#Arkhaven INFOGALACTIC #Castalia House
I know we will all miss that weirdly intense stare and staunch defense of AmericanIsraeli borders:
Rep. Michele Bachmann will “suspend her campaign” a senior campaign officials tells ABC News, just hours after placing last in the Iowa caucuses and vowing to continue in South Carolina. Bachmann finished sixth in Tuesday’s Iowa caucus.
It’s a pity Gingrich and Perry didn’t decide to do the same… yet. And what is Huntsman up to anyhow? I think he got fewer votes in Iowa than I did.
30,015 Mitt Romney
30,007 Rick Santorum
26,219 Ron Paul
While it is disappointing that nearly 80 percent of Iowa Republicans support the status quo, it is not at all surprising and the strength of Ron Paul’s showing indicates there is a growing understanding among the electorate that the present political structure, dominated as it is by the two factions of the Bank Party, is going to fail. This is why Ron Paul must run as a third-party candidate in the general election, to give Americans the genuine choice between the national interest and the Bank Party they will be otherwise denied. Rand Paul’s assessment is completely wrong, as the Tea Party will remain toothless so long as it remains in the Republican Party and is subject to being used by the Red Party faction. The continued increase in federal spending and federal debt despite more than 100 new Republican House members, the majority of whom voted to increase the debt limit, suffices to prove that.
Unlike most Americans, Iowans were given a genuine choice. They decided to support the status quo. So, shed no tears for them when they suffer the consequences of their decision. Have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who supports the likes of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Barack Obama, then complains about losing their job, not keeping up with the interest payments on their debts, having their house foreclosed, losing their pension, or being victimized by an immigrant. All of those things are the predictable result of the continuation of the status quo, which they materially support.
That may sound bitter, but it’s truly not. I pronounced the casting of the die several years ago I certainly didn’t expect Ron Paul to win enough caucus support to reach double digits. But barring some extraordinary events in the next three months causing a great awakening among primary-voting Republicans, it is too little, too late, for the nation.
As we all know, the result of the Iowa caucuses will either be seen as a conclusive expression of the voice of the people – if Romney wins – or a totally meaningless manipulation of a minor and outdated aspect of the nomination process that really needs to be changed – if Paul wins. I shall be very surprised if all the belated conservative drum-banging on Santorum’s behalf has any impact, but then, it appears to be his turn at the Romney-alternative-who-is-not-Ron-Paul wheel.
But it will be illuminating to see how many Iowans understand that their choice is between the Bank Party and the American Party. The Bank Party, which includes both Democratic and Republican factions, is fundamentally globalist at its core and has no real concern for American interests. Romney, Gingrich, Obama, Santorum, Perry, Santorum, Cain, and even Bachmann are all representatives of the Bank Party. As Ron Paul himself correctly pointed out: “The others represent the status quo, variation of the status quo.”
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who actually represents America in its traditional and Constitutional form, which of course is why he is being attacked from the mainstream “left” and “right” alike. And if Iowans decide that they are more inclined to support the Bank Party, so be it. They will receive the government they have chosen, which is to say more war, more government spending, more government expansion, and more rule on behalf of the big banks. If you want the status quo, then by all means, vote for Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Obama.
As Americans, we are fortunate to actually have been presented with this choice, as most people throughout history have not been given one. Of course, the fact that we have a choice doesn’t meant that we won’t make the correct one.
If you’re a reader of this blog and you are in Iowa, I would strongly encourage you to show up at your local caucus and cast a vote for Ron Paul’s nomination. I recommend this because I suspect you may well regret knowing that you did not do so when you had the chance to give the rest of your fellow Americans the same opportunity to make a choice between America and the Bank Party.
Romney magically leaps 9 points in the polls versus Obama… in one week:
Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date. The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president…..
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.
I’m sure this massive 9-point swing has NOTHING to do with Bank Party fears that Ron Paul will win Iowa and therefore explode the “he can’t win the Republican nomination” argument. This marks the introduction of the “Romney will crush Obama” theme.
