Top Menu

Ron Paul’s Unforgivable Sin of Opposing America’s Sacred Wars, And Why Are Muslims So Warlike?

Image taken from kickapathy.com

As the GOP debates and subsequent presidential campaigns unfold, one very popular Republican candidate will get the cold shoulder from the mainstream media machine: the esteemable Congressman and good doctor Ron Paul. No matter how many straw polls the man wins, no matter how much money he raises from enthusiastic supporters, and no matter how many soldiers enlist in the Ron Paul Army, nothing will make him a Serious Candidate in the eyes of the mainstream media. He is Unserious–a Fringe Candidate who stands no chance of winning an election.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is put into effect: the MSM refuses to cover him “because he can never win an election;” because he receives no MSM coverage, he can never win an election.

As Glenn Greenwald puts it:

They are also vital in bolstering orthodoxies and narrowing the range of permitted views.  Few episodes demonstrate how that works better than the current disappearing of Ron Paul, all but an “unperson” in Orwellian terms.  He just finished a very close second to Michele Bachmann in the Ames poll, yet while she went on all five Sunday TV shows and dominated headlines, he was barely mentioned.  He has raised more money than any GOP candidate other than Romney, and routinely polls in the top 3 or 4 of GOP candidates in national polls, yet — as Jon Stewart and Politico‘s Roger Simon have both pointed out — the media have decided to steadfastly pretend he does not exist, leading to absurdities like this:

And this:

.

What has Ron Paul done to earn the wrath of the mainstream media and the Very Serious Establishment? Paul certainly has some strange views when it comes to the budget: strangulating medicare, medicaid, and welfare, as well as cutting funding for education and other vital public programs. Yet, it is unlikely that any of these political stances could ostracize him or make him Unserious, since some Very, Very Serious Republican candidates hold similar views on such issues.

What makes Dr. Paul stand out from the rest of the pack are his views with regard to the war and civil liberties–his complete rejection of the so-called War on Terror. He rejects the conventional wisdom that necessitates endless wars to Keep Us Safe against Terrorism. Paul refuses to cheerled America’s Endless Wars, and is brave enough to point out the injustices in our foreign policy. Paul points out that if we point one finger at the Evil Muslim Enemy, four fingers point back at us.

For pointing out that the emperor wears no clothes, Ron Paul earns the contempt of Serious Journalists, who ensure that Paul is marginalized. He must be silenced and made irrelevant.  When he speaks about such topics in the press, people get antsy.  So the establishment desperately attempts to shut him up.

Greenwald says (emphasis added):

There are many reasons why the media is eager to disappear Ron Paul despite his being a viable candidate by every objective metric…

But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party…That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson not even allowed in media debates — despite being a twice-elected popular governor — highlights the same dynamic…

The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul — and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson — has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded…

Paul and Johnson committed the unforgivable crime of opposing war (not just one war, but all of America’s wars), and for this they will be punished. For this, they will never be able to even dream of being considered a Serious presidential nominee, let alone President of the United States.  The media’s selection of who is Serious and who is Unserious is all a part of the manufactured consent that Noam Chomksy so eloquently wrote about many years ago.

Think about that for a minute: our country is so absolutely and steadfastly pro-war that there is no room for peaceniks. The Just War theory forbids war except in self-defense. None of America’s many wars fits this description: that’s quite easy to see when we note that our troops are deployed in far away, foreign lands. We’re not defending ourselves from an invader who occupies Southern California or who is stationed in Maine. Even the thought of another nation’s army marching into any U.S. state is completely unthinkable, almost as unrealistic as Martians landing on earth.  We have no need to engage in Just War since we are actually very, very safe and secure–our defense is virtually impregnable, such that there is no plausible scenario where our territory could be occupied or our capital advanced upon.

My point is: if a person believed in the Just War theory and rejected war except when it fulfilled those very narrow conditions, it would then be necessary to reject each of America’s wars. But doing so would mean departing from the acceptable parameters of national debate; it would mean becoming part of the Fringe and Unserious.

