The War on Ron Paul
media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me they
don't, Ron Paul IS the 'front runner' for the republican primary.
Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every
quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting
out Obama for the presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of
the aisle, and is attracting the much sought after independent swing
vote almost as fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet
is indisputably Ron Paul country as countless polls and google trends
have repeatedly shown. The gradual change in political rhetoric
flowing out of Washington, D.C. over the last 3 years reflects an
explosion of interest in the freedom message he spreads so tirelessly.
The continuous growth in popularity of talk and news shows focusing
on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts loud and clear the rising
prominence of issues he has brought to the debate. For anyone with
any powers of discernment, it's a no-brainer.
So why do media
pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable experts of self-aggrandized
consequence spend great swathes of time, effort, and someone's money
working so hard to convince the people otherwise? You can't turn
on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet without encountering
the words "He can't win," or some other lame variation
repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most
acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast "The Front Runner"
has yet to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some
unknown lair, "blazing a new trail" of GOP fame and success
across political skies sometime in the not too distant future. Their
blind adherence to this tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally,
I can find only one reason for the constant repudiation...fear.
Fear of the known...Ron Paul, and fear of the unknown...future largess.
The status-quo is cornered and its biggest backers are flailing
in desperation through media and political mouthpieces.
of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all in Washington
that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money, power
or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for
special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is
such an undisputed reality that they don't even darken the door
of his congressional office. His opinion can not be leased by the
highest bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion.
He is a man who stands his ground, refusing to back down, flip-flop,
or play the political game of corporate footsie that entangles so
many on the Hill. This is the kind of strength America not just
needs, but deep down hungers for in a president. America does not
need a president with the strength to circumvent law by executive
order, ignore Congress and engage in needless conflicts, or break
international and common law to achieve a victory. Those who stand
to lose the most under a president who would not compromise the
peoples' liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law for any
reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.
If we apply
Donald Rumsfeld's ludicrous scale of measurement, in use long before
he popularized the phrase during his tenure as Secretary of Defense,
then Ron Paul could aptly be termed a "known, known".
Needless to say, much heated discussion has probably occurred in
many a smoky back room about this unpleasant reality. Logic tells
us that a good number of those rooms might even be located in the
Pentagon. Ron Paul has never made a secret of the fact that he would
like to: reduce military spending to that needed for defense only;
bring the troops home from all foreign bases; and restore foreign
affairs to a non-interventionist policy more befitting a Republic
that purports to be the shining example of liberty. Accomplishing
these goals would of course mean a vast reduction in the present
size and budget of the military industrial complex and can be only
a cause for apprehension in those quarters. If recent world events
are any indication, the threat must be great indeed. In an unprecedented
flurry of efficiency the military, under direction of Commander
in Chief Obama, has recently not only rescued another country from
tyrannical oppression, but tracked down and killed the world's worst
terrorist, Osama Binladen, thus proving its undoubted worth and
necessity. Unfortunately, the tyrant really isn't gone yet and no
one can figure out exactly what happened with the bin laden operation.
Nevertheless, we've been assured of the worthiness of our current
pedal-to-the-metal monetary support for the military industrial
complex. If we haven't then we're obviously unpatriotic and borderline
Of course no
one would actually dare accuse Ron Paul of being unpatriotic. They'd
be laughed right off the media stage, no matter how lofty their
perch. So the approach is made from a different angle. That of foreign
aid. Dr. Paul has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he would
cut foreign aid to all countries, not only because of our fiscal
situation but also because he believes we should respect the sovereignty
of all nations and not try to dictate their policies through bribes
or bombs. Cutting foreign aid in and of itself does not seem to
be a problem. Polls reflect that a majority of Americans support
cuts to foreign aid. However, the idea of cutting all foreign aid
brings on an instantaneous and seemingly mass hysteria with regards
to Israel. If we dare to look past AIPAC and other lobbyist groups
for answers which contain more rational ideas than the usual accusations
of anti-semitism, unpatriotic betrayal, or abandonment of democratic
friends, informative sources soon surface. In a report
by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt of University of Chicago
and Harvard University respectively, the "special relationship"
between the US and Israel is explained more fully. Surprisingly,
the military complex appears to play a weighty role here as well.
A brief look at some benefits specific to Israel include: retaining
25% of aid dollars to subsidize its own defense industry instead
of spending 100% to subsidize the US defense industry as other countries
must do; not having to account for how aid dollars are spent; and
being provided " with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons
systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or
need." There is a plethora of information in just this one
report that evidences the detrimental effects of the "special
relationship" American taxpayers purchase annually with their
foreign aid dollars with what would appear to be little or no benefit
to themselves. Interestingly, there is growing evidence of a substantive
support in Israel itself for an end to US foreign aid which
is seen by many there as "an affront against Israeli liberty
and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of numerous
sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and biotechnology
industries." Based on just the above facts it can be argued
that perhaps it's time for the American people to debate the prudence
of an industrial complex deciding our military decisions, instead
of a decisive military defending our national borders.
their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity and foreign
aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next big issue
to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they don't often
mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived
heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin"
is touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!"
A round of smirks is the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed,
drug abusing prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers' heads
and scare them out of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate
for anything, much less republican party nominee. A thinking person
might wonder why the fascination and focus on heroin, other than
for the shock value of course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned.
"Protecting individual liberty," Ron Paul often explains,
"is the purpose of all government. Individual liberty is the
right to your life, the right to your property and the right to
keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple sentences
and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually mean
in regards to federal government overreach, almost everything that
the status quo fights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it
any wonder the most inflammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity
to derail the very idea?
No matter how
much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from themselves,
lift them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or ensure
their safety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do so
without infringing on their individual liberties and violating the
Constitution. The federal government we live with today no longer
serves the interests of the American people, but serves the special
interests of: corporate cronyism; militarism for profit influence
and empire; centrally planned debt management, counterfeiting, fraud
and currency debasement. Those who would maintain the status quo,
despite its almost certain destructive end, are beginning to realize
just how much they have underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent
message of truth delivered to the people by a man of principle.
A man who would be president not for the power he could wield over
the people, but for the power he would give to the people by restoring
their Republic. So war has been declared again, but this time the
war is on liberty...and Ron Paul.
Westfall [send her mail]
is a mother, a libertarian, and an educator.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.