Ron Paul is not pro choice on abortion.

[galtgulch]

To Whom it May Concern,

I am glad to see some of us are excited about the Ron Paul campaign however one thing makes me uneasy. I thought this was an Objectivist community and as I recall Ayn Rand was pro choice on everything and on abortion in particular. I recall she wrote an essay to rebut the Pope's Encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae and her essay was entitled Of Living Death. She wrote eloquently on the rights of the pregnant woman and ended by asserting that the decision was entirely up to the woman who could decide based on nothing more than her "whim".

Subsequently it became evident just how strongly Rand held to her position when she advocated that one should oppose and refrain from voting for someone, anyone, who was "pro-life" on the basis of that issue alone.

Now we have a pro free market, limited government candidate who takes the Constitution seriously and is in favor of a return to the gold standard, all of which make him very appealing to us except for one thing, he believes an unborn fetus or embryo has a right to life!

I wonder how he justifies that position. I assume he does so on theological grounds such as that a fertilized ovum possesses a "soul" from the moment of conception because his brief statement on his website has the flavor of it.

I recall the issue was raised when he sought the nomination for president from the libertarians years ago when he said that he was personally pro life but would not go against existing law if elected or something to that effect. But I suspect that he will hold out his pro life position to appeal to Republican voters and if elected, Heaven forbid, he will work to repeal Roe v Wade!

I would rather let Ayn rest in peace and certainly don't want her turning over in her grave because we are supporting an anti choice anti abortion candidate despite his appeal on so many other issues.

Does anyone have any information on Ron Paul's intentions this time around?

Galt

Edited July 7, 2007 by galtgulch

[Ross Barlow]

I do not know about Paul’s recent ideas about abortion issues, but I do remember something about his Libertarian Party candidacy nearly twenty years ago. I may have some of the particulars wrong but I think I recall the gist of his position more or less accurately.

He said something about his earlier career as a physician and the fact that abortion was not something he had thought much about. Then he witnessed a very late-term abortion where it basically seemed like they were killing a new-born baby that would have been able to survive. He changed his thinking after this.

The main thing I seem to remember from that 1988 campaign was Paul saying that he hoped the “morning after pill,” now often called Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECP), would be freely available to women. This would keep the issue between the woman and her doctor – or, if the ECP was available over-the-counter, it would only be the business of the woman. I seem to remember an implied sympathy for the woman’s rights in this matter, coupled with a desire to keep the matter private and to keep abortion out of the hospital setting where issues of funding and a hospital’s possible tax-supported status might entangle.

If my memory is correct, and if Paul still feels this way about ECPs, then he would not be looking at the issue primarily as a “soul” being killed. Rather he sees later-term abortion as killing a baby, though I don’t know where he draws that line.

As I said, this is a nearly twenty year old memory of mine. But I remember at that time thinking that Paul’s explanation of his stand on the issue – while not the same as my own – seemed to be quite honest and personally thought-out. I also had the sense that he would stand in substantial disagreement with some in the pro-life community, such as the Catholic Church. I would not expect to see him as an extreme hard-charger against Roe.

-Ross Barlow.

[studiodekadent]

From what I know, Paul's position is that he is personally pro-choice and against Roe vs. Wade. However he believes abortion is a State's issue and as such would not overrule a State legalizing abortion.

Personally, I think this stance, although not perfect, is probably the best way to placate the 'less evolved' parts of the US and allow the more 'enlightened' (at least on noneconomic policy) states to have their choice. People will vote with their feet.

However I think Paul's stance on the gold standard is not perfect. Currency should not be a monopoly of the government for the same reason no product should be a monopoly of the government. Denationalized, free market money supplies will keep inflation lower and will have to be backed by a stable-value commodity in order to gain acceptability, hence performing the same service as a gold standard whilst retaining consumer choice.

[Martin Radwin]

I think it's important to maintain perspective on the Ron Paul candidacy. The first thing to recognize is that Paul is not running as a libertarian; rather, he is running as a very traditional, old right, limited government, constitutionalist conservative, in the tradition of old right conservative Robert Taft. In all of his campaign literature, Paul refers to himself as a conservative, not a libertarian. At least a couple of his positions violate libertarian principles. In addition to the abortion issue, Paul has also come out strongly against illegal immigration and any notion of open borders. He has been every bit as much of an immigration basher as the most rabid of the "right wing" conservatives. Also, his voting record in Congress has not been one of fully consistent libertarianism, and he has voted in favor of measures which are clearly unconstitutional by his own standards. In other words, in addition to being an old right conservative with strong but not fully consistent libertarian leanings, Paul is also a politician.

