latter two did not claim to be libertarians, and thus did not engage in outright fraud.

But suppose Biterman manages to evade these comparisons. Let us stipulate, arguendo, that Buchanan and Robertson, the CC and the FRC, are horrid people and organizations. Just because someone worked for them in the past does not mean they were infected by these non libertarians. I know Ron Paul, and I know he would not knowingly associate with non libertarians in his campaign. I fully expect that when Dr. Paul is sworn in to office in January 2013, he will bring to Washington with him people who will eliminate unnecessary departments, end the Fed, help him bring home the troops, shut down U.S. military bases in foreign lands, etc. Does Biterman really doubt this? No. Course not. These are precisely the reasons that "libertarian" opposes Ron Paul.
19) Where is the campaign money being spent? Who is benefiting from the donations? Who is getting rich? These questions remain unanswered.
<< What is the source of Biterman’s income? How does he spend his money? Who benefits from Biterman’s largesse? These questions remain unanswered. Biterman, ever hear of privacy? Why is this information any of Biterman’s business? It is not. However, of course, the Paul campaign complies with all sorts of intrusive questions such as these because it is required to do so by law.
18) Paul was the economic advisor of Pat Buchanan's 1992 presidential campaign
<<So was Murray N. Rothbard, for a time, until he could no longer abide Buchanan’s protectionism. Is Pat Buchanan some sort of boogy-man, the mere mention of whose name is supposed to send us running for the hills? Buchanan had some libertarian elements in his philosophy, and, many, unfortunately, which were not. Biterman champions the Libertarian Party (see point 23 above) but Barr and Root are no more libertarian than Buchanan.
17) Paul says Gaza is filled with "Concentration Camps."

<< There are concentration camps, and then there are concentration camps. The meaning that most people ascribe to this phrase is, of course, Nazi concentration camps, where millions of people perished. But never in a million years did Dr. Paul mean to refer to Gaza in any such context. What, then, are the other meanings of this phrase? One such definition is "The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment." Under this definition concentration camps were used by the British in South Africa and the Spanish in Cuba, long before Hitler. And, they were used, too, during the Hitler period, by, of all countries, the U.S., for Japanese-Americans. None of these other "concentration camps" are to be mentioned in the same breath as the one organized by the Nazis.
I regard this of all Biterman’s 25 points as the one that rankles the most within the Jewish community, particularly amongst Israelis. But, I contend, when these people hear of this statement by Congressman Paul, they think, only and solely of Nazi concentration camps, for which there is absolutely no comparison. But how does Gaza stack up against the U.S. internment camps (concentration camps) utilized against Japanese Americans during World War II? I maintain that while of course there are differences, the two are in the same or at least similar "ball parks." Also, it is possible that Congressman Paul misspoke, had a slip of the tongue (which of us can say that this never occurred to us?).
Do I regret that my friend Ron Paul used this particular phrase in that interview? I do. Well, at least without mentioning that he had more in mind the U.S.-Japanese-American internment camp rather than anything even resembling the Nazi case. But distinctions of this sort are difficult to make in 3 minute interviews.
Nor must we lose sight of the fact that in this short interview Dr. Paul made the following very important points: He would change our Mideast policy with the goal of preventing these problems in the first place. He assigns blame to both parties. He says that Washington should mind its own business; that people in Gaza know that our weapons are used against them and blame us as well as Israel. And, we can’t afford to intervene any longer.
But, stipulate that Congressman Paul erred in this regard. No one should oppose any candidate for one single mistake. We all have slips of the tongue, and bad days (Barack Obama once mis-counted the number of states in our union; for more of his bumbles, see here). For a much more indicative view of Dr. Paul’s views on Israel, one where he indicates he is a friend of that country, go here. For the claim that Ron Paul is really a Zionist, go here and here.
16) Paul's "We the People Act" would forbid federal courts from adjudicating "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion", i.e., it would remove all federal remedies for allegations of state violations of religious freedom.
<<Ron Paul is a federalist, like many of our founding fathers. He sees the major enemy of our freedom as an out-of-control federal government. He believes that placing greater reliance on the 50 states will better ensure our liberty. So, of course, he wants to trim the sails of the federal government, and give the states more control. His reasoning is that if one state violates rights, it is far easier to deal with than when the federales do so. This is a reason to oppose his candidacy? Does not Biterman take cognizance of the concept of "voting with the feet?" Does he not realize that it is far easier to move from one locality to another, than from one country to another?
15) Paul says church-state separation has no constitutional basis.
<< Does Biterman point out the constitutional basis for church separation? He does not. He merely mentions this as a reason to oppose the Paul candidacy as if it is obvious. Is Biterman a member of the mainstream media? Isn’t there a rule that only members of the MSM are allowed to do this? I am an economist, not a constitutional scholar, so I really can’t delve deeply into this question. However, it appears to me, as an outsider, that the burden of proof rests with this author, and he has not only fulfilled it, he does not realize that it is incumbent upon him to do so.
14) Paul would be age 78 at the start of his first term.

