Posts with the tag 'Ron Paul'
Ron Paul received a $500.00 donation from a racist named Don Black (he runs a website which shan’t be named here, nor linked - look it up if you are really determined about seeing it). Paul says he won’t return the money because by taking that $500.00, he gives Black that much less money to spend on hatred, and it gives Paul that much more money to spread the libertarian message. Frank James over at The Swamp has this to say about it:
… lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That’s a given. The only difference is that Black doesn’t hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it’s radioactive.
Paul’s approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. And because it’s so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what’s right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Does it? Perhaps. Certainly it makes me think that Paul - a Christian, like me - has a practical amorality in is public actions. This would be in keeping with libertarian thinking, and it why the only thing, in my view, worse than a libertarian is a totalitarian. We are to be neither sheep nor wolves in our dealings with others - neither cowards nor predators. Ron Paul may rationalise his refusal to return a racist’s donation all he wishes, but the real effect of his action is to legitimise evil. Evil there is in this world, and we humans beings are incapable of eliminating it - but wise men and women will shun evil whenever they see it.
Black is free to hold whatever views he wishes, but as his views are evil, I want nothing to do with them, or him - and I’d much prefer it if I never come within a country mile of him or his views except to call him to repentance and with a mind to teaching him that we are all children of God, and thus brothers and sisters. Were Black to ever give me $500, I wouldn’t return it (Paul is right about the good in lessening Black’s resources for speading evil), but I wouldn’t keep it, either - I’d send it along to, say, Missionaries of the Poor (which, being that it is Christmas, you might want to send a few bucks to, anyways) - and ask them to send a kind thank you to Black, along with a picture of the people his donation helped (they are headquartered in Jamaica, ya see?).
Life is a series of opportunties for us to do the right thing - it is not a zero sum game, and its primary purpose isn’t our selves. Each decision is a chance to make the world a better place, and it is a shame that Paul takes such a narrow view of his moral obligations to society as a whole.
Tags: political contributions, racism, Ron Paul
December 23rd, 2007
I didn’t see all of the interview, but I did catch the part where Ron Paul advocated abolishing the IRS. And wasn’t impressed with Ron Paul’s response.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ohglJS3ltM 350 350]
Hey, the idea sounds great to me. But, as I was watching, I was struck by the fact that when Beck asked Ron Paul what would replace the IRS — a flat tax, a national sales tax, or something else — Ron Paul really had no answer. He basically said he didn’t want it replaced with something else or with more spending. Here’s the video:
His response to “What is your proposal?” was weak. Paul basically said he had no proposal. “Anything would be better.” Well, that’s great, but that doesn’t solve the problem, or answer the question about how the federal government would get tax revenues to pay for the things it’s suppose to.
Michael Illions over at Polipundit noted that Ron Paul looked uncomfortable at this point, and I have to agree, but I’m not sure whether it was because Glenn Beck was fawning over his desire to abolish the IRS, or if it was because he had no plan to explain what he believes the federal government should do to generate revenue to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
Tags: Flat Tax, Glenn Beck, IRS, national sales tax, Ron Paul, taxes, YouTube
December 19th, 2007
This clip of Paul on Fox - he says the following regarding Huckabee’s “Merry Christmas” ad:
…reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis said, “when fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”. I don’t know if that if a fair assessment or not but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly.
This is the statement of a man who doesn’t want my vote. This is a blanket insult to all Christians - that we are, somehow, on a track to fascism because we want to say “Merry Christmas” and are unafraid to proclaim our faith in the public square. Its also a stupid statement - stupid from Lewis who originally made it, and stupid for Paul to repeat it: fascism is anethema to Christianity. The two are entirely incompatible. Fascism asserts that the State may claim all - Christianity says that while we must render to Ceasar what is his, we must only render to God what belongs to God.
If there are fascists in the making out there, they are amongst the people who want to silence others with hate crimes laws and speech codes; who demand equality of result rather than of opportunity; who insist that there is a wall of separation between Church and State (actually, lefties, it is the vibrant Church which is the strongest defense against the tyranny of the State). Paul proves himself ever more to be of the rather kook fringe - whatever his good ideas are (and he has some) they are drowned out by his more bizarre beliefs.
Tags: GOP Nomination, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul
December 19th, 2007
Mona Charen writes a piece taking Ron Paul to task over various issues, Ron Paul’s communications director, Jesse Benton, fires back. After reading both pieces and Ms. Charen’s response to the rebuttal, I can only feel sympathy for Ms. Charen. Ron Paul might be the nicest guy in the whole world, but his people are, at best, tiresome. Earlier today, I received this in my in-box:
That is why there is an ever-increasing amount of independents. They are tired of the lies, the empire building, censored press, fascism and corruption. Who should we support then? The GOP? The DFL? Only a blind, deaf and dumb idiot might.
That is the way to win friends and influence people - call them idiots. While I have, like Ms. Charen, received well-reasoned emails from Paul supporters, the general run is like the quote - a rant about how everyone is evil except for Ron Paul. The question which immediately comes to mind is that if we GOPers are so idiotic and/or evil, why seek the nomination of our party? Why not seek the Libertarian party nomination for President? I’m sure they’d be delighted with the increased press, if nothing else.
Whatever the motivations of Paul’s supporters, I will have to say clearly that I cannot support Ron Paul for President of the United States. The more I’ve heard of Paul’s positions, the less I find them in accord with my Republicanism, my conservative beliefs and my Christian morality. As a for-instance from Mr. Benton’s email to Ms. Charen:
If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.
Indeed, we want peace, commerce and open friendship - but one must choose one’s friends carefully, and there is no way the United States can be actual friends with the likes of Venezuela’s Chavez, or Iran’s Ahmadinejad. Sure, Paul can say we won’t be friends with them, but friends with the people of Venezuela and Iran…and that is a nice concept, but also quite foolish…any commerce and friendship we give to Venezuela and Iran will merely strengthen Chavez and Ahmadinejad to the detriment not only of the United States, but the people of Iran and Venezuela. Isolationism is not an option for the United States, but its opposite is not open embrace of all and sundry.
The Republican party stands for things - respect for human life, respect for liberty, among them…we cannot be people of life and liberty if we in any way help those who deny life and liberty to others. Conservatism also stands for things - respect for inherited tradition, understanding that our duties to our fellow men far outweigh our rights vis a vis them…we cannot be conservative if we throw away tradition in favor of the latest fads, nor can we be if place the individual as the be-all and end-all of existence. Christianity stands for things - love of our fellow men, understanding of our fallen nature, among them…we cannot be Christians if we turn a blind eye to the sufferings of our brothers and sisters in the name of commerce, nor can we be if we pretend that human beings, unfettered by rules of right conduct, will do other than make a mess of things.
Ron Paul stands for a species of liberty which is actually license. For a version of free markets which is actually just permission for the rich to grind the faces of the poor. For a version of society which is every man for himself.
I can’t back that - not now, not ever.
Tags: Conservatism, political ideology, Ron Paul
November 21st, 2007
Newer Posts