That Paul is running as a conservative rather than a libertarian is not at all surprising. There are a lot more small government conservatives than libertarians. Libertarianism is still a small, "fringe" movement that has simply not entered the mainstream of political thought. There aren't nearly enough libertarians to elect any candidate to Congress, so appealing to small government conservatives is probably the only viable strategy for electoral success. And without the existing electoral success that Ron Paul has already achieved in being elected to Congress multiple times, he would not now be considered a credible candidate.

Despite his flaws, Ron Paul is so vastly superior to every other republican or democratic candidate for president, that he may reasonably be forgiven for his deviations from pure libertarianism. His foreign policy views alone, in an otherwise unanimous field of republican and democratic warmongers who are not satisfied with the catastrophy in Iraq but are determined to drag the US into even further bloody wars, makes him eminently worthy of support. My favorite candidate, based just on considerations of political ideology, is Steve Kubby, who is running as a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. But Kubby has no chance to reach more than a fraction of the potential audience that Ron Paul can achieve via his national campaign.

Martin

[Chris Grieb]

I am not upset about Ron Paul's position on abortion. Even if he should elected President the law will not change much. Even if the Supreme Court should throw out Roe V. Wade. Abortion would became a state matter like it was before. The world will not end.

The court was reluctant to end a very barbaric practice of killing almost born child by smashing its skill in. It will not outlaw first trimester abortions.

[Loriko]

I was initially excited about Ron Paul having heard his stance on government growth, taxes, and free trade. As a result I ended up going to his web site as well as his myspace account (yes, he has one, too).

The man is VERY MUCH pro-life /anti-abortion and states, "Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn," and additionally states, "In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. "

To read his complete statement, go to: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

Hope this helped!

[Kat]

Hi Lori and welcome to Objectivist Living.

I also have a big problem with voting for a candidate who is not pro-choice. In my view, if a candidate does not support a woman's right to choose, he or she does not deserve my vote. You don't take away rights like that. It is a deal killer. Simple as that.

Kat

[ichiban3]

RE Ron Paul not pro choice

Apparently he declined to respond to NARAL's request for a statement of where

he stood on choice. However, his record speaks for itself and I cannot support him,

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/paul.html

To Whom it May Concern,

I am glad to see some of us are excited about the Ron Paul campaign however one thing makes me uneasy. I thought this was an Objectivist community and as I recall Ayn Rand was pro choice on everything and on abortion in particular. I recall she wrote an essay to rebut the Pope's Encyclical entitled Humanae Vitae and her essay was entitled Of Living Death. She wrote eloquently on the rights of the pregnant woman and ended by asserting that the decision was entirely up to the woman who could decide based on nothing more than her "whim".

Subsequently it became evident just how strongly Rand held to her position when she advocated that one should oppose and refrain from voting for someone, anyone, who was "pro-life" on the basis of that issue alone.

Now we have a pro free market, limited government candidate who takes the Constitution seriously and is in favor of a return to the gold standard, all of which make him very appealing to us except for one thing, he believes an unborn fetus or embryo has a right to life!

I wonder how he justifies that position. I assume he does so on theological grounds such as that a fertilized ovum possesses a "soul" from the moment of conception because his brief statement on his website has the flavor of it.

I recall the issue was raised when he sought the nomination for president from the libertarians years ago when he said that he was personally pro life but would not go against existing law if elected or something to that effect. But I suspect that he will hold out his pro life position to appeal to Republican voters and if elected, Heaven forbid, he will work to repeal Roe v Wade!

I would rather let Ayn rest in peace and certainly don't want her turning over in her grave because we are supporting an anti choice anti abortion candidate despite his appeal on so many other issues.

Does anyone have any information on Ron Paul's intentions this time around?

Galt

[galtgulch]

Hi Lori and welcome to Objectivist Living.

I also have a big problem with voting for a candidate who is not pro-choice. In my view, if a candidate does not support a woman's right to choose, he or she does not deserve my vote. You don't take away rights like that. It is a deal killer. Simple as that.

