The first truth we must find a way to swallow is this - we
have exactly the government we elected!
Our Republican President has a public approval rating hovering
around 30% and our Democrat congress has an approval rating down around 20%.
Clearly, we don’t think much of our government, but we elected them and what
does that say about us?
Americans do what they are told!
Americans have a serious obesity problem and that’s because too
many live on junk food. They live on junk food because we tell them to. Too many
Americans outspend their pocketbook; just like our government does, they are up
to their eyeballs in debt, just as our government is, and they do it all,
because we tell them to. Americans even vote for socialism today, again because
we have told them to for several decades now. From grade school through grad
school and into their golden years, we have sold them the nanny state.
Americans consume whatever we tell them to consume. 70% oppose
the war in Iraq because we told them to, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 5
years now, with a constant drip – drip – drip of negative coverage of a war that
had no chance of ever being "popular."
I have a news flash for you anti-war Code Pinko types. It’s NOT
TRUE that 70% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Somewhere around 99% of
Americans oppose the war in Iraq. In fact, 99% of Americans oppose any war, any
time, any where, for almost any reason. War sucks! Good men die and we don’t
like it, any of us. So, how many Americans "oppose the war" is a stupid
question, isn’t it? America has never been in a "popular war" and I suspect it
never will be. Actually, I have yet to see a "popular war" anywhere on
earth.
Dirty Tricks of the Trade
In my last column titled "Ron
Paul – A Liberal-tarian, not a Conservative," I demonstrated how easy it is
to attack any politician on his alleged voting record, demonize an entire group
on the basis of a few in that group who are willing to use unethical tactics to
promote their allegedly ethical candidate, and cause a firestorm of political
banter, both pro and con, without ever really getting to the heart of the
subject at hand.
Welcome to American politics circa 2007
Every word I printed in that column was true and accurate. But
it was also cherry-picked facts, carefully slanted to support a predetermined
conclusion. We call this opinion editorializing. In the old days, editorializing
was reserved for the editorial page. But today, editorializing happens at every
news desk, on every front page of every newspaper, on many TV and radio shows
and even in every movie. It also happens in the war room of every political
campaign; and combined, it is ruining the people’s ability to make good
decisions based on sound information.
Oh it’s fair though, because it’s true, albeit partial truth,
and since every candidate designs their campaign strategy largely around the
character assassination of all would-be competitors, it is indeed a "fair" game.
It is also a very dangerous and costly game…
The Ron Paul Campaign
The Ron Paul campaign is indeed very organized, at least
on-line. Paul supporters stick together and move in packs, working as a group
towards their common goal of promoting their candidate and that’s all good
stuff. Other candidates and their supporters should watch and learn.
But they have also demonstrated a willingness to cross certain
ethical lines; not all of them, but many of them. They seem particularly
talented in the arena of poll-spamming. I recently issued an "in-house" poll
intended for no particular group other than my regular reader mail list. In the
past, this practice has provided some very vital information that I have used in
columns. But this time, a single Ron Paul supporter decided to spam the poll,
casting a few hundred votes for Ron Paul by cracking the poll code intended to
limit each reader to only one vote. Not nice…
In other cases, Ron Paul supporters pick-up on an agency like
MSNBC, running an open on-line poll and put out the word to the pack, which then
moves together to pounce on the poll creating a false impression that Ron Paul
has more supporters than the 3% or so indicated in every national poll.
The result is the same by either method of course. An invalid
poll and the exercise is rendered useless. Upon researching these events, I
learned that this was by no means an isolated case. In fact, Ron Paul supporters
had spammed or slammed many polls causing all of them to be invalidated in the
end.
Several Ron Paul supporters have written asking for "proof" of
this activity. These are the most web-savvy political operatives on the planet
at the moment. A simple web search will lead you to example after example,
"proof", particularly across the blogosphere. They simply won’t look.
As a result, although many Democrat polls now seek to include
Ron Paul, many conservative polls are now excluding Ron Paul in an effort to
avoid spam or slam votes that will invalidate the poll.
The Ron Paul Phenomenon
Ron Paul is indeed attracting a strange set of bedfellows. I
shouldn’t need to point out that Paul is a "libertarian" rather than a
"conservative" or that there is indeed a significant difference between the two.
But in the confusing world of American politics, someone needs to point it
out.
The Paul campaign is attracting all those who are
anti-establishment and anti-war. This includes libertarian isolationists who
believe that any military action not authorized by a formal congressional
"declaration of war" is "unconstitutional", which includes every war since WWII.
It also includes members of leftist organizations like Code Pink and MoveOn.org,
who believe in peace through weakness and the Rodney King - Cindy Sheehan
version of national security, "can’t we all just get along?"
The Significant Difference between Conservative and
Libertarian
I have been trying for years now to figure out the real
definition of "neo-con," one of the most popular leftist political buzz-words of
the 21st century. After reading comments from Ron Paul supporters, I now know
what the term means.
If you believe in the nanny state, peace through weakness and
isolationism, a greater communal good rather than true individual liberty and
free-stuff from the treasury instead of real individual freedom, including
economic freedom through free-market capitalism, you are a modern liberal
Democrat. In the old days, this was the definition of "socialist."
If you believe in personal freedom to the point of anarchy,
individual liberty to the extreme of social chaos, national isolationism as a
form of national security, liberal social policies but conservative fiscal
restraint, you are a modern libertarian, and you could be either
Republican or Democrat, depending on your mood swings. You are a
"swing-voter."
