Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

Posted via email from danielmiessler.com | posterous

[ Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again to Buy 9/11 Gifts | theonion.com ]

This isn’t one of those “Google is the NSA” posts. Well, it kind of is.

The way the Government ends up with all our shit is not through some massive raid where we hand over all our passwords against our will. The numbers don’t add up. There’d be too many unhappy people — as in “Malotov” unhappy.

No, the way this works is a gentle but constant relinquishing of our lives. Smart people like to think we’re aware of the game and that we won’t fall for it when it starts. But that’s not true. Or, at least it’s not true for smart Google users.

Google is how the government will get my life. I like Google’s services so much that if someone were to tell me that there’s a 42% chance that the NSA either already took Google over or they are 100% to do so in the near future (in the name of “securitah!”), I’d probably still use them.

Why? Because I’m stupid. And Reader is just really good.

No, really, think about this. This isn’t conspiracy stuff. Look.

1. Terrorist event happens (or doesn’t).
2. NSA shows up at Google and says, “Plug us in. We live here now.”
3. They also say, “If you tell anyone we’ll eat your soul.”
4. So they can’t tell anyone, and things continue as normal.
5. You hear rumors, but nothing’s confirmed.

But now I’m linking my iPhone’s location-based services and lifecasting and everything else all through Google (it’s a year or two in the future). One minor event and now the government sees everything it wants going through Google. Oh, and it does it to Apple’s MobileMe as well. And Microsoft, Yahoo!, etc.

The point is that the risk of this happening is very real, and people like me know it. But we’ll still use the services because we like them.

This is how they’ll get control. Convenience.

Maybe it’s not such a bad thing. At least we’ll have someone there to protect us.

[ Libertarianism and Cultural Differences ]

Here’s an excerpt:

Whatever the cultural conditions and preferences of a people, no matter how strong the tendency toward conquest and graft, regardless of whether contract and fairness are respected or not, there is nothing the state can do to improve the situation.

A society might be warlike and poor without the state; that is true. It might be brutal and impoverished. But imposing a state on that society will only exacerbate its worst tendencies and crowd out its best tendencies.

The state offers no benefit to any society under any cultural conditions anywhere in the world. The state institutionalizes and entrenches bad things and forestalls the emergence of good things. Thus the focus on the state in libertarian doctrine.

I’m not sure I agree with this, but I like where it’s taking me.

Definitely check out the comments, but be warned: they’ll require Wikipedia.

[ Libertarianism and Cultural Differences ]

The goal of socialism should be to iterate itself out of existence. Its purpose is to keep negative aspects of human behavior in check for the common good, but only temporarily.

Socialism is a control system necessitated by the presence of severe human flaws. This is to say, if any semblance of equality is to be attained given these primal vices, some sort of socialism will be required.

But it is not an ideal. In fact it’s the opposite, and every responsible proponent of the ideology should realize that the goal of socialism should be to allow its beneficiaries to grow to the point that it’s no longer needed.

You can’t reach the ultimate goal of anarchy (self rule) or its younger brother, libertarianism, without the highest levels of individual responsibility and underlying concepts of mutual respect and connectedness. These are precisely the characteristics that immature and primal societies lack, hence the need for intervention.

So socialism is an intermediary phase between young, primal societies (which need the most controls) and those that require no interference from the state.

The goal of socialism should ultimately be anarchy.:

Let me just say that I am highly resistant to conspiracy theories in general. I think most of them are the product of too much time and abject stupidity. That being said I also realize that there have been real events that would have fallen into that category, to a cynic like myself, if they had been proposed as conspiracy theories while they were being carried out.

So, I’m skeptical overall but aware of the fact that some twisted stuff does actually get planned (and executed) from time to time.

And that brings me to the Council on Foreign Relations. I recently wrote about why Ron Paul supporters should get behind Obama for a simple reason — foreign policy. The idea was that McCain is batshit crazy, and that if you support Ron Paul you’ll do what you have to in order to keep McCain out of office.