Kat

Hi Kat, i am reminded of the musical 1776 which mirrors what actually happened at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia which led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the first Draft written by Thomas Jefferson he had many clauses which were objected to and had to be removed in order to appease the delegates from the southern states in order to get the unanimous vote to declare independence.

Kat, I fear that if you were in T. Jefferson's position you would have refused to remove the offensive clauses which abolished slavery, on principle no doubt, and we would still be saluting the British flag!

I can imagine a scenario in which we figuratively hold our noses and vigorously support Ron Paul in his bid for the nomination. If we do there is a chance he would get the nomination and then might win the election and become president. I know that is far fetched but as inconceivable as it is there is a slight chance for it to happen. Even if not elected his campaign as nominee would yield positive effects.

Paul has pointed out that the Income Tax only accounts for about one third of the Federal Revenue and the other two thirds amount to the equivalent of the Federal Budget for 2000. Paul said that if he repealed the Income Tax and cut spending back to the 2000 level, there would be no need to replace the Income Tax with a Flat Tax or anything else so he could also abolish the dreaded Internal Revenue System.

If that happened within one week after his election to office those who sympathize with young ladies who have unwanted pregnancies would have plenty of money to help them out.

In other words I think it might be a big mistake to let Pauls position on abortion cause us to prevent his election. Once he were elected and the IRS abolished, the Gold Standard restored, the regulations repealed, the Constitution adhered to, and our troops brought home from all over the world, we could concentrate on influencing the States who would have jurisdiction over the choice vs abortion issue.

I do sympathize with your deal breaker mentality but there are a number of other crucial principles involved such as the right of each earner to keep the money he or she earns, and adherence to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution which limits the powers granted to the government and which has been violated big time in the last few decades. Here is our chance to at least influence the dialog on such issues in a Presidential campaign.

Think of all the pro life folks who would be willing to listen to Ron Paul on all our other issues! Even if he doesn't get elected many minds might be enlightened.

galt

Edited July 11, 2007 by galtgulch

[Aggrad02]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/

click on the 2nd vid

[galtgulch]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/

click on the 2nd vid

Paul asserts his belief that a fetus has rights to life. But it is just an assertion and he gives no rational basis for his assertion. No one asked him what his grounds are for his belief so he gets away with it.

He said that it is an act of violence, refering to abortion and says that it becomes a state issue not a federal issue.

Notice who is not mentioned in all this discussion, the pregnant woman. I wonder if Paul considers her rights such as the right to determine whether her own body will continue to sustain the existence of the embryo or fetus within her, or not.

Paul does not believe that anyone should be compelled by the government to support the life of another when it comes to taxation. He should apply the same principle to the abortion issue in which he appears to advocate that a woman be forced to continue to sustain the life of another which happens to be growing within her body.

One might hope for consistency in our candidates for president.

galt

Edited July 12, 2007 by galtgulch

[Martin Radwin]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/g4/

click on the 2nd vid

Paul asserts his belief that a fetus has rights to life. But it is just an assertion and he gives no rational basis for his assertion. No one asked him what his grounds are for his belief so he gets away with it.

He said that it is an act of violence, refering to abortion and says that it becomes a state issue not a federal issue.

Notice who is not mentioned in all this discussion, the pregnant woman. I wonder if Paul considers her rights such as the right to determine whether her own body will continue to sustain the existence of the embryo or fetus within her, or not.

Paul does not believe that anyone should be compelled by the government to support the life of another when it comes to taxation. He should apply the same principle to the abortion issue in which he appears to advocate that a woman be forced to continue to sustain the life of another which happens to be growing within her body.

One might hope for consistency in our candidates for president.

galt

Consistency from presidential candidates or from politicians in general? You must be joking! But seriously, about the abortion issue, I agree with you absolutely. Even though there are some libertarians who are "pro life" and have attempted to argue for a ban on abortion on libertarian grounds, all of the arguments I have ever seen fall far short of justification from a libertarian perspective. An individual's right to sovereignty over his or her own body is about as fundamental of a libertarian principle as there is. Ayn Rand herself discussed the fundamentality of this principle in one of her essays in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal".

My only defense of Paul is that his integrity and belief in limited, constitutional government is such an incredible contrast to almost all of the human scum who now inhabit both the executive branch and congress, that I am willing to forgive him his anti-libertarian stance on abortion.

