Ron Paul is Still the Most Intellegent and Capable Candidate In the Room

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Updated 12/11/11 @ 10:00 AM EST

I have heretofore proudly been, and proudly remain a staunch Ron Paul supporter. Given the the field of  inept and unqualified republican candidates that 1) lack vision, 2) lack consistency of purpose and therefore find it necessary to test which way the political wind is blowing almost daily, 3) claim to be 'conservative' when their brand of conservative is really nothing more than neo-conservative statism, 4) are as hypocritical as any liberal ever was, and 5)  are only interested in amassing power that {may} allows them to impose their statist vision and will on all Americans is it any wonder why the republican party in general is rapidly becoming irrelevant?

Ron Paul is, above all else honest and therefore calls em as he sees em. Which by the way is refreshing as well as  spot on when analyzed with a rational perspective. As such his views have a great deal more merit than most views floating around in the rooms of statist republican politicians  full of irrational thought.

Okay...  Ron Paul is human. Being human he is certainly susceptible to occasionally making statements that are ill advised, even foolish. The record is certainly replete with questionable and ill advised, even foolish statements by Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Donald Trump, Herman Cain, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich. Did I forget any of the RHINO or neo-con statists ? The gaffes, errors, and misinformation from those above have certainly been many, as opposed the very few uttered by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did in fact open himself up to the barrage of neo-conservative condemnation {here and here} that has followed his ill advised statement the Bush administration was gleeful of 911 because it gave them the justification to invade Iraq. However, a rational analysis of the situation in the Mid East can only lead one the rational conclusion that U.S. actions have indeed resulted in unintended consequences from time to time. To deny the truth of the preceding statement is, to cut to the chaise sheer lunacy.

The Paul statement.

{CBS NEWS} - Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the December 9, 2011 12:17 PM

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Thursday evening that Bush administration officials were gleeful after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks because it gave them a pretext to invade Iraq.

"Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq," the Texas Republican told a group of mostly young backers in Iowa. He went on to suggest officials are now setting the stage for an invasion of Iran. {Read More}

Ron Paul's choice of words were most assuredly ill advised. He should have reasoned through his word selection before uttering them. On this point rational men and women can agree.There can be no doubt that GWB, and those in his administration were as stunned and numbed by the horrific events of 911 as all Americans were, including Ron Paul.

Given his lapse of judgment in this instance he should, 1) offer his heartfelt apologies for a stupid choice of words, and 2) clarify precisely what he meant so those who do not generally understand his positions will grasp the real meaning behind his choice of words.

While I cannot speak for Ron Paul I am confident his message was meant to put forth the position that the Bush administration used the events of 911 to further their arguments for a Iraq invasion following our invasion of, and eventual occupation of Afghanistan.

Mr. Paul's point was that the presence of American boots on the ground in Islam's holiest of soil {Saudi Arabia} inflamed the Muslim people of the Mid East and therefore our actions in the region resulted in unintended consequences, IE: 911.

Yes Ron Paul should have phrased his statement differently. And yes he should have known this instinctively. He could have sent the same message with the following statement...

The horrific and evil attack on American soil by Islamic fundamentalists that resulted in the loss of over 3,000 innocent American souls on 911 was appropriately and decisively responded to by President George W. Bush. However, the Bush administration's decision to invade the sovereign state of Iraq without a single act of aggression on the American state and its people by the government of Iraq was, I believe not only ill advised but driven in part by the evens of 911. The decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq was based on faulty intelligence, irrational premise, and in fact worsened the already volitle environment in the Middle East.

My words. They do not carry the sanction of the Paul campaign. They do represent my view as to what Ron Paul's intent was based on my understanding of his ethics and guiding principles.

In the end each individual must decide for themselves whether the neo-cons are right or whether Ron Paul simply had a slip of the tongue. I know where I stand. It is the only rational stance {conclusion} to take if you are truly concerned with liberty and proper ethical governance. If you have done due diligence and actually studied the positions of Ron Paul the choice is clear. Ron Paul is the greatest defender of the Constitution ad its principles alive today.