The first Digg comment on my article was very short, very cryptic, and led me to do some research (dammit, I’ve been socially engineered!). It was simply:

Obama = CFR

I started searching my dictionary of Internet acronyms, e.g. FTW, but couldn’t come up with anything. So I did what anyone else would do in that situation — I went to Google and Wikipedia.

The Organization

So here’s some information about the group collected mostly from Wikipedia but also from other sources:

Wikipedia: The Council on Foreign Relations

• The stated goal of the organization is, “to “find and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders.”
• Today it has about 4,300 members (including five-year term members), which over its history have included senior serving politicians, more than a dozen current and former Secretaries of State, national security officers, bankers, lawyers, professors, CIA members and senior media figures.
• The council is considered by many to be the most powerful agent of U.S. foreign policy outside of the state department (weasel words acknowledged, citation needed).
• Seven American presidents have addressed the Council, two while still in office – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
• The organization has been accused (WW) of pushing for One World Government by those opposed to the loss of U.S. sovereignty.
• They have an extensive list of corporate members.
• Over 50% of council meetings are held off the record in order to, according to their own site, “…encourage frankness among participants who may be hesitant to express new or developing ideas if they feared that they would be publicized.”
• For the council meetings that are on record there is extensive transparency; meetings are made available through transcripts, webcasts, video and audio stream.

So What’s The Conspiracy?

So the conspiracy theory is pretty simple here: the idea is that this group gets together the most powerful people in America and talks about how to go about creating a One World Government. Here’s a video that lays out what seems to be the main theory:

And here are some other other CRF videos from YouTube.

Interesting Quotes

As always we have to be cautious of context, but a few of these are pretty scary…

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson. — Franklin D. Roosevelt

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwillingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. — Woodrow Wilson

We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world… no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and a vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men. — Woodrow Wilson

They’re gonna make it look like suicide. — Hunter S. Thompson, one day before his death, while working on a 9/11 piece.

The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight. — JFK, ten days before he was assassinated

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. — Thomas Jefferson

If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it. — Edward Bernays

For many years I thought that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But he didn’t. Most of his thoughts were carefully manufactured for him in advance by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money Group. — Curtis Dall, FDR’s Son in Law

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. — J. Edgar Hoover

Is the CFR Really For Global Government?

Again, some of that is genuinely scary but some of it could easily be taken in a number of ways and blown out of proportion. Besides, the question at hand is whether or not the CFR specifically is into this whole one-world-government idea.

As it turns out, yes — they appear to be. One of the videos linked above asks the viewers to go and read what the president of the CFR wrote about national sovereignty in a global world. So I did. Here’s the link, followed by some rather scary excerpts.

Sovereignty and Globalisation | Richard N. Haass, President of the CFR

The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded. As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met. Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

And people wonder where the whole CFR/One World Government conspiracy comes from. If an author of a conspiracy theory novel were to write a manifesto in the voice of an evil mastermind, this is the kind of stuff they would produce, except this might be a bit over the top for fiction.

The author just said it may become necessary, in this new “global” world, to reduce (or eliminate) a country’s sovereignty when it fails to take care of its people. Is that what we did in Iraq? Does this Haass character realize that someone posted this on the Internet?

Then he busts out with this gem:

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

So lets assume he doesn’t want anarchy… (admittedly just a wild guess)

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of world government.

Ok, new question — who thinks the CFR is secretly pursuing world government? Have we considered the possibility that they’re not trying to keep it a secret? I mean, if it was supposed to be a covert plan why would they post an op-ed piece, written by their president, on the Internet?

So yes, my finding after a few hours of research is that YES, the CFR — at least at some level — is for one world government. But does this necessarily imply evil?

My Thoughts on the Philosophy of One World Government

So here’s where I’ll switch things up on you guys a bit. I don’t think the notion, by itself, of a one world government is bad. Star Trek had a one world government and they seemed quite happy (and free). Sure, it was fiction, but still.