Despite his largely libertarian beliefs, Ron Paul is running as a traditional limited government conservative, not as a libertarian. This explains why Paul is now in a position to run a presidential campaign as a credible candidate. Were he a hard core libertarian, he never could have been elected to Congress even once, let alone multiple time. Such political experience is mandatory is establish credibility as a presidential candidate. The most consistently libertarian candidate is Steve Kubby, who's running as a candidate from the Libertarian Party. But most people have never heard of Kubby, whereas I've already seen "Ron Paul revolution" signs on several occasions, and the Paul campaign has generated quite a bit of excitement among a wide segment of people who are fed up with big government and, especially, the bloodthirsty warmongers from both parties who have taken over control of our government.

Martin

[galtgulch]

Hi Lori and welcome to Objectivist Living.

I also have a big problem with voting for a candidate who is not pro-choice. In my view, if a candidate does not support a woman's right to choose, he or she does not deserve my vote. You don't take away rights like that. It is a deal killer. Simple as that.

Kat

Kat, Michael said you have a long commute. I am eagerly waiting for you to post a rebuttal to my contention that Ron Paul's anti choice position on abortion, as egregious as it is, might not be reason enough to fail to support his bid for the nomination of the Republican Party.

I suppose he might get the soap box he needs from the alleged ground swell of support from meetups and the like anyway without our puny support anyway. So this issue is probably moot. I just thought the analogy of T. Jefferson having to endure the deletion of his anti slavery paragraphs in his Declaration in order to get the votes of the slaveholders in the South to vote for Independence was relevant and apropos.

Hypothetically Ron Paul, despite his antichoice position, might get enough support to get the nomination, especially considering that so many conservative Republicans share his conviction on abortion. His other positions are so appealing, abolishing the IRS and repealing the Income Tax, cutting federal spending, establishing the Gold Standard, bringing home the troops not just from Iraq but closing bases around the world are compelling.

I await your reply. Even if he were elected the abortion issue would go to the states.

galt

[Barbara Branden]

I received this from a friend earlier today:

Ron Paul Warns of Staged Terrorist Attack

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

The comments come as several prominent terrorism experts have warned the U.S. is facing an increased risk of attack this summer. Earlier this week, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" the U.S. would be attacked again.

The remark angered some Democrats, who criticized Chertoff for being too vague. And some pundits seized on his remarks, saying the vague warnings were meant only to revive flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush’s larger war against terrorism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:

Unless Ron Paul can provide powerful evidence for his statement -- which no doubt he would have done if he had any such evidence -- I think this is a disgrace. I'm truly appalled at his irresponsibility. I would not have voted for him anyway -- I see no value in having low taxes but leaving the world to the Islamo-fascists -- but after this I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of his words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating -- meaning, fearful of defending ourselves.

Barbara

[Wolf DeVoon]

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of [Ron Paul's] words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating...

If the United States is attacked by Saudi and Egyptian commandos again, like 9/11, who should the US retaliate against?

W.

[Richard Uhler]

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of [Ron Paul's] words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating...

If the United States is attacked by Saudi and Egyptian commandos again, like 9/11, who should the US retaliate against?

W.

Any realistic suggestions?

[galtgulch]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:

Unless Ron Paul can provide powerful evidence for his statement -- which no doubt he would have done if he had any such evidence -- I think this is a disgrace. I'm truly appalled at his irresponsibility. I would not have voted for him anyway -- I see no value in having low taxes but leaving the world to the Islamo-fascists -- but after this I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of his words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating -- meaning, fearful of defending ourselves.

Barbara

Here I was trying to get a discussion going about whether Ron Paul's anti choice stance trumped his other pro free market, pro Constitution postition when Barbara comes along with a spotlight stealing issue. That makes me feel like I am guilty of context dropping.

I thought that Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War was just that Congress never declared war! I can see him speaking to the Congress in the event of another attack to declare war and then vigorously pursuing the attackers and any regime which harbored the perpetrators. Besides maybe the allegation is true. I tend not to believe it but generally I wouldn't put anything passed these politicians.

galt

[Aggrad02]

I received this from a friend earlier today:

Ron Paul Warns of Staged Terrorist Attack

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, said the country is in "great danger" of the U.S. government staging a terrorist attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation, as the war in Iraq continues to deteriorate.

