This month, we again address the campaign of Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, for President. The intention, to respond not only to some of the common issues raised in the mass media, but also to some that they have largely avoided. We begin with a comment by a confused Tim Russert, on a recent "Meet The Press" interview of Dr. Paul. After employing the absurd term, "Islamo-Fascist"* to describe Al Qaida terrorists, Russert queried Dr. Paul on his approach to the threat of terrorism. When Dr. Paul discussed a wide-spread complaint in the Islamic World that we had intervened in the domestic affairs of various nations, to point out that our continued presence in Iraq actually helps Al Qaida recruit new blood to throw against us, Russert challenged Dr. Paul as to whether he considered our interventions morally equivalent to the actions of Al Qaida! This was a classic illustration of the "Red Herring," the diversion of attention to a subject totally irrelevant to an issue at hand:
Dr. Paul's point, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with any suggestion of trying to equate our departures from the traditional American foreign policy of Washington and Jefferson, with the actions of criminal internationalists, committing acts of terror against Americans. Ron Paul was addressing the critical subject of how the criminals recruit new blood, new subjects willing to die to inflict harm on Americans! It is tragic, indeed, that only Dr. Paul, among Republican candidates, is even willing to discuss this subject, which is of absolutely critical importance, if we are to have an effective defense against this pestilence. Why Tim Russert, who has become reasonably respected as a broadcast journalist, would embrace the tactic of the "red herring," to divert attention from so vital a point, is anyone's guess; but the actual issue is one of the strongest arguments for electing Dr. Paul.
We are not so many brats on a playground, hyped up after consuming too much candy, shouting insult and abuse at one another. Yet the official foreign policy of the United States, at the moment, suggests a child out of control, with diminished sapient capacity. We seek retribution against a very bad element within a much broader segment of Mankind. But rather than focus on isolating and eliminating that bad element, numbering a few thousand, we vow that we will change the culture of that much broader segment, numbering over one billion. This is the "moral equivalent," if you will, of Don Quixote tilting at windmills, or on one of his other mad adventures. The Administration would expend the lives and treasures of Americans to repeat the failed British experiment in Ireland, although on a far vaster and more fantastic scale. For while there are many cultural and genetic similarities between the British and Irish, there are far, far fewer between Americans and most of the inhabitants of the Islamic World. Americans who understand the absurdity of present policy, will easily see how it perpetuates and actually enlarges the present threat.
Those truly tired of such Don Quixote "logic" will vote for Dr. Paul.
While Dr. Paul's foreign policy is frequently challenged, there are far fewer questions raised about his understanding of monetary policy--or economic reality. While money acts precisely as every other factor in the economy, with respect to the laws of supply and demand, most of our public officials--as most of the journalists and talking heads in the broadcast media--seem not to really understand. Dr. Paul clearly does. And when Ron Paul talks about the relationship between massive Federal deficits and the decline in the value of the Dollar; when Ron Paul describes the phenomenon as an additional tax upon working Americans; his remarks are apt--right on the mark!
The reason that, to date, we see little of the actual inflation resulting from the enormous expenditures on unconstitutional programs, yet reflected in the price structure, merely illustrates several well known mechanisms that delay the inevitable. One is a built in inertia in pricing. Both competition and a fear by producers and merchants to raise prices come into play. So too, do terribly adverse trade balances, which effectively siphon off much of the increase in money supply overseas. This is slightly analogous to the ways that water, which always seeks the lowest level, may be held back by virtue of such human devices as locks in waterways or valves in pipes. But in the case of money, the "valves" may open automatically, when least expected. One of the effects of the vast diversion of American dollars overseas is being reflected, today, by huge foreign purchases of interests in major American enterprises.
The foreign investors recognize what most Americans have yet to grasp, that they are buying our assets cheaply, with inflated dollars. But soon enough, the return of those very dollars in those infusions into our capital structure, will be reflected in other and diverse ways. The bottom line is that--usually about a decade or so after an irresponsible fiscal policy--the price structure begins to accelerate upward; first as "catch up," but then to excess. This could be further fed by the present system of "entitlements"--our self-destructive tendency to pay people for existing--which could force a scenario where the Government or Federal Reserve would simply print money, and we might careen towards what happened in Germany and Hungary in 1922.
The reality is that anyone who has savings in a form defined by a sum certain in dollars; or who owns insurance policies with benefits payable in dollar certain amounts, or accounts receivable measured in dollars; or who must plan future purchases or sales in dollars; has a most compelling reason to vote for Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, at least, understands and is concerned about a problem, which all Americans must face.
To return to the Russert interview with Ron Paul: Russert spent as much, or perhaps more, time on the subject of Dr. Paul's attitude towards "Pork Barrel" spending as on any other "issue." But Russert's emphasis was not on Dr. Paul's consistent votes against any program or policy that is not clearly authorized by our written Constitution. No! Russert kept trying to discredit Paul's well known devotion to the Constitution and limited Government, by suggesting inconsistency, because Ron Paul has used his influence in Congress to have projects that would benefit his constituents included in spending bills, although he, Ron Paul, voted against the actual bill. Russert's point, of course, did nothing whatever to discredit Dr. Paul's absolutely consistent defense of the Constitution. It did raise a completely different issue, which we will address.
