Ron Paul for President?

Ron Paul congressional photoI posted the following video on Facebook, and a number of people jumped all over me and Dr. Paul, making rather unseemly accusations that have little basis in reality. My original comment was: I thought Ron Paul was excellent here, while MSNBC’s Chris Matthews played devil’s advocate. Paul is not stumping for anarchy but for states’ rights v. federalism or centralized Big Government – that’s the intention of Thomas Jefferson’s original Constitution.

In response to critics raising up Ron Paul’s stance on property rights, evolution, abortion and stem cell research, I had to point out that, while I may not agree with him personally on several issues, Paul’s entire perspective is based on the purpose of the American Constitution, which is to decentralize Big Government and give governing power to the individual states, based on the will of the people who live there. I understand that Ron Paul is a Christian who doesn’t support the idea of evolution, abortion or embryonic stem cell research, but he is also a staunch Constitutionalist who does support the Establishment Clause that allows us to keep church separated from state, which means he is not interested in legislating his religious viewpoints. What he is interested in doing is keeping the federal government out of the states’ business. This anti-federalism extends to not having the federal government legislate for or against any of these issues but leaving it up to the states. As Paul said concerning abortion: “The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution.”

Now, his foreign policy or lack thereof concerns me, for the same reason I like him for national politics: To wit, his upholding of the Constitution means he feels we shouldn’t “mess” in the affairs of other nations. That sounds good, except that we are already up to our eyeballs in the affairs of other nations, specifically as concerns our addiction to oil. However, I would likewise wager that Paul’s support of hemp is based not only on his love for the Founding Fathers, who grew hemp, but also because hemp biomass can contribute greatly to energy independence.

I also cringe when I hear Paul talk about “blowback,” not that his views are without merit, but he is also likely well aware that the American Founding Fathers had to deal with Islamic aggression, which was completely unprovoked. Hence, it could be argued in the same manner that “blowback” is really just a continuation of the same sort of aggression started centuries ago by Muslim marauders. Indeed, his foreign policy leaves much to be desired, although it could be argued that there Paul is also just following the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.

As concerns Paul’s stance on Israel, again, he appears to be saying that, per the U.S. Constitution, America should not be meddling in the affairs of other nations. I don’t know what Dr. Paul would say to the idea that citizens of other nations who would LIKE us to “meddle” in their affairs, such as the millions of Iranians who are desperate to be free of the heinous Islamic Republic that is terrorizing and murdering them, but the politicos we have now aren’t doing anything about that situation either. I would assume that Dr. Paul is aware that there are millions of Americans who come from various parts of the world who will use their American citizenship to “meddle in” or, rather, improve the lives of their fellow countrymen, with the help of the United States. My understanding of Paul is that he weighs every issue individually on its own merit and then refers to Constitutional policy before forming his opinion. Surely, such a measured policy is better than the current behavior of rushing into situations and then regretting it afterwards.

In any case, as concerns major politicians, Ron Paul may be the closest thing to the American Founding Fathers since the 19th century.

Here’s a video addressing “blowback”: In 1786, Ambassador Adja of Tripoli was asked why he attacked the Americans, and he replied his “jihad” was “founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who whould be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

14 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Ron Paul
    Ok great post acharya. The thing i disagree with you is your confusion on blowback. What paul is talking about is how the US created al-quaeda in the 80s, and osama was a CIA asset (known as tim osman). Just like israel created hamas, and the US supports the disgusting muslim dictators (athough i guess islam itself is a dictatorship) in the middle east, it is outrageous for us to offer monetary support for these scumbag dictators such as the saudi princes. The blowback is referring to when we support them and create them and give them weapons, and they turn on us decades later (like hussein and osama).
    We dont have the money to save the people in iran from their theocratic government, its not our concern or our issue-its not worth sacrificing american lives and money while our infrastructure and education is eroding at home. That is all he is saying so dont cringe next time. =) Love you acharya, love your books, and love being friends with you on facebook!

    1. Thank you, but are you claiming that Ron Paul is asserting this?

      “What paul is talking about is how the US created al-quaeda in the 80s, and osama was a CIA asset (known as tim osman).”

