RedStateEclectic

Ron Paul vs Paul Krugman: A Quote Timeline

The Anti-Bernanke

During a lecture entitled “The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story”, Peter Schiff responds to Bernake’s recent four-part college lecture series.

 

Bubama Advancing

Image credit.

 

It is ironic but perhaps sadly appropriate that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose a law school, Northwestern University, to deliver a speech earlier this month in which he demolished what was left of the rule of law in America.

In what history likely will record as a turning point, Attorney General Holder bluntly explained that this administration believes it has the authority to use lethal force against Americans if the President determines them to be a threat to the nation. He tells us that this is not a violation of the due process requirements of our Constitution because the President himself embodies “due process” as he unilaterally determines who is to be targeted. As Holder said, “a careful and thorough executive branch review of the facts in a case amounts to ‘due process.’” That means that the administration believes it is the President himself who is to be the judge, jury, and executioner.

As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote of the Holder speech:

“All the Administration has said is that they closely and faithfully follow their own guidelines — even if their decisions are not subject to judicial review. The fact that they say those guidelines are based on notions of due process is meaningless. They are not a constitutional process of review.”

It is particularly bizarre to hear the logic of the administration claiming the right to target its citizens according to some secret selection process, when we justified our attacks against Iraq and Libya because their leaders supposedly were targeting their own citizens! We also now plan a covert war against Syria for the same reason.

I should make it perfectly clear that I believe any individual who is engaging in violence against this country or its citizens should be brought to justice. But as Attorney General Holder himself points out in the same speech, our civilian courts have a very good track record of trying and convicting individuals involved with terrorism against the United States. Our civilian court system, with the guarantee of real due process, judicial review, and a fair trial, is our strength, not a weakness. It is not an impediment to be sidestepped in the push for convictions or assassinations, but rather a process that guarantees that fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I am encouraged, however that there appears to be the beginning of a backlash against the administration’s authoritarian claims. Just recently I did an interview with conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham who expressed grave concern over using these sorts of tactics against Americans using the supposed war on terror as justification. Sadly, many conservative leaders were silent when Republican President George W. Bush laid the groundwork for this administration’s lawlessness with the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention without trial, and other violations. Similarly, as Professor Turley points out, “Democrats previously demanded the ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration that revealed poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.” The misuse of and disregard for our Constitution for partisan political gain is likely one reason the American public holds Congress in such low esteem. Now the stakes are much higher. Congress and the people should finally wake up!

Thoughts On A Freedom Movement

As a libertarian, it's nice to see the growing appeal surrounding Ron Paul's candidacy. Over the years, we here at RSE have discussed the particulars surrounding the movement that we were sure was building. I'd say it has been a resounding success so far. To me, the "irate minority" jargon came across sounding awfully naïve, at times, when considering the vast government leviathan we've been up against. However, a new populist freedom movement has emerged and expanded via the new electronic medium and the government propagandists have, so far, failed to halt it.

The internet has done its part in fomenting the ideas of liberty and has brought with it the ability to network instantly. We are not alone and we're discovering that our political parties and leaders have been rather underhanded in what was thought to be a fair election/debate procedure. There can be no doubt that Ron Paul has been treated differently and that the monopolistic main stream media possesses far too much control over the process. Also, a very large academic support framework has appeared to help in riposting the to-be-expected onslaught of ad hominems, as well as non sequiturs so obtuse they’re undeserving of the descriptive nobility found in Latin terms.

Even so, the masses have been dialectically conditioned over many years to believe that the synthesis of Hegel's technique, useful in promoting socialist outcomes, is the best we can hope for in a Machiavellian world. This juxtaposed, two-party version of freedom - where blue people supposedly defend personal freedoms and red people guard economic freedoms - has led to government growing against both areas. Control still trumps repeal in the present political atmosphere.

This brings me to the political constituency. The crowds who vote for all of this status quo. …

{See the comments section for the rest.}

Ben Swann's Reality Report: Was Ron Paul Robbed In Maine?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but....did Ron Paul actually win Maine?  Sadly, I'm not quite sure if the video is actually embedding here, or it I'm seeing it from my cache , but in any event...the latest "Reality Report" from Ben Swann sure makes it seem possible. 

Click here to see it if you don't see it below....

Jefferson, Paul and the Sacred Fire of Liberty

Forbes writer, Ralph Benko, has a nice piece up on Ron Paul:

Paul represents the re-emergence of a great American tradition.  That tradition reawakens in the person of Ron Paul, who has a fair claim to be our era’s Thomas Jefferson.  As Jefferson’s heir he commands deep respect if not always (as in the case of this Supply Side, Hamiltonian, writer) complete fealty.

