“Going Rogue” Author Would Never Endorse Rand Paul
David Horowitz asserted the essentially intellectual nature of Conservatism:
“Conservatives are best organized around an issue. (They) are generally already committed to religions in which the savior is not government, but a divinity. Barack Obama and the socialist juggernaut he heads have persuaded conservatives that they are prepared to destroy everything Americans hold dear. So there’s no real problem in organizing conservatives now, just focus on an issue…”
This primacy of ideas, as opposed to personality worship or political expediency, demands that conservatives quickly confront the significance and implications of Governor Palin’s endorsement of Dr. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul. Her $2,000 donation to Paul’s campaign came with this statement:
“I’m proud to support great grassroots candidates like Dr. Paul. While there are issues we disagree on, he and I are both in agreement that it’s time to shake up the status quo in Washington and stand up for common sense ideas.”
On Fox News Sunday, Palin told Chris Wallace:
“There are things that I don’t agree with Rand Paul, and yet his domestic policies for the most part, I do agree with.”
The conclusion of Going Rogue is a magnificent outline of the author’s positions on key issues. Statements by Dr. Paul to Anti-War Radio and Alex Jones cause a jarring ideological cacophony when compared with those appropriated by his Alaskan supporter.
Going Rogue:
“Today our sons and daughters are fighting in distant countries to protect our freedoms and to nurture freedom for others…we do have a responsibility to complete our missions in these countries so that we can keep our homeland safe. America must remain the strongest nation in the world in order to remain free. And our goal in the War on Terror must be the same as Reagan’s, ‘We won. They lost.”
Dr. Paul:
“Part of the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases around the world. I don’t say, ‘Out of Iraq now!’ I say out of Iraq two or three years ago, or never go in – even better.”
Going Rogue:
“We are both the world’s sword and its shield…we lend not just our strength but the support of a free people to others who are fighting for their freedom. They need to know that America is not indifferent to their struggles…nations like Israel need to be confident of our support.”
Dr. Paul:
“You have to ask yourself, ‘Do you kill more terrorists than you create?’ We inflamed an entire region there and I don’t think it was the best thing for our national defense or for our country. We have to decide if putting missiles in Poland is going to provoke Russia or if we can afford to put missiles in Poland.”
Going Rogue:
“But we have been given a unique responsibility to show the world the meaning and the rewards of freedom. America, as Reagan said, ‘is the abiding alternative to tyranny.’”
Dr. Paul:
“I think that these issues [the economy and maintaining the American “empire:”] become the political coalition you need to win a race because there are people from the left who acknowledge the vast expenditure of the military industrial complex. There are some on the right that are beginning to understand that. It’s really that sort of right-left paradigm that you bring these groups together in order to try to win an election.”
At least Dr. Paul had the decency to tell Alex Jones clearly:
“I’d say we’d be very very similar (Dr. Rand and Ron Paul). We might present the message sometimes differently.. I think in some ways the message has to be broadened and made more appealing to the entire Republican electorate because you have to win a primary.”
This means that, while Going Rogue insists:
“It is not in our best interests or the interests of the peace-loving nations of the world for America to project weakness to terrorists and tyrants,”
Dr. Paul’s ideas about terrorists would be “very, very similar” to his father’s:
“They are terrorists because we are occupiers.”
Four months ago, Sarah Palin signed her name, tens of thousands of times, to Going Rogue’s vision of America. That vision is now so much silver to barter with. Endorsement rarely implies total concurrence. However, the logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America’s global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than “some” domestic policy issues.
By designating Dr. Paul as someone who should be influencing foreign policy, Sarah Palin has joined forces with a man whose vision of America substantively mimics that of Michael Moore. It is time to reread Horowitz. Deviating from principled intellectualism will reduce the Tea Party to a gruesome mirror image of the eschatological, savior-seeking deplored in the Obama apotheosis.
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- Why is it When We Post about Ron Paul We Get Anti-Semitic Commenters? | NewsReal Blog
- Blue Bluegrass » Blog Archive » A Funny Thing Happened On the Way To The Republican Forum
- Barely A Blog » The Fair Lady Endorses The Randian
- Palin to Campaign for Rand Paul | NewsReal Blog
- Dear Sarah Palin, It’s Time to Re-Think That Rand Paul (Anti-Israel, Pro-Kokesh) Endorsement! | NewsReal Blog
- Rand Wins, America Loses « Calvin Freiburger Online
i am guessing that you are and/either/or of the following ….a neo-con, a jew, a zionist……….right?
and you support sustained foreign military action primarily on behalf of israel, right?
well those viewpoints do not serve the best interests of the united states of america and people are finally starting to wake up.
"i am guessing that you are and/either/or of the following ….a neo-con, a jew, a zionist……….right?"
Wow…
I am an Irish-American Roman Catholic who spent ten years attached to an organization with political tendencies best called Petinist or Maurassian. In short, politically, was a violently anti-semitic, anti-democratic, anti-American monarchist. I have seen first hand and in very great depth, the corrosive influence such an idology has upon the human spirit. It's fruits are the best proof of its error. Whatever else I believed about my Faith and my country, I know that the gift God brought to humanity could not be a hate-filled, objectification of any group of people. I know the poison that eats the hearts of those who live by such an idology as you have intimated in your accusations.
I know that no human light can dissipate what obscures your vision of the world and the beautiful country in which you have the fortune to live. I simply hope you will find what Aquinas called, "the tranquility of order," otherwise known as Peace.
so you are a reformed 'anti-american monarchist'?
that may explain some things.
as for my ideology, it is not poison it is practical.
this country has stretched itself too thin militarily and most of that strain is produced by our intervention in the middle east on behalf of israel. we are basically at war with the entire muslim world because zionists have been able to steer the power of the united states into an entangling alliance with israel that does NOT benefit the USA. i don't hate jews or anyone else for that matter, but i do love my country and our foreign policy will bring us to economic ruin if we don't change it.