      I’d be curious to see where Paul is claiming that the U.S. created al-Qaeda and that OBL is a CIA asset, contentions I’ve heard since 9/11 and which are not news to men. But where does Paul say that?

  2. Thanks for posting this blog, Acharya. I like Ron Paul. At this point, I certainly prefer him over any other Republican and even prefer him over Obama. The time really is ripe for Ron Paul. He was great in the video provided above on Hardball.

    I hope he changes his blowback position regarding Islam though. This video explains why.

    Islamic Crusades 5: Why did they hate us in 1783? ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2G7dPFk[/url])

    I would like to know what his position is on the Bush W. “Faith-Based-Initiative” and the principle of separation between church and state too. I didn’t see anything at the Ron Paul ([url]http://www.ronpaul.com[/url]) website on those.

  3. Yes but can the programed self hating “persons” trained from birth the false hoods presented as history, do some real home work? Take slavery for instance there were educated and wealthy blacks subjects of the English crown colonies, that owned as well trade in slaves of all race/specie in the south as well the north before and after the civil war! Although you are not supposed to know that, as well who had slavery reinstated after the colonies had abolished it in 1670’s, as many colonists were being held as slave and indenture that’s right not just indenture but as out right slaves. And for another tid bit to research on the war for independence would not have been won, were not for the former slaves and indentured men/women from Europe that were set free from all bondage in the 1670’s abolish of slavery. And yes they settled in what is now known as Appalachia or those backward non-progressive rednecks as we have been called, for our love of privacy seclusion and simple country life.

  4. The main problem with constitutionalists like Ron Paul is that by following the constitution you are actually allowing the country to continue in the way it has been economically. Many people do not realize, even Ron Paul that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created in a way to allow for a Plutocracy to form. The entire U.S. was formed as a Plutocracy, but then again not much is actually said about that in schools where its claimed as a democracy or in politics where it was founded as a constitutional republic, both are just full of crap.

    The United States was never meant to a Constitutional Republic, it was meant and created for the purposes of allowing businesses to flourish, prosper and control the country, I mean how many people here realize that the Bill of Rights was created in a way to allow slave owners to caste each slave they owned as 1/3rd of a person, thus by allowing this they were able to ban together to pass legislation that favored every land owning slave in America. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are apart of the problem, not the solver of it. What we need is to create another Constitution that usurps the old and another Bill of Rights which replaces the old. Until we do that along with a number of other things, electing good presidents will not solve our problem.

    1. Constitutional
      Voice of Reason you have hit the nail on the head. The only way that we can have any kind of relief from corporate hegemony and plutocracy is to have a strong federal government or “nation state” on a global scale. Removing federal power in the way that Paul calls for is to ensure that corporate dominance continues and that more DEregulation will result in more corporate rape of the people and the environment.

  5. “The United States was never meant to be a Constitutional Republic, it was meant and created for the purposes of allowing businesses to flourish, prosper and control the country”

    That would be an opinion, not a fact. Where’s your proof that that was the intention of the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson? That’s not at all what Jefferson wrote about.

    It doesn’t sound like you’ve even read the Constitution.

  6. I fully support you on this one Archaya

  7. Jefferson was certainly a proponent of religious freedom, but I think it is a stretch to say the US constitution is Jefferson’s vision of decentralized government. It was Hamilton and his buddies who agitated for a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, one that would greatly expand the power of the federal government.

    I think Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy are some of the best I’ve seen, and I think he did well in this interview. I’m not sure that pushing everything to the state government is necessarily a good idea; state governments can make bad policy as well as the feds can. If we can limit government to securing the rights of the individual, we will have something.

  8. Wow, I never would have guessed that Acharya was an interventionist. One only needs to look back over the last two-hundred years to see where that’s gotten us. We are now a feared, Military-Industrial, Fascist state with its boot on the throat of the rest of the world.

    And, while I’m here, the view that the “purpose of the American Constitution,…”, “is to decentralize Big Government and give governing power to the individual states” is laughable. The Constitution was a power-grab by the moneyed elite to make sure that they stayed the moneyed elite “for OURselves and OUR posterity” is how they expressed it. Are you of direct blood line to any of the Framers? Did you sign the Constitution? Of course not. I needn’t have to remind you that words have meaning – something the very highly-educated Framers knew that the rabble did not (especially the far less educated rabble we have today). And I’m afraid their plan worked perfectly which is why we find us where we are today – at the mercy of a corporate police state.