<< True. But Dr. Paul was a national class track athlete when he was in college. He is a young 76, right now. I have no doubt that with any athletic competition between the Republican candidates (running, swimming, biking, etc.), the Congressman from Texas would acquit himself very well. Hey, Biterman opposes Paul. This should be an argument for his candidacy. For if Paul has a short life expectancy, Biterman ought to rejoice in this, not complain about it. If Paul wins, according to this "logic," he will soon be gone in any case.
13) Anyone (including you) can vote "no" on legislation in Congress
<< Frankly, I don’t understand this objection.
12) Paul has no executive experience: how will he perform?
<<Obama had no executive experience before becoming president either. So what? In any case, I know exactly how President Paul will perform, and so does everyone else who has not been Rip Van Winkling it through this campaign. He will cut taxes and pull the troops home to a defensive (not offensive) position; he will cut spending by one trillion dollars in his first year. He will end, not mend, the Fed. He will rescue the U.S. dollar with a gold standard. He will no longer allow the federal government to run roughshod over state decisions to allow (medical) marijuana.
11) Paul is the choice of various notable conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers, and anti-Semites – and refuses to distance himself from these endorsements
<< They support him; he doesn’t support them. He "distances" himself from them all right: by saying he doesn’t agree with them. By the way, are all conspiracy theories false? Is not a one of them true? That seems to be the underlying premise of this objection, but, as usual, it is not spelled out, certainly not defended.
10) Paul posed for a photo with KKK Grand Wizard Don Black after refusing to return $500 from Black in 2008

<< Dr. Paul takes pictures with tens of thousands of people. No, make that hundreds of thousands. At the end of every speech he gives, people line up by the hundreds for a quick picture with him. Does anyone really think that Ron Paul can recognize everyone who asks to have a five second audience with him for a picture-taking? As for giving money back, under which conditions will justice better be served: The Congressman is plus $500, and the anti-Semite at zero; or, the Congressman ends up with zero funds from this episode, and the anti-Semite has the $500? Does Biterman favor enriching anti-Semites?
9) Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a sodomy law for DC in 1981, and voted against adoptions for gays in DC in 1999
<<Ron Paul’s votes on this matter have more to do with his espousal of federalism than with this particular substantive issue. Ronald Reagan was once so incensed at the rent controls of New York City that he thought seriously of using the weight of the federal government to right this obvious local wrong. Ron Paul is more of a federalist than that, and Reagan was too, in the event. This, too, is a contentious issue amongst libertarians, and, as far as I am concerned, politicians get a bye when the libertarian community is unsettled on a given law or public policy.
8) Paul supports the repeal of birthright citizenship, part of his platform of "common sense" immigration reforms
<< I disagree with Ron Paul on immigration; see here, here, here and here. However, there are leading libertarians (Murray N. Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe) who espouse the Paul position on immigration. When there are leading libertarian theoreticians on both sides of an issue, it is a bit much to make such an issue a litmus test for politicians. This issue, as far as I am concerned, is part of the 5% where Ron Paul diverges from libertarianism. Go, sue him. No one is perfect. And for this we libertarians are supposed to jettison Ron Paul? And for whom? Mitt Romney? Newt Gingrich? It is to laugh.
7) Paul signed a pro-life pledge from the Susan B. Anthony List, which involves the federal government in the issue of abortion, contrary to his rhetoric.