The Texas congressman offered no specifics nor mentioned President Bush by name, but he clearly insinuated that the administration would not be above staging an incident to revive flagging support.

"We're in danger in many ways," Paul said on the Alex Jones radio show. "The attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."

Paul was asked to respond to comments by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a provocation of an enemy similar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 before the Vietnam War.

During the radio interview, Paul said the government was conducting "an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that has gone wrong in Iraq."

The comments come as several prominent terrorism experts have warned the U.S. is facing an increased risk of attack this summer. Earlier this week, in an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" the U.S. would be attacked again.

The remark angered some Democrats, who criticized Chertoff for being too vague. And some pundits seized on his remarks, saying the vague warnings were meant only to revive flagging support for the war in Iraq and Bush’s larger war against terrorism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:

Unless Ron Paul can provide powerful evidence for his statement -- which no doubt he would have done if he had any such evidence -- I think this is a disgrace. I'm truly appalled at his irresponsibility. I would not have voted for him anyway -- I see no value in having low taxes but leaving the world to the Islamo-fascists -- but after this I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of his words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating -- meaning, fearful of defending ourselves.

Barbara

Barbara,

The article that your friend sent you was from politico.com and is spinning what Ron Paul actually said and meant. Here are the two articles.

Original Politico.com Article

Response Article by Antiwar.com

Or listen to the interview and decide for yourself:

Alex Jones Interviews Ron Paul

-Dustan

Edited July 15, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Martin Radwin]

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of [Ron Paul's] words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating...

If the United States is attacked by Saudi and Egyptian commandos again, like 9/11, who should the US retaliate against?

W.

That's an easy question. If the US is attacked by Saudi and Egyptian commandos, we should retaliate by attacking Iraq and Iran, neither of which had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and both of which are bitter enemies of Al Qaeda. Haven't you studied any logic?

Martin

[Martin Radwin]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my response:

Unless Ron Paul can provide powerful evidence for his statement -- which no doubt he would have done if he had any such evidence -- I think this is a disgrace. I'm truly appalled at his irresponsibility. I would not have voted for him anyway -- I see no value in having low taxes but leaving the world to the Islamo-fascists -- but after this I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

If there is another terrorist attack in America, the effect of his words, if taken seriously, could be terrible, leaving us morally disarmed and fearful of retaliating -- meaning, fearful of defending ourselves.

Barbara

Here I was trying to get a discussion going about whether Ron Paul's anti choice stance trumped his other pro free market, pro Constitution postition when Barbara comes along with a spotlight stealing issue. That makes me feel like I am guilty of context dropping.

I thought that Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War was just that Congress never declared war! I can see him speaking to the Congress in the event of another attack to declare war and then vigorously pursuing the attackers and any regime which harbored the perpetrators. Besides maybe the allegation is true. I tend not to believe it but generally I wouldn't put anything passed these politicians.

galt

Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq War was not just that Congress never declared war, though this was certainly a valid reason to oppose it. More fundamentally, he opposed the Iraq war because there was absolutely no justification for it. Iraq never attacked or threatened to attack the US, Iraq was no threat to the security of the United States, and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, the Iraqi Bathist regime of Saddam Hussein was a bitter enemy of Al Qaeda, despite the propoganda of the Bush administration attempting to establish a link between these two.

Regarding Ron Paul's suggestion that the US government may be setting up Iran via a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, this is more of a prediction and a warning rather than an allegation, since it refers to a hypothetical event which has not yet happened. It seems obvious to me that the Bush administration is doing everything it can to provoke Iran into launching some kind of attack against the US, and I would certainly not put it past these scummy lying bastards to fake an Iranian attack in order to provide justification for the US going to war with Iran, as the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident provided the US with an excuse to escalate the Vietnam War. But there is no way to prove that the Bush administration intends to do this, short of obtaining leaked administration documents affirming such a plan.

Martin

[galtgulch]

Regarding Ron Paul's suggestion that the US government may be setting up Iran via a Gulf of Tonkin type incident, this is more of a prediction and a warning rather than an allegation, since it refers to a hypothetical event which has not yet happened. It seems obvious to me that the Bush administration is doing everything it can to provoke Iran into launching some kind of attack against the US, and I would certainly not put it past these scummy lying bastards to fake an Iranian attack in order to provide justification for the US going to war with Iran, as the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident provided the US with an excuse to escalate the Vietnam War. But there is no way to prove that the Bush administration intends to do this, short of obtaining leaked administration documents affirming such a plan.