One simply simply cannot be taken Seriously unless one is a war-monger. Is it not strange that such a nation as this would somehow be absolutely mystified that another peoples, those living under the boots of their American or Israeli occupiers, would glorify jihad?

One simply must be a warmonger in America to be taken Seriously–as the current president himself is and all of the Serious presidential candidates are–yet somehow Those Warlike Moozlums Over There are so violent for glorifying jihad against the occupier.

Truly opposing the concept of wars of aggression (the supreme international crime)–to have a minimum commitment to peace by at least adhering to the Just War doctrine–does not mean simply opposing one of America’s wars and accepting another. Many of those on the Left somehow think they aren’t war-mongers even while they strongly supported (and some continue to support) the Afghanistan war.  After all, what can we think about a people who respond in such a brutal manner–devastating an entire country (and then another after that)–in retaliation for one terrorist attack (committed by a non-state actor no less) except that they are warlike? Even Ron Paul himself initially voted to invade Afghanistan, although he redeemed himself by becoming an outspoken critic of the war. Yet there continue to exist liberals who support the Afghanistan war, even while they think of themselves as “peaceful.”

War is so sacred in America that truly opposing war makes a presidential candidate Unserious and un-electable.  How truly grave a political sin this is can be gauged by the fact that Ron Paul is now Unserious, even while Michelle Bachman is slowly being considered a Serious candidate. Newt Gingrich is a Very Serious candidate, even though he has supported virulently anti-Muslim propaganda and the absolutely loony, fear-mongering idea of “stealth jihad” and “creeping sharia.” Those ideas aren’t Unserious enough to warrant exclusion from the mainstream media’s blessing, but opposing war is an automatic trip to the Unserious waste bin. Unabashed bigotry is acceptable whereas peacemaking is Unserious, Fringe, and unacceptable.

* * * * *

Would you consider voting for Ron Paul?  Why or why not? Let us know in the comments’ section below.

*****Admin Note: LoonWatch Does Not Officially Endorse Any Candidate.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Danios

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy plan is very good, but his domestic plan is, in my humble opinion, absurd.

  • Jeffrey

    A vote for anyone but Ron Paul is a vote for war, entitlements, big government, drug war, the Patriot Act, spending, regulation, bad education, inefficiency, …..

  • Michael Elwood

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree, bro. We’ve both made an extensive case for and against Paul. There’s not much more I can say without being repetitive. For me, I’m just not willing to treat Paul with kid gloves, and Obama and all the other candidates with brass knuckles. Like I’ve said earlier, in 2012, people will have to decide which candidate is best for them. . . absent the herd.

  • Awesome

    Not necessarily.

    How so?

    I don’t think his interpretation of states rights and property rights is congruent with the constitution (I gave enslavement and disenfranchisement of “blacks” in my previous post as an example).

    I haven’t heard anything from Ron Paul encouraging enslavement or the disenfranchisement of “blacks”.

    Apparently, Paul and those his ideological stripe believe they do. I believe it’s the other way around. . . the civil rights clauses trumps the clauses on property rights and states rights. You cannot invoke property rights clauses to buy and own slaves. You cannot invoke states rights clauses to disenfranchise individuals or groups. And, at the very least, you cannot expect people who would be affected by by these dubious interpretations of the constitution to be cool with it.

    Like I said, I haven’t heard anything from Ron Paul that actually encourages this. “States’ rights”, according to Ron Paul, simply means that the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution.

    It has nothing to do with property rights. And I’m not sure why he opposed it, I’m only speculating. Perhaps it just seemed like the libertarian thing to do at thee time.

    According to Ron Paul it does, which is why he is said to have been opposed to it.

    That’s the understatement of the year, bro. It’s more than just an unfortunate downside if you’re on the receiving end of enslavement and disenfranchisement. Why should anyone be expected to tolerate those who preach liberty and enfranchisement one minute and slavery and disenfranchisement the next?

    Except no one is actually preaching slavery nor disenfrachisement, nor is it what “states’ rights” and “property rights” amount to.