In other words, just because there’s a one world government doesn’t mean we’re all watched from the sky and can have our nervous system disabled if we pay our cable bill late. Can’t this be done in a good way, given some more growing up on our part? Like 200 or 1000 years from now?

I think so. Definitely. In fact, I think it’s THE way to go. Philosophically I feel that as we evolve as a people (humans) we’ll have less need for borders and labels of “us” or “them”. It’ll just be “we”, and that’s fine with me. I think it’s superior. It’ll go from what we have now to what Norway has, then to Star Trek, and then when we are really advanced we won’t need much government at all.

As an example, Obama and Jimmy Carter are members. Do we really think they are for implanting RFID chips in everyone so that they can sit at the top, turn us all into slaves, and roll around in the money we make for them? I call bullshit.

Again, IF (and I stress IF) there is some faction of the CFR that is for this kind of elitist takeover of the world (that feels weird to type), very few people in the CFR even know about it. I’d be willing to bet that most people who are for one world government — including those in the CFR — are envisioning the Star Trek version, not the evil empire version. And if Obama and Carter subscribe to the idea they most certainly are in that category.

So that’s one option — the big happy Star Trek Federation option. The other option is the evil RFID / big-brother / monitor your thoughts and nuke your soul from orbit option. Not pleasant — I think we all agree on that. Unfortunately, that’s the model of global government that has the best (only?) chance of being put into place given our current situation.

And on a practical level, given our current situation, I think the best thing we can do as Americans who are also long-term global citizens, is to focus on America independently and ensure that it’s strong going forward. In other words, a broken America is no good for anyone. I like my air travel analogy — if you lose cabin pressure you put YOUR mask on first, then you help others. This isn’t a selfish act; it’s how to do the most good.

So the question really comes down to this: which model of one world government is the CFR pushing for? And can’t we as logical people accept that all members of the CFR are not necessarily (and most likely are NOT) for the evil-empire version? I think so.

Conclusion

So what can we take away from all of this? In my opinion, if you add everything up and throw in some logic and common sense, here’s what we end up with:

There is most likely one or more elite organizations, no doubt made up of very wealthy, influential people who are doing what they can to make themselves more wealthy and more powerful — at the expense of the ignorant and underprivileged. Perhaps some within the CFR believe in this, perhaps they don’t.

There are also some organizations who believe in the “Star Trek” version of One World Government. Fewer borders, central government, less war, happier people, etc, etc. Cultural evolution. Progress. I have very little doubt that many within the CFR have this vision in mind. The question is how many have the other, evil version in mind instead (if any).

And that’s where I’ll leave it. I do know that I’ll be paying much more attention to these different groups, especially the CFR. I’ll be watching for news about the North American Union, the North American Superhighway, the Amero, National ID, and all those types of programs. It’s interesting stuff, if nothing else.

On a side note, one thing all this does do for me is reframe the immigration debate. Given the fact that Obama and Hillary are CFR members, perhaps their stance on “the path to citizenship” is just part of their shared vision of a unified North America? Maybe not, but it’s a possibility.

Anyway, feel free to drop me an email or leave a comment below if you have any thoughts.:

Related Information

The CFR Website | cfr.org

Avoid “Weasel Words | wikipedia.org”

The CFR’s Election 2008 Blog | blogs.cfr.org

Conspiracy Quotes | dedroidify.com

The North American Union | wikipedia.org

One World Government | wikipedia.org

The Amero | wikipedia.org

Radio and newspaper, when they were first introduced, were user-generated media sources. This means that people could, for relatively little money, produce their own content and then get it out to very large groups of people through these media. But once corporations realized how lucrative the mediums were they, along with government help in many cases, created an environment where only very few could create the content, while the masses could only consume it.

This translates directly to the Internet. For these first 10 years or so that the web has been in its current form the people have had the ability to create and instantly publish their content to millions of people. This, just as with radio and print, has been an invaluable tool for propagating all types of individual expression. Art, movies, music, poetry, novels, political opinion, philosophical discourse – all these constituents of healthy democratic society are spread instantly through the Internet, even more so than with the previous media types.

