Monday, November 19, 2007

Ron Paul, Representing the Lunatic Fringe

Ron Paul has become the latest darling of the pajama media and generated what appears to be a true grassroots following. Accounting for this are some of his atypical-for-a-Republican positions on front-line issues. The popularity of his opposition to the war policies of the Despicable Cretin, his activist support for personal privacy (including opposition to the Patriot Act and the national ID card), his supposedly "principled" defense of Constitutional limits, and his in-your-face attacks on the intellectual inconsistency of his fellow Republican candidates, have given him the 2008 "straight-talk" mantle.

But Ron Paul's attractiveness is only skin-deep. Unfortunately, for a significant portion of voters, skin-deep is as far as they go. A closer look at some of his other positions, especially on social issues, reveals a different and, frankly, disturbing picture of the candidate.

Ron Paul not only opposes the right to choose, but he opposes any federal support for family planning, including counseling, sex education, and contraceptive advice or support.

And, of course, Paul wants Roe v Wade overturned. While Paul likes to promote himself as a defender of personal privacy and liberty, he ignores the privacy and liberty issues at the heart of the abortion issue and the Roe v. Wade decision -- his support for personal liberty and privacy only extends to liberty and privacy invoked in favor of those portions of the christian mythology he has adopted. In other words -- In Ron Paul's America, your personal privacy and liberty choices are protectible to the extent that they happen to coincide with Paul's personal choices.

As with a women's right to control her own body, Paul's concept of personal liberty also requires that your civil liberties stop at his personal gag factor. Ron Paul opposes equal rights for gays. And, of course, if Ron Paul is personally opposed to queers getting married, his so-called "principled" defense of the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Thus, despite his precious Constitution clearly requiring all States to honor give "full faith and credit" to the laws of their sister States, Paul favors abandoning that provision when he and his personal mythology doesn't like what they have done.

The full faith and credit clause is what allows you to drive in New Jersey with your Pennsylvania license; it is what permits you to live as husband and wife in New York, although you got married in Florida; it is what allows you to collect a judgment against a company in Iowa issued by a Delaware court. But that same clause, Paul insists, can't be used to "force" bigots like him to recognize gay marriages because, well, because he doesn't want to. Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to strip the federal courts of their power to apply the federal Constitution to state laws on such matters. Indeed, Paul wants to deny the federal courts the power to decide all First Amendment controversies.

Paul opposes stem-cell research because, he says, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund projects that they find "ethically abhorrent". I haven't found "ethically abhorrent" in my copy of the Constitution. But, if that were the test, well, then, I find faith-based government programs "ethically abhorrent", I find prayer "ethically abhorrent", as well as tax-relief for churches. I know, I am in the minority. But, so are the people that find stem-cell research "ethically abhorrent". Paul's argument is just cover for his desire to impose his personal set of values, his christian mythology, on the rest of us.

Paul wants to drill for oil in ANWR and everywhere else he can. His excuse -- to reduce our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. But, that important "principle" stops at the economic interests of corporate America, as Paul opposes strict fuel economy standards.

Ron Paul wants a christian nation, and he is willing to lie about the Constitution to convince you. Among the false statements in his little tome on christianity is that the United States Constitution is "replete with references to God". Umm, no it isn't. In fact, the word "god" appears no where in the text. Either Ron Paul doesn't know that -- which puts the lie to his pretense of advocacy for the Constitution -- or he does -- which puts the lie to him. Either way . . . .

But what would you expect from someone who says that "a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis", or a guy who wants to teach creationism in public schools?

Ron Paul comes from the lunatic fringe of American society. When he speaks of his "principles", he means his dogma. When he advocates for freedom and personal liberty -- he means just as long as it is consistent with his brand of christian mythology.

Paul also has a questionable history on race issues (and much has been made of the level of support which he enjoys from the white supremacy crowd). In 1996, the Houston Chronicle questioned him and his staff about comments Paul made in his newsletters in 1988 and 1992. At the time, neither Paul nor his staff disowned the comments. Instead, according to the article, Paul tried to explain some of them away, "saying his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

Here, according to the Chronicle, are some of Paul's written statements based on those "current events and statistical reports":

“[O]nly about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

And they called Mike Gravel loony?

