Ron Paul Strikes Back

Those of you who have read Mona Charen’s column attacking Ron Paul should take note that Jesse Benton, Communications Director for Ron Paul, has responded to the article in a very impressive, articulate, and convincing letter to the editor of the National Review.

I reproduce it for your edification here:

I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

And I Thought the Press Had Wrapped Up This Presidential Election Already?

Things are wonderfully helter skelter right now in the world of presidential politics. Just about when all the journalists had all but conceded the Democratic primary race to Hillary Clinton, recent poll results don't look so good for her any more. It looks like she now trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups. But that could change in a flash -- just ask Hillary who this past Summer had polls showing she beat every Republican thrown at her.

Most polls still show Hillary ahead in Iowa, but Obama is inching up on her. In New Hampshire, though, Hillary is still ahead by a substantial margin in most polls. And it is the same story in the next primary, South Carolina, with Hillary comfortably ahead. Unless something significant happens (and it could) it looks like Hillary will win two, maybe three of these first contests.

Things are more interesting on the Republican side of the race, though. Romney and Giuliani are attacking each other, while the unfortunately-named Huckabee rises. And so, too, does Ron Paul who

Poll-wise, Romney leads by a lot in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with South Carolina somewhat of a mixed bag. If Romney can capture two of these I think it will be a big blow to the perception that Giuliani is the inevitable Republican nominee.

Oh, and among all this foo-fa-rah Trent Lott announces his upcoming resignation. Buh-bye, Trent!

Has the Senate Grown a Pair?

Well, well, well, looks like the Senate has finally taken a step to stand up to that self-appointed little dictator Bush. Senators have been taking turns standing sentry duty this week — just to prevent Bush from circumventing the confirmation process by immediately installing people in federal posts while the chamber is in recess.

I like it! A 22 second session, presided over by a single Democratic Senator, just for procedural measure to block Bush from just naming people to appointments that require approval. It is a damn shame it has to come to this, but at least they are starting to stand up to the little despot for a change!

I Am Holier Than Thou! (Said One Republican to the Other)

Looks like those holier than thou Republican presidential candidates can’t keep their holy feet out of their holy mouths. Let’s see what this inauspicious crowd has been up to lately:

Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?

Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.

Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.

But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).

Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?

The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.

A Modest Proposal for Colorado

A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering (t)here for their national convention.

So, this bill will give legal rights to a fertilized egg, huh? You know, I don't think this goes far enough. Why should only fertilized eggs be protected? Why shouldn't every human egg be given protection under the law because every egg is a potential human being?

That mean little girls should be encouraged to have sex as soon as they begin to menstruate. Otherwise they are just murdering all of those potential human beings every time they get their period.

And heck, why stop with eggs? I think semen should be protected under the law, too! That would make you a mass murderer every time you masturbate.

Now that is a notion that could win me support from the Catholics, isn't it?

Christianity: World's Largest Case of Stockholm Syndrome

I ran across this interesting treatise calling organized religion, and Christianity in particular, the world's largest undiagnosed, and untreated, case of Stockholm Syndrome.

I had never thought of it that way, but the author makes an interesting case. If true, then it is reasonable to think of your religious friends as being in the control of a psychosis. Which kinda makes some of them easier to understand, doesn't it?

You Really Should Read James Carroll 's Columns

Today I want to promote the columns of James Carroll, columnist for the Boston Globe. He almost always seems to hit the nail spot on its head and get to the heart of matters. For example, consider his most recent column on Turkey and the war in Iraq:

HERE IN TURKEY, Condoleezza Rice offered sage advice to Turkish leaders ahead of the Washington meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan. "Effective action means action that can deal with the threat," she said Friday, but won't "make the situation worse." The Turkish military, with a deployed force of up to 100,000 soldiers, is poised to attack positions of militant Kurdish separatist fighters in the Kandil Mountains of northern Iraq. Their cross-border forays into Turkey over the last five weeks have killed dozens of Turks, both soldiers and civilians. Iraqi Kurds tacitly support their fellow Kurds, and Americans have done nothing to dissuade either group. Erdogan is under enormous pressure to respond to such attacks, but Rice highlighted "the need to look for an effective strategy, not just one that's going to strike out, somehow, and not deal with the problem."

