Skip to main content

Ron Paul is Wrong; Mitt Romney is Right!



"Ron Paul does not believe we went into Iraq because of 9/11. But Mitt Romney obviously believes we did. So who’s right?" ~Gary Benoit

The strained arguments of some libertarians that Dwight Eisenhower is somehow responsible for the 9/11 attack in New York is equivalent to arguing that President James Buchanan was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the Baker-Fancher emigrant party on 9/11 in Utah. It is truth in the sense we are all responsible for everything in our world. This is a very valuable truth, wouldn't you say?

The twisted leftist argument is that Islamic Jihadists would not have declared war on Western societies if it hadn't been for Western government policies reaching back through the years. But anyone who studies the Koran knows this argument is bullshit. The Koran demands that war be waged on "infidels" until everyone on earth is either converted to Islam, enslaved by Islamists, or killed.

Mitt Romney is right. The United States did not cause Islamic Jihadism and Islamic Fundamentalists are only recognizing the declared war inherent in their religion. We are at war because war has been perpetually religiously declared against us.

The narrow-minded argument that Osama bin Laden and his close friends in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the only Jihadists who need to be pursued is more than stupid ... it's suicide.

The libertarian preparation device, A Course in Miracles, discusses the attempt to justify our twisted judgments:

No one can judge on partial evidence. That is not judgement. It is merely an opinion based on ignorance and doubt. Its seeming certainty is but a cloak for the uncertainty it would conceal. It needs irrational defense because it is irrational. And its defence seems strong, convincing, and without a doubt, because of all the doubting underneath.

You do not seem to doubt the world you see. You do not really question what is shown you through the body’s eyes. Nor do you ask why you believe it, even though you learned a long while since your senses do deceive. That you believe them to the last detail which they report is even stranger when you pause to recollect how frequently they have been faulty witnesses indeed! Why would you trust them so implicitly? Why but because of underlying doubt which you would hide with show of certainty?

How can you judge? Your judgement rests upon the witness that your senses offer you. Yet witness never falser was than this. But how else do you judge the world you see? You place pathetic faith in what your eyes and ears report. You think your fingers touch reality and close upon the truth. This is awareness which you understand, and think more real than what is witnessed to by the eternal Voice of God Himself.

Can this be judgement? You have often been urged to refrain from judging, not because it is a right to be withheld from you. You cannot judge. You merely can believe the ego’s judgements, all of which are false. It guides your senses carefully, to prove how weak you are; how helpless and afraid, how apprehensive of just punishment, how black with sin, how wretched in your guilt.




Available free of charge online:
Course in Political Miracles

Comments

Travis said…
Romney is right? What's his plan about Bin Laden.
Dr. Paul is for getting Islamic Jihadists like Bin Laden who attacked us in 9/11. He lead effort with Constitution weapon of 'Letters of Mark and Reprisal' which if Bush supported we would actually have Bin Laden right now and not a in country with NUCLEAR weapons!
All I can see Romney doing is stirring this hornets nest in Middleeast creating more Good Muslims into crazy Islamic Jihadists.
Anonymous said…
Perhaps I'm not reading your use of "we" and "because" in the leading sentence the way you intend.
Gman said…
Call me a classical liberal, libertarian, or conservative libertarian. Whatever it is I support Ron Paul. I'm not against the War on Terror, and neither is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is against the War in Iraq. Ron Paul is still correct to point out that a more sophicated approach to the Middle East might be diplomacy and trade. Gunslinging America never tried that. The U.S. supported Saddam to defeat Iran! This issue is much more complicated that "for" or "against" "the war."
Romney has outlined a highly sophisticated approach to Islamic Jihadists, much more all-encompassing than anything I've heard from other candidates.

I only cringe because Romney's comprehensive approach would cost a fortune ... and they would still have their Koran so they could have another surge of fundamentalism in the next century.

I like Ron Paul in many respects, but if he saw bullies beating up a kid in a schoolyard he wouldn't run out and put a stop to it. In that respect, he is totally un-libertarian. The fundamental principle of libertarianism is to put a stop to the violation of right.

Besides that, all of Ron Paul's ardent supporters seem to be grievance holders. Libertarianism cannot be sold on the basis of holding grievances. Libertarianism stands for something positive, not for being against something. Please read the articles linked to on this site.

Maybe Ron Paul can find his own truth instead of getting sucked into the nonsense of leftists. We shall see.
Eric Dondero said…
Marque & Reprisals: Maybe good for 1812, but the 2007 version?

Picture if you will, Orange Spandex wearing beefy guys named "Dog" who are WWF retirees with their bleach-blonde haired overweight wives in tow, riding camels through the deserts of Eastern Afghanistan "hunting down" Bin Laden.

That's what Marque & Reprisals translates too in reality.

Every two-bit Bounty Hunter in the World will be "after Bin Laden."

If nothing else, it would be comical. Fodder for the Late Night Talk Shows.

As for me, I'll take the United States Military thank you.

They got Uday and Qusay. They got Saddam. They got Zarcawi. They will get Bin Laden.
Anonymous said…
Sir,
Things have multiple causes. Our foreign policy is one of the causes of anti-American sentiment throughout the world. There are some other causes.

Radical Islamic militants existed and were quite busy before we built military bases in Saudi Arabia. They were busy attacking governments they did not like, in countries like Egypt.

The missing piece that our foreign policy contributed was *uniting all these groups against a common enemy -- us.

