RedStateEclectic

The Attempt to Label All Libertarians as Racist

Yesterday, Tumblr blog Ron Paul is Not Racist posted this image:

It is a legitimate question: why the relentless attack on Ron Paul's character?

It is must be known that the complete lack of empathy for the suffering and deaths of foreign people who are the victims of this country's murderous foreign policy is what informs a partisan hack's politics. This lack of empathy also extends towards the victims of this country's drug policies.

The attack on Paul over texts he has already taken moral responsibility for and repeatedly disavowed while ignoring the brutal and racist policies that Barack Obama is continuing abroad and at home is pure and petty partisanship. The partisans' sudden concern for racism is suspect, politically-motivated, and a product of opportunism and cynicism that so afflicts our political process.

However, it is not merely Paul that is the ultimate target of these coordinated and bipartisan attacks. This is an attempt to marginalize and halt the growth of the libertarian movement which poses a legitimate political threat to the entrenched left-right establishment. The attack on Paul is ultimately an attack on all concerned liberty-minded Americans who tire of the status quo, who are sick of politics-as-usual, and who are desperately looking for alternatives to the welfare-warfare politics that defines the corporatist-controlled two-party establishment. It must be remembered that in the early days of both the tea party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, they were labeled as racist and anti-Semitic respectively. It is a tried and true charge that partisan hacks like to levy against their opponents even as their party of choice implement truly brutal and racist policies in the war on drugs and war on terror.

Republicans fear the liberty movement because it thoroughly discredits the establishment. Democrats fear the liberty movement because it exposes them for what they truly are: warmongers.

There is a deafening silence from partisan hacks (like Alex Ryking, Politicalprof, and Ari Kohen at Tumblr or every deluded blogger at DailyKos) on the supreme crimes against humanity that Obama has committed against the people of this world, yet make ample time to write and promote smears against a very decent man. Through their anti-Paul invectives, they project their fears and hatred for Paul and the entire movement he represents for it forces them to confront the hollowness and utter pettiness of their partisanship.

Against these efforts, the libertarian must maintain constant vigilance and resist any attempts to crush this legitimate peace movement. Pay no heed to these warmongers, these partisan hacks! To want for a better world, a peaceful world, and a freer world is not a sin.

Ron Paul, the Tea Party, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Ron Paul criticizes both parties, elevates tea party and Occupy Wall Street movements

At one point during his speech, Paul said: “The American people are waking up….They’re tired of what they heard from the two parties and get promises.”

“If the Democrats promise one thing, then they get in and act like Republicans. Republicans promise something, they get in and act like Democrats. But the people are upset. They are getting angry. They are speaking out and I think it’s very healthy.”

“We have a tea party movement, we have an Occupy movement and people are saying, ‘We’ve had enough. We don’t want to be ripped off anymore. We want to do away with this crony corporatism and we want to restore individual liberty for each and every American citizen,’” Paul added.

This is why Ron Paul is being attacked by partisans from both parties: he perfectly personifies and taps into the anti-establishment sentiment that has gripped this country. When an establishment Republican like Newt Gingrich repeats the same charges partisan hacks from the Democratic Party are levying against someone, you know this target poses a threat to the moneymaking and horrifically profitable status quo.

The establishment from both parties, the same establishment that have thumbed their noses at the tea party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement, are terrified at what Paul represents.

What does Paul represent? A truly populist uprising that will strip away power from the corporatists and war profiteers that establishment Republicans and Democrats, including Barack Obama, are beholden to.

If 2008 was the rebellion, then 2012 is the revolution.

Mainstream Serious Contender Rick Perry Fails to Qualify for Virginia Primary

Another serious blow to Rick Perry’s viability and electability:

Rick Perry has been knocked off the Virginia GOP primary ballot, a key bar for candidate credibility past the early states - and a surprising state of affairs for the only campaign other than Mitt Romney that has had the resources with which to organize.

And there is this:

The only two candidates certified so far for the ballot are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman failed to submit the signatures.

The 10,000 signatures that Paul garnered must be all spambots. Fringe!

CNN Reporter Who Smeared Ron Paul Married to War Profiteer

Objective and neutral journalist Gloria Borger, the infamous CNN reporter who attempted to tarnish Ron Paul over his controversial newsletters, is married to chief war profiteer Lance Morgan of Powell Tate.

Is it a conflict of interest when you politically smear a presidential candidate who will directly impact and threaten your husband’s line of murderous work?

I have no idea, but it sure smells like it.

Drone Operators Experience High-Level of Stress

In their comfy chairs in Nevada, Air Force drone operators are reportedly experiencing high-level of stress while murdering innocent civilians over the skies of Afghanistan, but not for that reason:

In one surprising finding that challenged some of the survey’s initial suppositions, the authors found limited stress related to a unique aspect of the operators’ jobs: watching hours of close-up video of people killed in drone strikes. After a strike, operators assess the damage, and unlike fighter pilots who fly thousands of feet above their targets, drone operators can see in vivid detail what they have destroyed.