Fortunately, ideologues like this guy don't go away and he'll be around to siphon scarce Republican money, likely through the convention. Hopefully, he'll then run third-party and continue to help the Democrats.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's a message to the people who purchased you to write this blog -- please grow up. There is more to life than power and wealth. These things do not go with you when you are laying in the ground. We all surrender everything when our time comes. Don't create a living hell for everyone around you by enforcing your power-addicted reality on everyone around you. GROW UP AND BECOME ADULTS, PLEASE.

A Big Fat Slob said...

Ahhh, here we go boys and girls, the lunatic fringe crawls out of the cellar (anonymously). . . .

Charlotte said...

For the truth about Gay Marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & creates an interesting spin on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

Terry Woods said...

I'm tired of the lie that the Constitution has no mention of God.
Look at the siggy page:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

A Big Fat Slob said...

ahahaha! Good one. (unless you were trying to be serious)

Anonymous said...

"In the year of our lord" is the long version of "AD" translated from latin. As in 2007 AD. It is not at all an enshrinement of religion in our government.

As for Ron Paul, I'll be voting for him even though there are a few things I disagree with him about. He has principles that are grounded in our constitution, and cannot be bought off by the special interests who own all the other candidates.

ryanshaunkelly said...

Colbert gravel kucinich paul nader perot carter [conyers?rangel?] united for truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

The people know too much,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

Raio pirate said...

Ron Paul is the darling of the paranoid preachers /conspiracy theorists on shortwave. These clowns think the world ids run by a college fraternity called Skull and Bones, that "9/11 was an inside job," that the Federal Reserve and the media are controlled by the Jews/ the Vatican/ Freemasons. If ithis sounds like you, Ron's your man.

Hank said...

As an atheist, I oppose all legislation that prefers Christian citizens. But, I am a Ron Paul supporter simply because he will not impose his personal religious views on the American people. As far as the creationism in school thing goes, the actual question was to the affect of "Will you support scientific contradictions of evolution?". He said yes, which is the right thing to say. This does not mean that he things creationism is scientific.

Maybe instead of writing anti-Paul articles, you can write pro-whoever articles. I can't seem to find any other posts of yours that have positive views - mudslinging isn't very charming.

Ron Paul is in favor of removing marriage from the state's control entirely. He believes that if there is a church that will marry a gay couple (which there are many), that they should be allowed to do so. I really wish you had done some research before blindly spewing lies.

raiopirate:
Not all of us are 9/11 conspiracy theorists - it's a bad generalization. What's your problem with sound money? You like inflation? It's not who runs the Fed, it's what the Fed is doing. And as far as Skull and Bones goes, doesn't it seem just a little bit suspicious to you that the 2004 election was between 2 Skull and Bones candidates? If you can't admit that that was at least a HUGE coincidence, than you are completely deluded.

So, please write something about a candidate you like for a change. Hate speech never solves anything.

A Big Fat Slob said...

Only in the L.F. would calling a guy out for his racism and intolerance be considered "hate speech".

Thanks for helping me make the point.

johnfkosanke said...

The powers of Congress:

http://www.geocities.com/johnfkosanke/USConstitutionBasic.html#pc

SPC Steve US Army currently Deployed OEF said...

To the Original Poster. Why not READ the links you actually post. For Ron Paul's position on abortion where you LIE to your readers about how he is against the womans right to choose, why not read his own report as to WHY he would overturn Roe vs Wade.....

"So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid."

He has a consistant voting record, meaning, he votes for the constitution. So though he is pro-life being that he's delivered thousands of babies as a Doctor, he will not use his power as president to invoke a federal law banning abortions across the 50 states. He wants the individual states, based on their individual residences, to make that decision for themselves and not leave it up to the federal government to make that choice for them. So who really is pro CHOICE here?