If you believe in free-market capitalism, peace through
strength, an inherent right to protect and defend not only our borders and our
society here, but our entire way of life here and abroad, in the wisdom of
taking the fight to our enemies instead of waiting for them to bring the fight
to us (again) on our own streets, in morally sound social restraint in order to
maintain a decent civil society that does not have to legislate millions to deal
with self-induced social ills at great tax-payer expense, in the individual
right to earn and keep not take and waste, then you are a modern
conservative and you can be found only in the Republican Party, though you
do have some odd company there today. You my friend, by today’s definitions,
are a "neo-con."
Isolationism in 1776 vs. 2007
In 1776, nations were much smaller, much less technologically
equipped. They moved troops by clipper ship, taking months to reach the field of
engagement and everybody saw them coming. They fought on designated battle
fields, wearing bright colored uniforms, marching under their nation’s flag,
following a well established chain of command. They fought with swords, knives
and single shot muskets. The range of engagement was only yards in any
direction. The isolationist view of national defense worked well when oceans
kept battles far from American soil and civilian populations safe from
unexpected enemy attack.
Can the same rules of international engagement protect American
soil and innocent civilians today? This is the real question at the heart of the
debate between those who understand why we take the fight to the enemy abroad,
and those who prefer to wait for the fight to come to us.
In 2007, nearly half of our GDP is exported and nearly half of
our national needs are met through imported products. The world is indeed much
smaller, and nations and their technologies are in fact much BIGGER. The oceans
no longer protect our soil, our people or our way of life. Our enemies do not
announce their intentions in advance. They do not take months to move into
position with everyone watching. They do not wear any uniform, carry any flag,
fight on any designated battle field or distinguish between military and
civilian targets, other than they prefer to attack only the weakest of
targets.
They don’t use conventional weapons, but rather our own
freedoms and liberties against us. They can move throughout our society with the
same freedom and anonymity that the average American citizen does on a daily
basis. A single terror cell member, operating on his own can level an entire
U.S. city in seconds and nobody will see him coming. This is exactly why we DO
NOT want to fight this war on our soil. The same IED’s (improvised explosive
devices) you see killing people in Iraq would be killing innocent Americans
right here at home, at best. At worst, raw chemical, biological or nuclear
materials can be used to create a "dirty bomb" that could kill thousands or even
millions in seconds.
If you want to see America become a "police state" in a
heartbeat, with American troops carrying out the same types of missions on
American streets that they are currently carrying out on the streets of Baghdad,
you are on the right track with an isolationist view of how to deal with this
very real threat. No intelligence or security expert in the world will tell you
any differently. In fact they have shouted this very warning over and over, yet
Americans who are not listening will be just as shocked if and when that day
arrives, as they were on the morning of September 11th a short six years
ago.
This is the difference between "conservative" and "libertarian"
as relates to national security and the war against international terror. The
difference is significant. The consequences of our decisions can be fatal. This
is why Ron Paul and his supporters, both libertarians and liberals, are wrong.
Dead wrong! It’s also why the "neo-cons" are right.
Conservatives are not just fiscally conservative and there’s
good reason
In this area, "conservatives" have the same problem with Ron
Paul that they have with Rudy Giuliani and all Democrat candidates.
Conservatives, "neo-cons" apparently, understand all too well that liberal
social policies result in liberal social ills and liberal social spending needed
to deal with those ills. They also understand, since they pick up most of the
tab via their taxes, that contrary to popular socialist rhetoric, it is mostly
out of control social spending that is bankrupting America, not military
spending.
Ron Paul supporters are proud of the fact that their candidate
is uniting libertarians and liberals across the political aisle. But they are
only able to do so on the basis of two key campaign positions, namely, a common
liberal social view, lacking the overtly obvious connection to out of control
social spending, and a firm anti-war stance that even liberal Democrats like
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know better than to take.
Liberals angered by the fact that Democrats have failed to pull
out of Iraq after attaining full control of congress, are now looking beyond
Clinton and Obama for a "real anti-war candidate." They have found that
candidate in Libertarian candidate Ron Paul.
The fact that Paul is fully aligned with liberals on the war
and on liberal social policies can not be overlooked or ignored by any engaged
"conservative" (read neo-con) voter. Thus, Paul has not been able to connect
with conservative voters and instead, is supported only by anti-war
isolationists who like his liberal stance on the social issues.
It must be stated that in many cases, Ron Paul has had a
legitimate "conservative" objection to some of the language included in bills he
otherwise might have voted differently on. But the same can be said for John
Kerry, who voted for the war before voting against the troops. This is the
political climate we live in. Backroom deals make every bill more complicated
than need be.
In the end, what is most important is to realize that freedom
and liberty will be dead in America the moment marshal law is instituted after
another major terror attack on U.S. soil. This is reality. There’s no place to
run or hide from it.
This simply can not be allowed to happen and if we don’t finish
this fight abroad, no matter the cost, the fight will be finished here on our
own soil not long after our retreat. No national security expert has any doubt
about that. So how can you?
As for Ron Paul supporters upset by the facts, sorry. The truth
won’t set everyone free, just those with a deep love and respect for it. Ron
Paul should run on a Libertarian ticket, not the RNC ticket. That’s the
truth!