As viewed from Turkey, American responses throughout this crisis range from duplicity to double standards. The cautionary message that Rice conveyed to her foreign ministry counterparts here, and that Bush is expected to echo, defines the exact opposite of policies pursued to this day by the Bush administration itself. The conditions that created the terrible prospect facing Turkey - an immediate war with rebel Kurds based in Iraq -- have been wholly manufactured in Washington, which displays an unending capacity to "make the situation worse." Turkey, a staunch US ally, urged restraint four-and-a-half years ago when Bush rolled his dice in Iraq. But when the gamble was lost, it was nations in the Middle East - not America - that paid. Turkey's turn to pony up has come.

The mood here is somber because when war begins, it will be real. Turks understand that the United States, thousands of miles away, is only virtually at war. US soldiers are killing and being killed, to be sure. Yet the main result of their presence as an occupation force has been to ignite and sustain a set of civil wars - now including Turkey's - that have nothing to do with America. Indeed, despite the neo-con rhetoric of "fight them there instead of here," the US occupation of Iraq defends against no direct threat to America. As Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were a paranoid myth, so is the much-hyped dread of "Islamofascism," a phenomenon that, if it did exist, would threaten Islamic peoples and values far more than anything in the West. The problem, of course, is that militant Islamic extremists, however defined, are empowered by the US occupation, not disarmed. Iraq has become a West Point for suicide bombers. Even then, the threat remains local. And although all the belligerents target the American occupiers, and will do so as long as the occupation continues, America has no authentic enemy among Iraq's sectarian belligerents. Turkey does.

In the United States, meanwhile, confusion reigns. After effectively voting against the Iraq occupation last November; after denouncing it in successive polls; after seeing the Bush administration reject its own review panel's call for a shift to diplomacy; after the touted "surge" led to more of the same; after the shock of current oil prices made the real Bush agenda in Iraq plainer ever; and after Dick Cheney and George Bush made the mad prospect of attack on Iran seem possible - the American public has sunk into a dispirited, and perhaps guilt-induced, detachment from the entire mess. (Again last week, Congressional Democrats, debating appropriations, dared look the Pentagon in the eye - and promptly blinked.) No such detachment is possible here in Turkey.

Before Bush's war changed everything in this region, Turkish hopes were high. An expansive European Union beckoned. Turks were poised to play a historic role as the bridge between Islam and the West. But then they found that, in the "us against them" war on terror, no such bridge was wanted. Europe got nervous about Turks already in its cities, and lately European countries have taken actions Turkey regards as friendly to the Kurdish rebels it is fighting. Now come warnings that, if Turkey responds to its made-in-Washington terror threat exactly as Washington does - "to strike out, somehow" - then Turkey can kiss EU admission goodbye.
The question is sharper here than at home: How much higher can the rubble pile of Bush's wreckage mount before Americans emerge from the stupor of shame to stop him?

That is a helluva a good question: when will the US emerge from our stupor of shame?

How Can We Continue to Support Pakistan?

I feel like I am hallucinating. Musharraf has suspended Pakistan's consitution and essentially declared martial law. This would seem to run counter to the expressed goal of the administration of George W. Bush, that being the further spread of democracy throughout the world. Yet, there is no unilateral condemnation of this attack of democracy from the Bush administration. And it would appear that the US will continue to funnel loads of money to Pakistan as a "partner" in the war on terror.

How fucking crazy is that? Pakistan is imprisoning opposition leaders. Pakistani police beat and arrested lawyers protesting Musharraf's terroristic power-grab. And the US contributes to it by continuing to send funds for the Pakistani military?

Truly, any sentient human being at this point should be able to condemn the Bush administration as muddled and having no clear focus. Anyone still supporting Bush at this point must be a petrified turd lacking a brainstem... but I guess there are more of those laying about than I would imagine, huh?