<< The weasel word, here, is "involves." Of course this pledge "involves" the federal government. Congressman Paul’s "rhetoric" is to enable each of the states to determine these issues. Now, who is it do you think that will do this "allowing"? Why, the federal government of course; nowadays, it does most of the allowing and disallowing in our society. So, Dr. Paul’s signing of this pledge is not at all incompatible with his States' rights rhetoric. It is rather disingenuous of Biterman to make this charge. Did he not think that any Ron Paul supporter would look into it?
6) Paul is among the most vocal opponents of equal protection under the law in Congress
<<Why no link to any support for this charge? As it stands, it is a criticism without any foundation at all. Or is it Biterman’s view that Dr. Paul must prove himself innocent, rather than this critic demonstrating his flaw, thus turning on its head the usual, civilized assumption of innocent until proven guilty? What does it mean to oppose equal protection of all citizens? Does it mean that a politician wants to violate the rights of the downtrodden? If so, the very opposite is the case. The war on drugs disproportionately and negatively impacts the black community. Dr. Paul has bitterly opposed it, thus helping to better protect this segment of our populace. But, it is difficult to defend the next President of the U.S. on this point, since our critic is so unclear
5) Paul is among the most vocal opponents of Israel in Congress
<< Nonsense. No: nonsense on stilts. Dr. Paul is the best friend that Israel has in the entire Congress. He is among the few that favors Israeli independence. He speaks out in favor of the sovereignty of this country. U.S. foreign "aid" to Israel’s enemies is a multiple of what that country receives. Ending that program thus redounds to the benefit of Israel. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

4) Paul is among the most vocal defenders of earmarks in Congress
<<Earmarked funds are thus already consigned for expenditure. Ron Paul violates no libertarian axiom in attempting to divert some of them to his constituents who have paid for them through taxes. Earmarks also increase government transparency, surely a goal to be desired by libertarians. By the phrase "among the most" is a rather improper way of quantifying anything. Biterman should do his homework, if he wants to make these charges stick. He has not done so. For Ron Paul on this earmark charge, see here, here, here, and here.
3) Paul has the arrogance to want to redefine human life itself.
<< Yes, what "arrogance" on the part of an Ob-Gyn who has delivered some 4,000 babies. Who is Dr. Paul to define life as beginning at conception? Why, everyone knows, they just know, that life really begins at birth. Therefore, such horrors as partial birth abortion are entirely justified. I mean, the effrontery of the man! Here, I must agree with Biterman; Ron Paul is an arrogant would-be dictator, wanting to save the "lives" of mere bits of protoplasm, of no more moral importance than a cyst.
On a more serious note, this is part and parcel of what it means to be pro life. It is entirely legitimate for a libertarian to disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. The libertarian community, as in the case of the population at large, is greatly divided on this issue. Thus, to make this into some sort of litmus test for libertarians is improper.

As it happens, I disagree with Dr. Paul on this issue. I am neither pro life nor pro choice. I adopt a third alternative, the evictionist position. See on this here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. But, do I oppose Congressman Paul’s campaign since he does not agree with me on this stupendously complicated issue, about which the greatest minds in libertarianism can come to no consensus? Of course not. I’m no Biterman.
Let me end this depressing section on a lighter note. Question: Do you know when the fetus is viable in the Jewish tradition? Answer: When it graduates from medical school.
2) His mean-spirited cult of supporters
<<Well, I suppose I’m one of them. I worship the very ground upon which Ron Paul treads. (Where’s the Kool Aid?) I’m meaner than a rattlesnake. Every other supporter of this Congressman from Texas is just like me in this regard. Nasty as the day is long.
Hey, a silly objection deserves a silly response
1) The racist Ron Paul newsletters, which Paul admitted writing in his 1996 Congressional campaign (see: Dallas Morning News, May 1996)
<< This old charge has been answered, and answered and answered once again. Only a mean-spirited cultist would bring it up once again at this late date.

Walter Block thanks the following people for valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article: Thomas Nash, Lew Rockwell. All remaining errors are of course his own responsibility.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Related Posts with Thumbnails