Martin

Just because it is alleged that Ron Paul said something doesn't mean that he did! Here is some copy from the link supplied by Dustan.

>>>"The Politico’s Brazen Lies About Ron Paul

Saturday, July 14th, 2007 in News by Justin Raimondo|

The Republican smear machine is revving up its motors, getting ready to launch a typically vicious campaign against Ron Paul, the only real threat to their death-grip on the GOP. Since the first assault, a piece by Ryan Sager in the New York Sun, failed — the charges of “racism” were based on tenuous documentation and fall apart when examined up close — the second wave has been launched: a piece in The Politico, headlined: “Ron Paul Warns of Staged Terror Attack.” It links to a clip of a radio interview with Ron, conducted by Alex Jones, and hosted on the Breitbart.com site – part of the neocon-Drudge propaganda network.

If you listen to the interview, one thing is clear: Paul said no such thing. Jones asked him a 5-minute-long question that melded together all sorts of disparate elements, including the possibility of a staged US government-sponsored terrorist attack and a US military attack on Iran. Ron focused exclusively on the latter, and said that the great danger comes from a “Gulf of Tonkin“-type incident involving Iran. No mention is made by Paul of a staged terrorist attack on US soil.

Ron spends the rest of the interview talking about what a disaster an attack on Iran would turn out to be, and then launches into his favorite subject: the economic consequences of our spendthrift ways, and the impossibility of maintaining our empire of debt.

The Politico is telling a lie: their headline is a lie. What’s amazing about this particular smear is that it is so transparently obvious: after all, in this day and age, we don’t need intermediaries and “gate-keepers” telling us what Paul said, we can refer directly to it by linking to it. And anyone who listens to what Ron says in this interview cannot come away thinking that he said the US government is going to stage a terrorist attack on its own people on American soil or anywhere else."<<<

Ron Paul still has my vote if I have to join the Republican Party just long enough to cast it in the Primary and then change back to unenrolled.

galt

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If the United States is attacked by Saudi and Egyptian commandos again, like 9/11, who should the US retaliate against?

Wolf,

My view of this is that just because the Bush administration made a gross misuse of the USA intelligence institutions, that does not invalidate them. That only invalidates his misuse of them.

I believe the proper answer to your question is to retaliate against those identified by the USA's intelligence and military advisers to the President. That is their job.

Even with all the mishandling, mistakes and political football playing, the USA intelligence organizations and the USA military are the best there is in the world. The inclusion of checks and balances within the system is one of the reasons for its reliability. The President should make good use of the USA's military and intelligence capacity instead of trying to override the information he receives from them.

On the Ron Paul issue, I am not sure where he would stand with this. I haven't followed too closely, but I haven't seen any candidate really come out and say he/she trusts the information our specialized institutions provide and will use it above his/her own personal biases. If such a candidate stated that (and meant it), that is the candidate who would receive my vote.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

My only defense of Paul is that his integrity and belief in limited, constitutional government is such an incredible contrast to almost all of the human scum who now inhabit both the executive branch and congress, that I am willing to forgive him his anti-libertarian stance on abortion.

You are much too forgiving. Congressman Paul is at home with the idea of making women of childbearing age into brood-mares. Nifty! He won't tax a female Unconstitutionally, but he will compel her to give birth if the political outcome should be that. If thirty seven states pass a "right to life" amendment he will -gladly- conform. It is his gladness that I find unforgivable.

If he is elected I will invest in companies that make wire clothes-hangers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

My only defense of Paul is that his integrity and belief in limited, constitutional government is such an incredible contrast to almost all of the human scum who now inhabit both the executive branch and congress, that I am willing to forgive him his anti-libertarian stance on abortion.

. If thirty seven states pass a "right to life" amendment he will -gladly- conform.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the states pass a Constitutional amendment there is no choice for the President but to conform.

[BaalChatzaf]

If the states pass a Constitutional amendment there is no choice for the President but to conform.

True. But he does not have to be -glad- about it. And if a President is morally opposed about such a law he can be less than efficient about enforcing it.

Ba'al Chatzaf