The source of stress? Long hours.

No Offense to His Fans, but Ron Paul is Not the Future of the Republican Party

You know who is? The supporters of Ron Paul themselves.

There is quiet revolution occurring in Republican Party county committees throughout the country. The Ron Paul Republicans are organizing and infiltrating the party apparatus, and while it is not so obvious, there are some signs that they might be succeeding.

In as little as 10 years, we might see a wholly different Republican Party. One that is closer to its purported platform of truly limited government, humble foreign policy, and respect for civil liberties.

Unless, of course, they are co-opted by war-hawks and scream for the continuation of the futile war on terror. If that is the case, I rather see the Ron Paul Revolution be soundly defeated now to make way for the rise of a legitimate peace movement.

Here is Andrew Sullivan’s take on Ron Paul and the Republican future.

UPDATE: The very smart and always insightful Laura Ebke, president of the Nebraska Campaign for Liberty and state chair for the Republican Liberty Caucus in Nebraska, has this to say:

The problem, of course, is that the Party keeps evolving, and never stays the same.  What you’re saying about the future of the GOP is indeed true—in much the way that the same was true in 1964, post Goldwater.  The Goldwater folks were well organized, and got involved, and over the course of the next 16 years, became the dominant force in the Party—nearly helping Ronald Reagan to steal the nomination from President Ford in 1976, and helping him to win the nomination in 1980.  But even so, time marches on, and things and people change, and the young idealists of the early 60s became the new right conservatives of the 80s, and the entrenched “senior establishment” of the GOP today. There’s no doubt that the Paul supporters will play an important role in the Party over the next decade, but the real question is how much THEY’LL change as they find themselves in positions of leadership in the Party, with new responsibilities.

Therein lies the challenge of Ron Paul Republicans when they take their turn as the entrenched establishment in the Republican Party. How much compromise are they willing to tolerate in order to gain more power within the establishment? Will they follow Paul’s example and steadfastly refuse capitulation in their principles. As I have mentioned before in my warning for the Occupy Wall Street movement:

Significant progress cannot be made by a protest movement if it is rendered ineffectual by becoming a mere arm of the establishment: an arm subject to its control and whims.

It would do much disservice to Paul’s ideas if in the future the Ron Paul Revolution becomes the Ron Paul Establishment.

The End of the Afghanistan War?

Reuters has an exclusive about the Obama administration’s efforts in Afghanistan:

After 10 months of secret dialogue with Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents, senior U.S. officials say the talks have reached a critical juncture and they will soon know whether a breakthrough is possible, leading to peace talks whose ultimate goal is to end the Afghan war.

[…]

It has asked representatives of the Taliban to match that confidence-building measure with some of their own. Those could include a denunciation of international terrorism and a public willingness to enter formal political talks with the government headed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

If these diplomatic efforts prove to be fruitful, it would go a long way in ushering the end of the United States’ longest war. In the meantime, the plan is for the military to stay indefinitely according to this report from USA Today:

Marine Gen. John Allen, the top commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the Taliban and other forces in the region need to know the U.S. military will make sure the Afghans can handle the job.

“If you been waiting for us to go, we’re not leaving,” he said.

NATO forces agreed last year to set a deadline of the end of 2014 for turning over security to Afghan forces and ending combat operations.

The troubling thing about this approach is that it ignores the peril of our continued involvement there. The United States’ quest for stability in Afghanistan would require re-empowering the Taliban, the very organization it just spent 10 years attempting to dismantle. Any agreement with the Taliban, or its elusive leader Mullah Omar, would potentially enable that organization access to the billions of dollars of foreign aid that President Hamid Karzai’s notoriously corrupt government would be receiving as well open doors for possible power-sharing arrangement with the Afghan central government. Access to these funds (along with the millions of bribes they are already receiving, according to the Daily Mail) would potentially bring about the re-emergence of a politically and structurally significant Taliban. The political implication of this diplomatic effort notwithstanding (just imagine the outrage from neo-conservatives and families of dead soldiers this “capitulation” will generate), is it realistic to expect the various tribal groups already hostile to the central government to accept this new agreement?

It is well-known that Karzai lacks credibility as he seen as “weak” and “corrupt” by his own people; a charge that is not necessarily untrue according to diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks. It remains to be seen if Karzai can amass the clout necessary to unite the country without the stabilizing influence of a foreign military occupation. Any reconciliation effort might require Karzai to step away from the top position, but his intention to cling to power after a U.S. withdrawal would likely hinder talks. Who is to say that the United States and NATO’s plan to train nearly 400,000 police and soldiers under the command of Karzai’s government, or the billions of dollars of aid Afghanistan will be receiving, or a potentially more powerful central government would not serve as incentives for him to stay?