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc.... Liberty hangs in the balance.

Via: Memeorandum

Update - I am updating this post to give a frame of reference as to what oft used terminology really means. In this case "neo conservative " and "classical liberal."

The reason many so called conservatives have such disdain for Ron Paul is because he actually fits the description of a "classical liberal", a political philosophy feared by the neo-con statists.

The MSM, {which personifies 21st century liberalism and not classical liberalism} as well as the neo-cons will do everything they can to discredit Ron Paul and destroy his candidacy and his reputation. Don't allow that to happen if you value limited constitutional government and true liberty.

Ron Paul is misunderstood by many because rather than studying the true meaning of terms many simply buy into the false soundbites and misrepresentations of Ron Paul's positions. Ron Paul has been consistent in his understanding and proper representation of the principles found in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America his entire political life.

To the terms and explanation with proper linkage ascribed.

Neo-Conservative:

(Conservapedia)- A neoconservative (also spelled "neo-conservative"; colloquially, neocon) in American politics is someone presented as a conservative but who actually favors big government, interventionalism, and a hostility to religion in politics and government. The word means "newly conservative," and thus formerly liberal. Many neocons had been liberals in their youth and admired President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 2010 the highest priority of the neoconservatives is to increase military action by the United States in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and to expand it to an American confrontation against Iran; in 2011 their goals include supporting a military attack on Libya, continuing the Afghanistan War indefinitely, and even suggesting military action against Syria.

Neoconservatives tend to oppose the appointment of social conservatives to high governmental positions, such as nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Neoconservatives support candidates who are liberal on social issues instead.

Neoconservatives favor expensive foreign interventionalism with massive federal spending, often to replace a dictator with a new system of government that may be worse. Sometimes this is expressed as a desire to install a democracy in a culture that may be incompatible with it. The neoconservative position was discredited in the failure of democracy in the Iranian elections of 2009.

The neoconservative movement emerged in the mid 1970s, played a limited role in the Ronald Reagan Administration, and then had a voice in the Defense Department under the George W. Bush Administration after 9/11. Candidates favored by neoconservatives for president in 2012 include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Mike Pence and, to a lesser extent because she pulls support away from those candidates, Sarah Palin.

Some prominent spokesmen include Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Schwartz, Elliott Abrams, Ben Wattenberg and Carl Gershman.

In contrast to traditional conservatives, neoconservatives favor globalism, downplay religious issues and differences, are unlikely to actively oppose abortion and homosexuality. Neocons disagree with conservatives on issues such as classroom prayer, the separation of powers, cultural unity, and immigration. Neocons favor a strong active state in world affairs. Neocons oppose affirmative action with greater emphasis and priority than other conservatives do.

On foreign policy, neoconservatives believe that democracy can and should be installed by the United States around the world, even in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

Neoconservatives were prominent in the George W. Bush administration by supporting a strong foreign policy, and especially favored the Iraq War and its efforts to spread democracy worldwide. {Continue Reading}

Classical Liberalism:

(NCPA)Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.

At the same time, 20th century liberals continued to be influenced by the 19th century liberalism's belief in and respect for civil liberties. In fact, as the last century progressed, liberal support for civil liberties grew and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began to proudly claim the label "civil libertarian." Since liberalism was the dominant 20th century ideology, public policy tended to reflect its beliefs. By the end of the century, people had far fewer economic rights than they had at the beginning. But they had more civil rights. {Continue Reading}

With an understanding of Ron Paul's positions and what they really mean for America the choice is crystal clear. Ron Paul is the only republican in the room in which you can place your trust. That is if you truly believe in limited constitutional government and the Liberty advocated by, and fought for by our founding fathers and the documents they placed in our care.

Tic toc, tic toc, tic toc...