The Iowa chairman for Michele Bachmann’s campaign, Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola), leaves her campaign in order to endorse Ron Paul.
“The decision I am making today is one of the most difficult I have made in my life. But given what’s at stake for our country, I have decided I must take this action.
Today, I am switching my support from Michele Bachmann to Ron Paul for the 2012 Iowa Caucuses and the presidency of the United States.
I still maintain an immense amount of respect for Michele. The reasons are many. She’s never betrayed conservatives on issues like taxes, the Right to Life, and the Second Amendment. So over the past few months, I have been saddened at the dismissive way she’s been treated among some conservatives especially after winning the Iowa Straw Poll.
But the fact is, there is a clear top tier in the race for the Republican nomination for President, both here in Iowa and nationally. Ron Paul is easily the most conservative of this group.
The truth is, it was an excruciatingly difficult decision for me to decide between supporting Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at the beginning of this campaign. Dr. Paul and his supporters were a major help in my successful campaigns for Iowa House and Senate even when I couldn’t count on the support of the Republican establishment here in Iowa.
Of course, battling the establishment is nothing new for Dr. Paul or for myself. During my time in the General Assembly, I’ve established myself as a leader in the fights for traditional marriage, the Right to Life, and the protection of the Second Amendment – sometimes even against the wishes of my own party.
Since my election, I’ve learned that doing the right thing isn’t always easy. It’s easy to see why so many legislators “sell out” once elected. The pressure to do so is immense.
But what America needs now is a President who will not just “go along to get along.” Instead, we must send someone who puts doing what is right above all else to the White House. That candidate is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only candidate to predict the current mess we find ourselves in economically, and he’s the only candidate to offer a true plan to cut spending and balance our budget.
He’s also consistently spoken out against government spending, assaults on individual liberties, and unnecessary trillion-dollar military adventurism for over 30 years. Polls show he is the Republican candidate that can take on and defeat President Obama in November 2012.
Like all true conservatives, I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul that government is too big, and both parties share in the blame. We agree that it is immoral to print money and pass on mounds of debt to the next generation. We agree that life begins at conception and must be protected. We both believe that the Second Amendment must be defended unwaveringly, and that there are too many wars being fought with no end in sight and no obvious path to a defined victory.
Of course, as a state legislator, I recognize that Dr. Paul’s strong views on the 10th Amendment will enable me to fight for what I believe in right in my own backyard instead of having to constantly wait on one-size-fits-all “solutions” from Washington, D.C.
With the entire Republican establishment intent on smearing Ron Paul and his dedicated supporters, I understand this decision could impact the way people see me and my entire political career. But this is the right decision, and one in which I proudly stand behind.
To the truly wonderful people I met on the Bachmann campaign, I look forward to working with them in the future as we further the fights for the Right to Life, traditional marriage, and the restoration of our Second Amendment rights here in Iowa. I personally wish her all the best as she continues to battle in Congress.
As for conservatives who are rightly concerned with defeating establishment Republicans Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and – even more importantly – Barack Obama in 2012, Ron Paul has established himself as the clear choice.
If you are as frustrated as I am with what’s been done by the ruling class, I urge you to join me in supporting Dr. Paul. We can send the national big government political establishment a message they will never forget by voting for Ron Paul for President in the January 3 Iowa Caucuses.”
It turns out that Michele Bachman is a liar, as her own political director has come out and stated that Iowa campaign manager did not quit due to financial incentives: “I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos.”
It surprised some that I was so contemptuous of Bachmann. But you see, she’s from Minnesota and I am very well acquainted with a few people who know her. And it doesn’t surprise me at all that she has shown herself to be untrustworthy, because I had already heard that about her.
Puacon has four questions:
1) True/False: Ron Paul is a political Leninist, i.e. an admirer of Lenin’s “salami tactics” via Rockwell/Rothbard (see Rothbard’s Ethics of Liberty for more…)
2) True/False: You (Vox) support this political Leninism, based on your support of Dr. Paul
3) True/False: Leninism is based on deception and dishonesty…lying about being a racist to infiltrate and control racist groups, etc. This is considered pragmatic, benefits outweighing costs (more liberty vs. associating with racists).