But the real barrier to peace in Afghanistan is not Karzai, or the Taliban, or even key regional player Pakistan, but the United States government itself. No amount of self-governance will legitimize the Afghan government in the eyes of its people if the United States continues to spend money propping up Karzai’s corrupt regime. Furthermore, it is a given that the Obama administration will force Afghanistan to adopt a government that will be acceptable to the United States and its allies; an action that would, rightly or wrongly, give credence to the charge that the United States intends a puppet government in Afghanistan.

Regardless what happens to the peace talks, there is that unavoidable reality that innocent Afghan civilians will continue to suffer death and destruction under American bombs as the United States unceasingly wages its futile war on terror in the Middle East.

This article appears in Young Americans for Liberty.

Occupiers Vow to Shut Down Obama Reelection Headquarters

One of the primary features of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement that made it so successful (or according to some commentators, ineffective) is its decentralized and leaderless nature. This is apparent in the different focuses of the many occupations that dot the country.

In Occupy Des Moines, the focus is on the imperial presidency, with activists setting up camp in front of Obama’s reelection offices:

Occupy Des Moines activists on Saturday vowed to shut down President Barack Obama’s campaign offices and set up a camp outside they plan to maintain around the clock.

“We have every intention to keep this place closed down until we are satisfied,” said Frank Cordaro, an activist and founder of the Catholic Worker group in Des Moines.

A handful of activists went to Obama’s nondescript office in a downtown strip mall after larger rallies to mark the three-month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. They had hoped to read a statement demanding Obama cut military spending by half and “dismantle our U.S. military empire … so we can create jobs, balance the budget, meet our peoples’ needs here and help the human community to heal our dying planet.”

That these activists are realizing that President Barack Obama is part of that offensive 1 percent is brilliant.

What happened to the tea party movement ought to serve as a warning to the OWS movement of the inherent dangers of co-option. It is safe to safe at this point, with establishment figureheads like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney aligning themselves with the tea party movement, that the tea party movement is dead. It is my hope that this tragedy does not happen with OWS.

The co-option of the OWS by partisan forces is a danger that befalls the movement if occupiers are not vigilant. I have warned several times on this blog (and on television on RT International) that co-option is an ever-present danger. Significant progress cannot be made by a protest movement if it is rendered ineffectual by becoming a mere arm of the establishment: an arm subject to its control and whims.

Ron Paul the Supreme Anti-Racist

Over at Tumblr, blogger Dusty Dusterson asked:

Ron Paul attracts a disturbingly large amount of respect and consideration from white supremacists ranging from former KKK members to neo-nazis with their anti-Semitic rhetoric. Most of this comes from Ron Paul's views on war, social state, and anti-globalist views. Does it concern you that he makes no campaign against these groups, that he accepts their donations, or allows them to continue supporting him?

I replied: I like that Ron Paul uses their money to promote a libertarian agenda, which is inherently anti-racist in its celebration of individuals. Paul himself has explained why someone who truly espouses libertarian beliefs cannot be racist:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

Ron Paul is as incorruptible as they come, so no this does not concern me. And money that is voluntarily given by these individuals can be put into direct actions that completely repudiates their beliefs. If warmongers in both parties started donating to Paul’s campaign, should he return that as well? I find warmongers more odious (and more racist) than some harmless tool making a fool of himself somewhere.

As for campaigning against groups, why should he? I rather that he devote his energy campaigning against racist policies, not against some ineffective group that have been marginalized and made irrelevant by the growing message of liberty. In fact, Paul has been the most vocal critic of the destructive and the most racist government policies this country has ever undertaken: the war on drugs and the war on terror.

We can debate ad naseum about Paul’s supporters, but the same charge can be levied against Santorum’s, or Bachmann’s, or Romney’s supporters as well. Is it productive or relevant? No, on all counts. Paul is running for president, not some dude somewhere.

Everyone ought to challenge Paul on his beliefs, but why hand-wring over the beliefs of a small, insignificant minority of his supporters?

Which is racist? Paul receiving small donations from racist individuals or Barack Obama’s endless wars against brown-skinned Muslims, the deportation of record number of illegal immigrants, and continued escalation of the drug war?

Ron Paul Win in Iowa is Not a Win for Mitt Romney

This is what i learned from this New York Times piece by Ross Douthat:

So Iowa Tea Partiers face a choice. If the town hall crashers and Washington Mall marchers of 2009 settle on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.” If Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney.

Headline predictions if Ron Paul does win Iowa: "Santorum beats Romney for second place!" or "Huntsman surges to epic fourth place win!"

There is a definite cognitive dissonance from the corporate media that sees a Republican electorate waking up to Ron Paul as an endorsement of Mitt Romney's candidacy.

If Paul were to become the Republican presidential nominee and faces Barack Obama in the general election, I am willing to bet $10,000 that the approved corporate media narrative will be that a vote for Paul is really a vote for Obama.

Lol. Wut.