… Jefferson was a courageous radical.   His anti-(federal)-government convictions often are indistinguishable from those of Dr. Paul.  Dr. Paul unabashedly went to bat for secession after Gov. Perry came under fire for rhetorically toying with that.  Jefferson’s anonymous co-authorship of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions is in many ways the charter text on the primacy of states rights.

Jefferson envisaged America becoming the world’s great “empire of liberty. ” On departing the presidency he wrote:

“ Trusted with the destinies of this solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole depository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth shall ever become susceptible of its benign influence.”

…There are principled reasons to dispute with some of Dr. Paul’s positions. 

Full article.

It is always interesting when a comparison is made between two people and their circumstances – especially when the differences lead to disputes of principle. In the case of Jefferson, his unconstitutional moments as president do not lend themselves to principles as they do pragmatics. It is an error to believe that justification can be found for such acts other than a lack of patience, if not faith, in free systems.

Politicians endeavor to put out small fires for fear of conflagrations. The fear justifies immediate force. Because freedom requires considerations of agreement as opposed to force, it warrants understanding and sanctions patience toward anticipated remedies that only stalwarts of liberty are willing to believe will appear. Too often, the present emotional din reaches the extreme, as action is demanded and political plans are implemented, rectifying the latest problematic event or societal injustice.

Over time, we expect instant gratification from a government that grows itself in preparation for every contingency. It is in this fashion, as Edmund Burke foresaw, that “liberty is nibbled away, for expedients.” The only question remaining leaves us to wonder exactly how much is left to eat.

The People Who Like Gary Johnson

Image credit.

Of course, I know Ron Paul (´s credentials and philosophy) a lot better than Gary Johnson ('s). If I faced an either-or-decision, I would support Ron Paul over anyone else - but this does not mean that I am adverse to Johnson.

In fact, there is much to be said for Johnson, not least that he attracts support from people (a) I admire and (b) personally like - (a) and (b) holding true with respect to Laura, (a) applying to the Coyote, who has this to say in his blog, today:

I decided today to volunteer for Gary Johnson’s independent libertarian run for President.  I have always been a Johnson supporter, and was disappointed that he did not get more attention in the debates and nomination process.

Yes, I know folks will be saying that if Gary Johnson does well, it will just be guaranteeing an Obama victory.  You know what?  Given the choices, I don’t care.  My other choices seem to be the guy who pilot-tested Obamacare and Rick Santorum, perhaps the only person the Republicans could have found with a deeper authoritarian streak than Obama.  You know those 2×2 matrices where one leg is “government intervention in social issues” and the other is “government intervention in economic issues?”  Where libertarians are low-low and Republicans and Democrats are each in one of the low-high boxes?  Did you ever wonder who was in the high-high box?  Well, Obama has moved pretty strongly into that space.  But Santorum staked it out years ago.   He is right out of the John McCain, I-am-nominally-for-small-governemnt-but-support-authoritarian-solutions-for-a-range-of-random-issues school.

In fact, I might argue that freedom and small government would be better served by an Obama second term that the yahoos likely to gain the Republic nomination.  First, there is nothing worse than having statism and crony capitalism sold by someone who is nominally pro-market (see either of the Bushes as an example).  Second, Republicans are much feistier about limiting spending and regulation in Congress when in opposition.  They tend to roll over for expansions of state power when they have a fellow Republican in the White House — just compare spending of the Republican Congress under Clinton vs. Bush.  Medicare Part D, anyone?

The source.

While the cold is giving way to thaw here, people in Amsterdam are skating the frozen canals - enjoy, and nite, nite:

 

Stirring Video (got the ol’ blood pumping)

Kudlow Interviews Paul, Shows DeMint Clip Supporting Him

The Senator from South Carolina suggests that Ron Paul’s domestic ideas need to be the core principles of the Republican Party.

DeMint is very popular down here and may be the reason why Paul’s numbers have popped 11 percentage points recently.

It was good to hear Dr. Paul bring up Sarbanes-Oxley, one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written; right up there with the Morrill and Smoot-Hawley Tariffs. Also mentioned was the just-released Federal Reserve transcripts revealing their misreading of the housing collapse (see Central Bank Blinders).

A typically endearing Ron Paul moment occurs when he's asked to deliver a keynote speech at the convention. Dr. Paul expresses his delight in doing so, provided that they don't write it for him. Classic.

New Ron Paul Ad

“Restore America”… that sounds familiar.