4) True/False: Dr. Paul isn’t a racist. He just lied about being a racist in order to get money, support, etc. as per point 3.
These are not trick questions. I’m not judging you either way, just trying to get a handle on your positions on above.
1. False. A Leninist is not someone who admires, embraces, or uses any tactic that Vladimir Lenin happened to historically utilize. Also, the addition of the adjective “political” is redundant, as Leninism is an intrinsically political ideology. Since a Leninist is someone who subscribes to “the body of political theory for the democratic organisation of a revolutionary vanguard party, and the achievement of a direct-democracy dictatorship of the proletariat, as political prelude to the establishment of socialism”, it is patently obvious that Ron Paul is not a Leninist of any kind.
2. False. I do not support the establishment of socialism. Nor does Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, or Murray Rothbard.
3. False. Puacon is confusing a tactic which was historically used by Leninists and other groups with Leninism itself. You might as reasonably claim that Ron Paul is a “political Muslim”, as the tactic you are describing is known in Islamic theology as taqiyya. Moreover, Puacon is committing a second error in assuming that because Rothbard believe the tactic was useful, Ron Paul is therefore utilizing it.
4. I can’t answer this question due to the erroneous assumptions implicit in it. I believe that all human beings who are science-literate or conscious of race could be considered racist, myself included, and there is no shortage of empirical evidence and scientific studies demonstrating that this is the case. If Ron Paul, like most people, has said that he is not racist, he is mistaken in that sense. But that does not mean he is lying about it.
I note with some amusement that Puacon’s mischaracterization and misidentification of his target on the political spectrum could, by his own erroneous metric, be accurately described as “Stalinist”.
Remember how the House Republicans voted to increase the debt limit “just one more time” a few months ago? Well, I’m sure you’re as surprised as I am that Congress managed to burn through the additional debt and needs more already:
The White House plans to ask Congress by the end of the week for an increase in the government’s debt ceiling to allow the United States to pay its bills on time, according to a senior Treasury Department official on Tuesday. The approval is expected to go through without a challenge, given that Congress is in recess until later in January and the request is in line with an agreement to keep the U.S. government funded into 2013.
I note that this request for additional debt was obvious simply by observing the federal sector’s return to 4+ percent quarterly growth in the third quarter Z1 outstanding credit report.
I have been beating this drum for more than 10 years now, so if you still can’t figure out that the Republican Party is a significant part of the fiscal problem, not the potential solution they present themselves as being, you really have a severe problem with accepting reality. This isn’t to say that Obama and the Senate Democrats are any better, as they are not. But then, they don’t pretend to be the financially responsible party either.
Either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney would be an unmitigated disaster as president. Both of them signed a pledge not to increase the debt limit, and yet it’s clear they will do so using the “just one more time” gambit; Newt didn’t even oppose raising the debt last time so long as the deal didn’t include tax increases.
No Tax Increase in the Debt-Ceiling Deal by Newt Gingrich
“Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has said he would agree to increasing the debt limit only if a deal was “accompanied by a major effort to restructure and reduce the size of government.”
A major effort such as, for example, the one that supposedly cut $100 billion ten years from now… that was in the last deal.
The New York Times unintentionally recognizes the legitimacy of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign:
Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, making things worse, he has failed to convincingly repudiate racist remarks that were published under his name for years — or the enthusiastic support he is getting from racist groups.
I find it extremely encouraging that both the Democratic and Republican establishments are training their biggest guns on Ron Paul while simultaneously attempting to play down the results of the Iowa caucuses. They never would have bothered to do so if Paul’s message was not resonating with Americans across the political and ideological divides. We are learning a lot here as a result of the various reactions to the Paul campaign, whether it is the willingness of Republicans to play the race card about which they so often complain, the remarkable extent to which Newt Gingrich is big government moderate rather than the conservative flamethrower he feigned to be in 1994, and the way in which many Republicans who pretend to revere the Constitution do not, in fact, harbor any real respect for it at all.