    1. If by the term “interventionist” you are contending that I would enter a burning building – somebody else’s property, egads! – to save innocent lives – you would be correct.

      It’s quite simple: I am a citizen of the cosmos, and borders and nations are artificial boundaries that separate the human family. If someone is calling for help, I help, instead of resorting to excuses, whatever they may be.

      In the meantime, while others are babbling about “freedom” and “liberty,” millions of people worldwide are starving to death, crying for help, dying of diseases, etc., ad nauseam. I guess we should tell Doctors without Borders and all the other NGOs that they are “interventionists” and should just mind their own business.

      As concerns the U.S. Constitution, it sounds like you are listening to anti-American propaganda and haven’t even read it or studied the people who wrote it. Yes, I am very much a kindred spirit with such Founding Fathers as Thomas Jefferson ([url]http://www.truthbeknown.com/washington-jefferson-mythicists.html[/url]) and Benjamin Franklin, as well as the “unofficial” FF, Thomas Paine.

      In any event, it doesn’t even take reading the Constitution to see that what the real results are of the Constitution: I wouldn’t even exist, if America hadn’t been established under that “god-damned piece of paper.” If you’re in here to defend Dr. Paul, I doubt he would agree with your assessment of the Constitution.

      Moreover, I have repeatedly stated that those politicians who are committing anti-Constitutional acts should be prosecuted.

  9. Steve Carlisle - Lunartrax

    a start in the right direction ..
    Another fine article found here ! Admittedly, Ron Paul doesn’t have all the answers, but his presidency would be a start in the right direction.. resurrecting the nearly buried US Constitution. etc. His interviews show that he ‘rings true – no matter how you hit him’ and he remains an amazingly polite, patient, and optimistic man.

  10. Ayes have it! Ron Paul For President!
    Acharya’s opinion of Ron Paul for President is a photocopy of my own opinion of Ron Paul for President.

    With all that we’re seeing today in the Middle East, I’d think that we would all realize the importance and value of our Constitutional shield that protects us from a governmental religion and a religious government.

    Whereas most politicians rarely mention the Constitution, Ron Paul refers to it regularly.

    I like, with emphasis, three points contained within Acharya’s opinion:

    Acharya says,
    “I understand that Ron Paul is a Christian who doesn’t support the idea of evolution, abortion or embryonic stem cell research, but he is also a staunch Constitutionalist who does support the Establishment Clause that allows us to keep church separated from state, which means he is not interested in legislating his religious viewpoints.”

    “My understanding of Paul is that he weighs every issue individually on its own merit and then refers to Constitutional policy before forming his opinion.”

    “…..Ron Paul may be the closest thing to the American Founding Fathers since the 19th century.”

  11. Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to help fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan in the lat 1970’s. There is no question about that.

    Here is an MSNBC article from 1998 on the subject:
    [url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/t/bin-laden-comes-home-roost/[/url]
    (backup link)
    [url]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm[/url]

    The author even uses the term “blowback” to describe how Bin Laden went from asset to enemy. The same could be said of Saddam Hussein who was also trained and used to combat Soviet advances in the region, and, of course, armed by the US. That’s where he got his real (and imagined) weapons of mass destruction.The US is notorious for propping up puppet dictators willing to sell out their nation’s resources to further US interests.

    [b]…[/b]
    While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

    In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as “a horrible orgy of bloodshed.”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm
    [b]…[/b]

    There is a pretty clear pattern of training and support which later turns into conflict. It could be suggested the conflict is part of the long term plan as it is often used as an excuse for military intervention, and, in the cases of Afghanistan and Iraq, invasion and occupation.

    But what Paul refers to as ‘blowback’ is more straight forward. He sees our lopsided, blind support of Israel, as well as unending bombing campaigns against Arab nations as the source of Arab hatred of the US. And what logical mind wouldn’t see that connection? Interventionism was not supposed to be part of US policy according to the Constitution. Maybe we’re seeing why that is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2015 Freethought Nation, Acharya S, D.M. Murdock & Stellar House Publishing
Skysa App Bar