    If the “liberty” in “libertarianism” had any meaning, the aforementioned situation wouldn’t even be conceivable. As the song goes, “iz u iz, or iz u ain’t, my baby”? Well, my question to Paul and his ilk is, “iz u iz, or iz u ain’t a libertarian”? If so, stop flirting with people who’s interpretation of the constitution and liberty is the exact opposite of what you claim yours to be. To his credit, he’s made a clean break with Islamophobes. Now it’s time to do the same with white nationalists.

    I think the views he’s expressed about racism are sufficient enough to distance himself from white nationalists.

    I think you give corporations way too much credit.

    I give them the credit they deserve. They’re soulless entities with no ideology besides making money, and endorsing racism would cause them to lose money, and go bankrupt, which is why I don’t believe they’d do so.

    I certainly hope so, but I remain skeptical.

    There’s no reason to hope so, since all the evidence points to it.

    I’m not sure what he saw in either act that was unconstitutional.

    According to him, it was an issue of property rights.

    Like I’ve said, many of his positions are congruent with the constitution. But I’m weary of some of his positions.

    Exactly what of his stated positions are you weary of?

    Mostly, but not entirely.

    Why would you do that at all? It makes absolutely no sense to form an opinion about someone, based almost entirely on their voting record, with little to no consideration on what their motives are behind it.

    Because I get a feeling of deja vu when I read some of the stuff about Paul. I think his and other candidates policies should be looked at in the aggregate. Focusing on a single issue is what made some Muslims support Bush in 2000 (against their better judgement).

    Ron Paul’s main focus is the economy, and I think that’s what a lot of people are focusing on as well. He actually knows what he’s talking about with the economy, while the other candidates don’t have a clue, and Obama was basically Bush’s third term, so he doesn’t have a clue either.

    Bush was part of the establishment, as were his policies, while Paul is not part of the establishment and neither are his policies. That is a very significant difference.

    I don’t think he’s “kicking it” white nationalists or anything. But his relationship is too close for my comfort:

    Giving speeches at the John Birch Society and receiving money from white nationalists, is hardly a “close relationship”. It might be one if those were his only associates, but they aren’t. The only reason they are even being mentioned at all (to the virtual exclusion of everyone else) is for political reasons.

    It should be placed on other candidates.

    If they don’t have one, it’s likely that they plan to go with what is already established.

    He was clearly talking about a state of mind (that requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualim), not a state. Unfortunately, a lot with that state of mind are bigots with a group and victim mentality (people are hating on whitey. . . we need to save the race).

    Actually, he specifically said that the antidote to racism is liberty, which is not a state of mind, but a state of being.

    Yeah, Obama.

    Then why does he support the apartheid regime in Israel?

    Unfortunately, in 2012, that seems to be the case. Obama or Paul? Although I wouldn’t put it past some in our community to actually vote for Romney, Bachman, Perry, or even Palin.

    I think it’s more likely that more liberty would be lost with another Obama presidency (or a presidency of any of the Republican candidates for that matter), than it is of being inconvenienced by Paul’s potential presidency.

  • Michael Elwood

    @Muhammad

    I didn’t even see this post. There seems to be a delay when it appeared.

    “You are the man! Dog-whistle politics? lol…you mean like President George W. Bush who used coded “dog-whistle” language in political campaigning, “delivering one message to the overall electorate while at the same time delivering quite a different message to a targeted evangelical Christian political base”? If you weren’t raised in an Evangelical Christian home, as I was, you wouldn’t recognize the double meaning he used to pander to the Christian Far Right in this country.”

    Exactly, bro. American English is full of that type of language. And, unfortunately, it’s not always caught by our “leaders” who aren’t familiar with phrases like “law and order”, “states rights,” “property rights”, “Family values”, “pull yourself up by you bootstraps” and “the breach”.

  • Talisman

    Ron Paul is the only antiwar candidate, so I like that about him. He is libertarian and I don’t like some of his economic policies since I lean left.

    But it’s not really about one person since the problem is with the system. I don’t know what President Obama is really thinking, but if he tried to really shake things up, I think he’d be stopped.

    I wish we could divorce the political process from big money and free the media. The corporate media guards the gates. I don’t think Ron Paul, Barak Obama or any other individual is going to fix that.

Powered by Loon Watchers