In short, Ron Paul has successfully opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the corruption and anti-conservate, anti-constitutional ideology of the Republican Party. This is the first step in helping them understand that the Republicans and Democrats are merely two barely distinguishable factions in the one party that has ruled America for over a century.
It is also interesting to note the Communist-style ideological lockstep demanded by Republicans. In the same way that some readers here cannot understand that I permit commenters here to post comments they find offensive without that permission indicating my position on the matter – even though they know I disgree with, but permit, their own comments – the demands that Paul denounce any of his supporters reveals a fundamentally totalitarian mindset of the sort that has pervaded the conservative media since William F. Buckley was seduced by the Wilsonian neocons.
One thing I found particularly informative in this regard was John Hinderaker’s endorsement of Mitt Romney. I’ve known that the former Hindrocket of the Northern Alliance Radio Show was an ideologically squishy political creature since appearing on that show, and his endorsement of Mitt Romney is the full flowering of what has historically been known as “growth”.
The “anybody but Romney” mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney’s; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views–indistinguishable from those of the far left–and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.
It is deeply amusing indeed to see Hindrocket assert that Paul’s foreign policy views are “indistinguishable from those of the far left” on the very day that the New York Times is publishing an editorial that could easily bear his byline, given the remarkably similar language; for example, Hinderaker says Paul is “unfit” versus the NTY’s “discredited”. And Hinderaker’s statement about Paul’s foreign policy is astonishingly deceitful, as far left foreign policy is not the least bit isolationist, but is the exact same world revolution approach that is presently favored by Hinderaker and the Republican establishment, only its focus is world socialist revolution rather than world democratic revolution.
And Hinderaker is as wrong about Romney’s ability to beat Obama as all the usual suspects in the conservative media were wrong about McCain’s ability to win in 2008. John Hawkins list seven reasons why Romney’s supposed electability is a myth. I’ll add another reason: after the way he is being treated by the Republican Party establishment and the way the Tea Party-elected House Republicans have proven themselves to be the same fiscally irresponsible rollover Republicans their historical predecessors were, Ron Paul has absolutely no reason not to run in the general election as a third party candidate, ideally as the endorsed candidate of the Constitution and Libertarian Parties.
I very much hope he will do so. As the Bush family has taught us, better an openly declared enemy in power than a false and fraudulent “friend”.
In which Ashley Miller and I exchange email on the matter. She responded to my email thusly:
Thank you for your very polite e-mail.
The point of my article was to say for that people like me — people for whom secular values, gay rights, and abortion are important issues – Ron Paul is a bad choice.
For people like you, who believe the country is going to implode economically and therefore, relatively reasonably, don’t care so much about the other issues, Ron Paul may well be an excellent choice. And I agree that it isn’t a Democrat or Republican thing, I have no respect for either party.
It’s just that I don’t think that the country is going to implode. And I don’t think a man who thinks it’s OK for states to take away my rights so long as the federal government doesn’t is libertarian or worth supporting.
Thank you,
Ashley
In response to which, I wrote the following:
Dear Miss Miller,
I completely agree with you. If you don’t think the country is in any significant economic peril, and most people admittedly don’t, then there is no reason you should support Ron Paul if you disagree strongly with his social positions. I would simply encourage you to keep an open mind about him if your perception of the economic situation changes.
Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter if you favor government support for the poor or for foreign invasions, if the government has no money, it can’t do anything at all.
Best regards,
Vox
Now, contrast with this the barrage of pointless venting she received in response to her original piece. While I don’t agree with her posting the contact information and IP addresses of those who attacked her, I don’t agree with the over-the-top vituperation either.* It’s neither necessary nor productive; if one recalls that the woman isn’t even aware that the US and global economies are in a frighteningly parlous state, then what are the chances that she has correctly analyzed other socio-political issues, or is even capable of doing so?
I treat the likes of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and PZ Myers harshly because they claim to be intellectually and academically superior, when it is readily apparent and easily demonstrable that they are not. I treat the various anklebiters harshly because their aggressive behavior and incivility demand it. But someone who is a graduate student, who is doing no more than expressing her opinion, however ignorant, fallacious, and stupid it might be, on her own blog is not simply not acting in an offensive manner.
