Thursday, June 19, 2008

Say What You Will...The Man Makes Sense

Ron Paul on MSNBC's Morning Joe
June 18, 2008


I love Mika Brzezinsky's (sp?) crossed-arm scowl when Paul blasts denial of due process to Gitmo prisoners...talk about body language...the epitome of the hostile consternation you get from internationalist establishment elitists like Zbig's daughter when they hear such clear common sense and principle.

Being an Obamite, she had to be flustered to hear a national figure like Paul promoting real change (not just the slogan type)...and how the reality is that on the most perilous and pressing issues of our day there really is not a dime's worth of difference between McBama.

Paul just nails how self-defeating and insane it is for the United States Government, in our names, to run around the world arresting people, in a perpetual undeclared world "war" that justifies calling them "enemy combatants", so we can deny them the due process and presumption of innocence that our founders considered basic human rights..while holding them in secret gulags.

Check out the Campaign for Liberty.

9 comments:

Waldo said...

My Uncle Fred says even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while.

Tyler Nixon said...

When it comes to finding acorns, Paul rivals a colony of chipmunks.

Anonymous said...

I do not know about acorns, but to tell the truth is a sin when people have "political faith" rather than exercise "political reason" if the truth is an acorn, I second tyler's motion. To me it is more like finding truffles, if you have a good nose you can find the best.

Brian Miller said...

Now, if it was STATE governments holding prisoners indefinitely without detention, that would be OK. The question here is federalism, and the Supreme Court telling states that they cannot indefinitely detain people is an infringement on their rights under the 10th amendment to do whatever they want based on local standards.

That's pretty much the flip side of the Ron Paul argument.

He rejects two key premises of libertarianism:

1) That big government *at all levels* is *always* a bad thing. He asserts that states have "rights."

2) That the restrictions imposed by the Bill of Rights apply equally to ALL levels of government.

Tyler Nixon said...

I think you wrongly and without evidence imply that because Paul's statements concern federal law and he supports federalism, that this means he somehow is OK with invasive government at state or local levels. I have not heard such things from him, because there are no examples to be found.

As far as constitutional rights enforced in the state context, I missed where Paul rejected the 14th Amendment Incorporation doctrine. I would like to see evidence of that, too.

You take the federalism idea called "states' rights" too literally. It does not mean states have "rights", like a citizen, but rather that there are areas of governance for which they should have autonomy from federal incursions, i.e. "rights" as against federal power.

You can nitpick about what you think "libertarian" doctrine is, but the bottom line is that Paul's fundamental operating premise is that human liberty should be paramount and it is government's job, at all levels, to essure it is maximized.

But, again, show me the proof...not merely your short take.

tom said...

Now, if it was STATE governments holding prisoners indefinitely without detention (sic.), that would be OK.

not true. Article VI makes all the prohibitions of Art II, Sec 9 and the various Amendments binding on the several States.

and to the best of my knowledge RP has never said otherwise. he is quite familiar w/ the Constitution.

Brian Miller said...

the bottom line is that Paul's fundamental operating premise is that human liberty should be paramount and it is government's job, at all levels, to essure it is maximized.

Really?

Then perhaps you could explain these speeches from Ron Paul:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

The Court determined that Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to overturn these laws. Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority to pass laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without federal interference. But rather than adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state matter, the Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the justices’ vision on the people of Texas.

If agitating for the "constitutional rights" of state governments to "regulate private sexual conduct" represents "maximizing human liberty at all levels," then I am the Queen of England.

If claiming that the fourth amendment right of privacy doesn't exist is "libertarian," than I am Captain Ahab.

And if claims that the Bill of Rights via the 14th amendment doesn't apply to state and local government is "libertarian," then I am Bill Clinton.

Ron Paul supporters need to stop their knee-jerk defense of the man and start learning about his *actual policy positions.* Many of them are diametrically opposed to libertarianism in general, and LP platform in particular.

Tyler Nixon said...

Sorry, Brian (Miller) but you need to stop your knee-jerk, and cursory I might add, attacks on Ron Paul over the "gay rights" issue, using it to broad brush paint him on all issues, as if he is not libertarian enough.

Your cites affirm two things : 1) there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution such that it can be incorporated by the 14th Amendment and 2) Ron Paul thinks sodomy laws are ridiculous.

Just because you don't like his strict constitutional interpretation on your pet issue doesn't make him not libertarian.

Libertarians, that I know anyway, are not judicial tyrannists. As I read those passages, Paul is railing against federal judges using federal common law (not the Constitution or even statute) to trample federalism.

Why don't you just admit you hate Paul because he doesn't bear up to your view on federal enforcement of "gay rights", and little else?

Paul is consistent on his opposition to unitary government over federalism. You can cherry pick what you don't like, but libertarianism is not federal control of all matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Brian Miller said...

you need to stop your knee-jerk, and cursory I might add, attacks on Ron Paul over the "gay rights" issue

Because you say so?

Hardly.

If you're going to pitch this man as a "Libertarian" who is "opposed to government tyranny," then he'd better be a libertarian opposed to government tyranny -- not a right-wing Republican social conservative extremist who calls for government sex police.

Just because you don't like his strict constitutional interpretation on your pet issue doesn't make him not libertarian.

He ignores the right to privacy as articulated in the Fourth Amendment's right to unreasonable search and seizure, and security in their own persons and homes.

He also ignores the 14th Amendment, which assigns the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to state and local government as well.

You can go on and on about how the civil rights of gays are "my issue," but the reality is that Libertarians believe in universal human rights and small government at every level.

We believe in the Constitution's restrictions on government power.

And we ALWAYS oppose the growth of government power -- including in the bedroom. We don't support laws like the "Marriage Protection Act," or unconstitutional efforts by Congressman Ron Paul to instruct the Supreme Court on what it may or may not rule on (a basic violation of the separation of powers doctrine).

Don't use "libertarianism" or "constitutionalism" as a fig-leaf for Ron Paul's big-government sex police agenda. It's a big lie on your part and underscores your lack of principle.

libertarianism is not federal control of all matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Libertarianism is not GOVERNMENT control of all matters of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Given that Ron Paul supports significant government control in these areas, he is by definition not libertarian.