But just as with radio and print, the corporations have now realized the power of this medium, and they’re moving to seize control of it. Quite simply, they plan to limit access to content, making it far more difficult (if not impossible) for regular people to create content and then distribute it to the world. Their intention is to place controls on who can and cannot create and distribute content by, you guessed it, charging for this “privilege”. What this will do is effectively do to the Internet what they did to radio and print, i.e. make it a one-way highway that goes from corporations to the people, but not from the people to the people.

So this is not a minor technological debate; it’s quite simply one of the most important issues facing our generation. The Net Neutrality debate literally discusses the ease with which people gain access to information. Please take the time to follow the issue and educate others whenever possible.:

[ Microsoft Biometric Monitoring ]

FUD.

If any of these militant Christian candidates get elected (especially Guliani) they’re going to start a war. A big one. Neocons encourage terrorism. Religious extremism encourages violence.

As a realist I recognize the need to maintain (and constantly modernize) our military capabilities, but we have to combine that with a drive to stop using them. Our reputation and respect in the world’s eye is what keeps us safe — not having more weapons.

In security terms we need to stop increasing the numbers of those who want to hurt us rather than (stupidly) trying to stop them from being able to hurt us. Nice guy. Big stick. But nice guy first.

[ Houston Police Secretly Testing Unmanned Surveillance Drones ]

This is a major incident right now; it’s all over the place. What do you guys think? Did the kid deserve to get roughed up, or were the police totally overreacting?

[ People Getting More Brazen About Attacking Police in South Florida ]

First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. — Ron Paul

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:

First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. — Ron Paul

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:

– [ Updated: 09.16.07 ]

Here’s a collection of some of the main points of interest about him and his beliefs. This is why he’s so appealing, and why he’s starting to worry the competition.

• He’s a conservative libertarian who’s running as a traditional republican, i.e. he’s for small federal government, individual liberty, and states rights.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He’s for re-implementing the gold standard so that our money actually means something again.
• He’s a medical doctor (M.D.), served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force, and is an active congressman from Texas.
• He’s known for impeccable honesty and for not flip-flopping on issues.
• He is pro-life, but doesn’t think the federal government should have any say in legalizing or banning abortion.
• He doesn’t believe gay marriage is a Federal issue either, and thinks they should stay out of it.
• He’s also against capital punishment for the same reason he’s pro-life (he’s pro-life).
• He’s for lowering taxes.
• He introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
• Supports the medical use of cannabis (marijuana).
• Believes in allowing the hemp industry to thrive.
• Doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of a “war on drugs”.
• He doesn’t participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He wants to get out of other peoples’ business and focus on our own problems.
• He is against the Iraq war, and always was. He wants us to come home as soon as possible.
• He’s serious about fixing the immigration problem.
• He believes in, and has voted consistently for, an open and free Internet.
• He strongly supports the concepts of privacy and personal freedom laid out by the forefathers of this country, and would rigorously defend Habeus Corpus.
• He’s strongly pro-second-ammendment.
• He also supports property rights and the eminent domain, meaning the government shouldn’t be allowed to simply confiscate people’s land and homes out of greed.

My point to those of you reading this is simple — get involved this time around. 2008 is the year for you to participate, and the best way you can do that is by wielding the Internet to share ideas.

There are so many of us out there who bitch and moan and don’t do anything about it. We have representation in congress and in the senate, but we don’t contact them. Many of us don’t even vote. Well it’s time to get involved. There is momentum behind the little guys with big ideas this time. Let’s not waste it.

If Ron Paul is the type of candidate that actually inspires within you a glimmer of hope in our democracy, the way he does in me and many others, I ask you to please pass this link, the sources below, his videos on YouTube, etc. on to others. Watch the debates, learn about the candidates, get involved.

If we fail, we fail. But at least we will have tried. We can’t complain about a failed democracy in which we never participated. Please participate.:

–

Ron Paul Website http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html

The Political Positions of Ron Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Austrian Economic Theory http://www.mises.org/

The Ron Paul Archives http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html