I know I’m not going to convince someone like Miss Miller that a libertarian like Ron Paul merits support from those who disagree with him on social grounds because she is not going to be able to recognize that her concerns about Paul enforcing his own social perspective in an authoritarian manner stems from her own psychological projection. Nor do I have any interest in repeating myself and attempting to convince her of the current economic state, not when I have already published a book on the subject. But it is quite possible to convince her that IF her perception of the economy is incorrect, THEN Paul merits not only another look, but outright support since in that case Paul would be correct and her position would clearly have been shown to be false. Catastrophe is clarifying, and some will never see clearly until forced to do so by events.
This isn’t about being patient, it is about being civil and understanding that even the strongest, most thoughtless brick wall has cracks that the reality of nature can eventually exploit and utilize to bring down.
As for those who think a few nasty emails prove anything at all about Ron Paul or his supporters, I have more than one hundred times that many that would suffice to “prove” the same thing about Obama supporters, Bush supporters, atheists, Muslims, scientists, feminists, and so forth.
*I would encourage Miss Miller to remove the contact information. I’ve received hundreds of threats like those and worse for more than 10 years of writing op/ed and have never seen any benefit to me or anyone else in publicizing the personal information of those attacking me. Once you start writing on controversial topics in public, you can expect to be targeted by those who disagree with you and there is nothing to be gained from exacerbating the situation.
Ashley just can’t figure out why:
I’ve been trying to understand why smart people I know support Ron Paul and I just can’t get my head around it. I get the sense that maybe the Ron Paul People I know just don’t realize what Ron Paul’s all about. That or they just don’t care.
The Ron Paul People I know are almost all straight, single, relatively young, non-religious, white men. Available demographics suggest that this is an accurate picture; there are others in Ron Paul’s camp, but it’s basically youngish white men.
They do not consider themselves to be Democrats or Republicans. Some of them hate the idea of rules, many of them hate the idea of having their money taken away in taxes, but none of them are stupid or without the resources to learn more about their candidate. And none seem to care about any of Ron Paul’s policies outside of cutting spending, regulations, and taxes.
Every Ron Paul Person I know comes out of the woodwork any time anything negative is said about the guy, no matter how true the statement and no matter how much that individual disagrees with Ron Paul’s position or behavior. I get the sense that libertarians are so excited to have someone on the national stage that they don’t want to see anything problematic with the guy, but he’s transparently a bad deal.
So, why are these people supporting a crazy, racist Christian fundamentalist?
I sent her the following email:
Dear Ms Miller,
I’m not going to waste any time correcting your attempt to criticize Ron Paul. Instead, let us simply posit that you are absolutely correct concerning every single complaint you listed about the man. Here is why you, and everyone else, should not only vote for him, but pray to the God in whom you do not believe that he wins the 2012 election anyhow.
He is the only national politician who gives the United States any chance of surviving the collapse of the global economy.
You may not like him. You may think he is crazy and hypocritical and wrong on a panoply of issues. But the fact of the matter that he has been warning everyone about the eventual consequences of the credit boom that the Federal Reserve and the federal government created over the last fifty years, and the subsequent bust they have been desperately staving off since 2008. In doing so, they have made things worse, so much so that the USA may not survive as a nation when their efforts finally fail.
This is not a Democrat vs Republican thing. It is an economic sanity vs insanity thing. Obama has been disastrous, as he has increased federal debt 92% since 2008. McCain would have done the same or worse. Romney and Gingrich would actually be worse than Obama in this regard. The economic Fimbulwinter is coming and there is only one national politician who even understands the core issues involved.
You probably won’t believe anything I say here. That’s fine. But the central banks are presently dancing on the very edge of the precipice, as the recent actions of the Fed and the ECB serve to demonstrate. And if it all collapses before November, I hope you will remember that there was one man who understands why it happened, who tried to prevent it happening, and has been preparing to rebuild from the ashes for a very long time.
With regards,
Vox