It may be a legitimate secondary issue, but certainly not one that should determine one's vote where only one candidate is committed to vote against all unconstitutional spending, if that one candidate tries to protect his constituents in obtaining a share in what will be spent by those with less firm principles. To refuse the sort of funds that would be going to all other districts, if they are in fact going to be appropriated, would be "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face." Dr. Paul is a man of principle, but he does not seek martyrdom for others--or to suffer for the sake of suffering. The issue is to stop unconstitutional spending, not force his District to refuse its share of public spending. Dr. Paul is clearly, head and shoulders, above any of the other major candidates in his fidelity to his oath of office. Tim Russert knows this, of course, but just as with the "moral equivalency herring," he chose to divert attention from the real issue.
Interestingly, Russert also raised questions as to Ron Paul's oppositon to the "Civil Rights" Laws, which Lyndon Johnson forced through Congress in 1964 and 1965. We were not aware that anyone was making an issue of these at present. Our own opinion on the subject should be clear to anyone who has ever read our Debate Handbook, either bound or on line. Chapters 5 & 19 would be particularly in point. Of course, Dr. Paul--as a Conservative Libertarian--would be opposed to laws which substitute the will of Government and Bureaucracy for that of the private citizen, making decisions as to allocation of his own property. But Russert's line of questioning seemed to imply that he thought such opposition, somehow improper.
Those "Civil Rights" Laws represented the furthest thrust, yet seen, of Socialist theory into American Law. The concept of telling people that they cannot make employment or tenancy decisions based upon religious preferences, or preferences based upon ethnicity, race or sex, not only appropriates a vital aspect of the very concept of private property; it effectively imposes a new concept of Governmentally directed social change--change to alter rights of voluntary association; change to alter basic values that influence choices for voluntary association. The concept is premised not only on a political right to appropriate the attributes of private property--not unlike the way the Nazi Government in Germany appropriated the attributes of private property, while still allowing private ownership of the means of production--but on the right of Government to force dogma promoted by slogans and shibboleths, yet never by serious discussion, on people that Government is supposed to serve--not "reeducate" against their will. In this latter aspect, the programs had much in common with forced indoctrination in both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
We have written many pieces here--besides the two Chapters referenced from the Debate Handbook--which demonstrate that this new dispensation, inherent in the "Civil Rights" enactments, benefits no race, ethnicity, Faith or sex: That it reflects a compulsion for uniformity, and an attack on cultural continuity. That a seeming general acceptance is based largely upon suppression of discussion of the real issues in academia, and on intimidation of dissent in both academia and in the mass media. Yet to put the point into clearer perspective; to demonstrate to even the most "liberal," that it was Russert, not Dr. Paul, who was clearly "over-the-line" in the colloquy, consider the historic patterns of American settlement.
Not only New England Puritans, but many other distinct groups came to America in the 17th and early 18th Centuries, precisely for the purpose of having communities, largely definable in terms of particular religious doctrines--or in some cases, definable in terms of freedom from other particular religious doctrines. These people were able to come together under a Constitution--adopted between 1787 and 1791--precisely because it remained absolutely neutral as to those differences; precisely because it granted absolutely no power to the General Government to interfere with culture--or doctrinal preferences, patterns of association, preferences for association or in hiring, etc.--in any of those unique local communities. That Constitution stated its purpose, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty" to those who adopted it, and to their "posterity." How, then, can we accept a denial of the right to those very private preferences that many came here, at great personal risk, to secure? How, then, in the name of "religious freedom," do we allow the Government to say that in managing one's own property, one may not reflect his or her religious or social values?
To state the issue another way. We do not agree with the obvious biases of Mr. Russert or much of the mass media; but we would not legislate against his or their right to display them in their work or leisure. Those of us who support Ron Paul will debate against the underlying premises of those biases. Yet against those who would force all men to think a certain way, we would defend--with our very lives, if necessary--the right of Tim Russert, and a host of like Lemmings, to follow their "vision"--such as it is--over the metaphorical cliffs to perdition.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded succeeding generations of Americans that, "Honesty is always the best policy." From the bottom of our hearts, we wish that we were not forced to make an issue of the moral weakness--the integrity deficit--of Ron Paul's opponents. Yet no one can listen to the posturing of the other contenders in both major parties, without remarking the absence of reference to the specific language of our written Constitution. There are endless appeals to the interests or demands of particular groups or factions of the population; endless pandering to what are perceived as voting blocks; but no discussion of where the authority is supposed to reside; none of legal bases for the programs, schemes and policies being promised.
Ron Paul, alone, recognizes that the Federal Government has no power--no legal existence outside the Constitution. Yet each of the other candidates, at one time or another, has been required to swear obedience to that Constitution--to swear to uphold that Constitution. If they care so little about those solemn oaths, as to fail even to discuss Constitutional questions in seeking the most solemn office under that Constitution, how can one trust them in anything? Ultimately, the determinative issue in 2008, must be the integrity of Ron Paul versus the shameless, amoral, opportunism of his foes. Those who chose to ignore that issue, turn their backs on duty, wisdom and providence. No personal interest, no rationalization, no excuse, can possibly justify that betrayal.