PS: Romney might be the *least libertarian of all the candidates running, although it's difficult to tell through the layers and layers of BS and meaningless shibboleths.
I agree Romney might SEEM least libertarian to some. It depends on one's point of view.

If one defines "libertarian" as intimately in-tune with one's spirit which is free, then it's just possible Romney might be the MOST libertarian.

We simply cannot judge by surface appearances or be preconceived intellectual constructs.
Matt said…
Eric Dondero, you seem to misunderstand the modern war developments - especially the war on terror.

The approach you're standing for (using the state troops) is an outdated concept from the previous centuries. It could've work 500 years ago, but not today.

Private military corporations are much more effective, technologically advanced, better trained, and cost-efficient - take, for instance, Blackwater U.S.A. While organizing the trainings domestically for the federal agencies (e.g. FBI), Blackwater is also visibly present in Iraq - Congress officials prefer Blackwater's protection to the state-controlled military. Ever wondered why?

Welcome to the 21st century. Private market-oriented solutions _ALWAYS_ better - and that definitely includes military industry.

Adding, that we're dealing with terrorism here (individuals working through dispersed loosely connected networks), Ron Paul is on the cutting-edge in this respect.

Mitt Romney's obsolete ideas belong rather to the Middle Ages, and long-gone (besides Africa) state-wars, making him, with all due respect, not fit for the job in this century.
1) Romney is electable
2) Paul is not electable
3) Romney is open-minded, willing to entertain new ideas

Logic would tell us that rather than supporting a loser, we should get behind a winner and try to convince him to entertain our ideas.
Matt said…
Focusing on "electability is equivalent to committing a spotlight fallacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_bias#Spotlight_fallacy - therefore, this line of reasoning is not valid. The same twisted 'logic' could as well lead to supporting, say, Hillary R. Clinton (electable, isn't she?), but that doesn't have much to do with libertarianism.

Furthermore, Ron Paul's strong showing in Illinois Straw Poll (3rd place, slightly below Fred Thompson) definitely suggests that people are receptive to his message of freedom.

I am not fundamentally opposed to Mitt Romney's candidacy as much to as, say, Clintonian - I just happen to think he's much less qualified than Ron Paul in terms of experience, economic policy, foreign policy and - very importantly - principle. For me it is a big plus of "Dr. No", that he never compromises on the principles. On the other hand, I wouldn't trust Mitt Romney's commitment to, for instance, pro-life stance.

I am also troubled (to say the least) by several Mitt's political positions:

- supports the federal government's involvement in education
- supported the Brady Bill in 1994 (a gun control regulation)
- as Governor of Massachusetts, signed legislation involving compulsory health-care accompanied with state subsidies
- favors minimum wage increases
- supported the use of enhanced interrogation techniques (a.k.a. torture)
- advocated installing government software to control every computer sold in the US (which demonstrates complete lack of understanding the new technologies)
- wants to increase government spending ( http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Technology - as the best technology comes from the free market competition, that's another demonstration of the lack of qualifications... )

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney
Source: http://www.mittromney.com/

Sadly, these positions hardly make him a libertarian candidate...

Popular posts from this blog

The Libertarian Way: So Much More Than The NAP!

How often do we hear the word "libertarian" being used in contexts relating to politics or some kind of political understanding? Even most dictionary definitions of "libertarian" emphasize political implications.

Yet libertarians will never experience the full personal benefit of their libertarian impulse, and never be completely successful in any political activism they undertake, unless they understand the Libertarian Way is much deeper and more basic than concern with political conditions.

Before there is politics ... before there are relationships ... there is life. When human beings feel their deepest-rooted inner desires (as opposed to addiction to intellectualism for the purpose of avoiding the depths of their being), they sense inside themselves a yearning for the fullness of life to shine forth and be experienced.

"Fullness" is the key. Liberal-progressive dictators will tell you their programs and agendas help people have a better life, but th…

Lifting Others Up To The Libertarian Way

Probably everyone has experienced moments of the fullness of life: the enthralling love that radiates from our heart when it seems we have met our destined soulmate, the joy that explodes out of our being when at the very last split second our team scores the improbable win of the century, the peace that flows from the depths of our soul when the sunrise suddenly bathes our mountain fishing lake and all seems momentarily "on earth as it is in heaven."

The fullness of life is within us, but doesn't too often emanate from most of us because our minds employ many devices for closing down our being. Yet there is a Way which leads us to constant heart and soul opening and nearly uninterrupted experience of the fullness of life. In common street language this Way is often called "live and let live." Although this encompasses all areas of life, when practiced in the context of people's political interactions it is called The Libertarian Way.

Notice that when we a…

Jesus Christ Does Not Favor Taxation

Heading into midterm election season in America we are faced with an illusory alternative: Caesar in Democratic Party clothing, or in some districts Little Caesar in Republican Party clothing. Apparently what makes the illusion saleable is the mistaken idea (used by Caesar as propaganda) that Jesus Christ was a socialist who supported taxation.

Fascists, communists, and progressives (all three branches of socialism), even after all the misery they have created the world over in the last 100 to 150 years, even now still aim a loud speaker toward us blaring the long broken record of their propaganda mantra: “Jesus was a socialist,” by which they try to convince us that Jesus advocated using government force or threat of force to redistribute wealth.

We’ve addressed the "socialist" issue in the past (See Jesus Christ's Love vs. Obama Style Socialism)

Nonetheless, the illusion could not be sold to the public if it were not for modern conservatives insisting that Jesus supported…