Yep, it's all the "Zionists'" fault. They're secretly controlling everything. Why did I not see it sooner? It's so obvious……
What's so suprirsing? Not all Jews are created equal…like in ANY culture..there is good and bad. If you can't understand that then YOU are the reason we are in so much trouble. You have BLIND following and don't THINK.
Bob,
I am a Rand Paul supporter, and I have Jewish blood in my family. As a matter of fact I do endorse most, if not all, of Rand’s foreign policy statements. I thoroughly repudiate your shameful assertion that the author might be “….a neo-con, a jew, a zionist”
It is precisely comments of this ilk that make cogent discussions of US foreign policy impossible. Thanks a lot.
May I venture to guess that you are either a genuine anti-semite or neo-con troll yourself?
tom,
i am neither a 'genuine anti-semite' nor a neo-con. i simply believe that our country would be better off if we followed a non-interventionalist foreign policy and israel is the biggest offender of having us fight wars for them. we can't afford it and following a zionist foreign policy is not healthy for this country.
We should follow Ronald Reagan's advice on the Middle East
Reagan's Wisdom on the Middle East
http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2006/07/21...
Excellently stated. The issue isn't 100% lockstep, it's understanding that if your foreign policy doesn't ensure your survival, "some" domestic issues eventually cease to matter….
Michael Moore. Is that all you have? I highly suspect that the author ever truly believed in the creation of an absolute monarchy. Ms. Pryor, I think you are being too hard on yourself. Constitutional monarchy, maybe?
As to Rand Paul. He is content with a constitutional republic. As a United States Senator he will be a voice for millions of conservatives who saw the folly of the Iraq War and the disastrous aftermath. I am optimistic that he will be joining John Hostetller who is running to defeat Evan Bayh in Indiana. I will be looking foward to the next article of side by side quotes when Sarah Palin endorses Hostetller.
Dear GDS,
Both Moore and Paul believe American Foreign Policy is driven by corporate greed. Both believe we advance “empire” in the world through wars. Both have a cynical attitude towards American intervention in the world. Both wish us to cease being a super-power. While both claim wildly different motives for their policies, the result is identical, a post-American world.
You have no basis for doubting my statement about monarchy except that you do not wish to accept it. So you insult me, calling me ignorant or a liar, and assert a reality you are comfortable with. Yes, I really did believe in an absolute, heredity Monarchy. I also did not believe women should rule in this Monarchy. I assure you, I can speak to insanity from a well earned vantage of expertise.
All we can hope is that Sarah Palin is slowly coming around. Who in their right mind would believe, knowing what we know now, that invading Iraq as a proper thing to do. – Of course, Saddam was a bad guy – let's not get into that.
Yes, "let's not get into" the very issues that would determine whether or not invading Iraq was "a proper thing to do"…….
You must have a very long list of countries you'd like to invade? I don't suppose you'd do that invading personally?
Hey, Obama's a bad president – maybe we should invade him? When we finish in Iraq, maybe Iraq can invade the U.S and liberate our…uh, those people.
Have you ever tried considering the things people, y'know, actually say, rather than mindlessly substituting them for blatant distortions?
In any event, thank you for demonstrating the critical thinking and reading comprehension skills that led you to support Ron Paul.
I'm quite confident in my ability to engage in "critical thinking and reading." How about a little challenge, Calvin? Why don't you list the books and historical documents that guide your philosophy of foreign intervention (entanglement)?
I'll start mine off with the basics from the Western Christian tradition:
St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica
The City of God
Confessions of Saint Augustine
George Washington's Farewell Address
(I'll get back to you with more…)
My comment asking for your "list of countries you'd like to invade" was meant to beg the question, "Just when is it a 'Just War?'" – I didn't mean to blatantly distort you—just welcome to the rough an tumble world of blogging!
I can't wait to hear that nearly 2000 years of ethical thought changed on 9/11…please, don't disappoint.
This is beyond stupid….what do you think any of the things you've cited say, that it's never just to go to war, or that Iraq doesn't meet the just war conditions they lay out? (To cite Washington's Farewell Address as an anti-Iraq tract is especially dishonest.)
Not all instances of "foreign entanglement" are created equal, genius. Ever heard of defending the nation from a demonstrable threat?
Nonsense, Washington's address is particularly relevant in regards to Iraq. It has little to do with Afghanistan however, perhaps that's what you were shooting for.
This is very interesting. It is true that there is an entire body of writing on the "just war" principles of the Catholic Church. These are PRINCIPLES, that is, guiding moral standards. The Church believes in the virtue of Prudence, Recta ratio agibilium – the right reason in action.(Aquinas) Prudence is the application of principle to specific circumstances. In an age of state sponsored terror, the application of the principles must be changed to attain the end of security. You might find this article by Dean Falvy of Ave Maria School of Law on the Just War Doctrine to be very interesting:
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webc...
“We are both the world’s sword and its shield…" How could this possibly not lead any country to become broke and broken?
And how does an educated conservative not immediately think John Quincy Adams' quote, "America does not need to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
Robert, only when a Democrat president launches a military attack against Serbia or a missile strike into Somalia.
"Who's that looking back at me in the mirror?" Republican war good, Democrat war bad, and vice-versa.
I believe the hysterics over Rand Paul will simmer down once he is elected. Conservatives are not immune from the fog of war. I am looking foward to reading conservative Congressman Walter Jones forthcoming book "My Daddy's Not Dead Yet". Did I say conservative? Yes Jones is a conservative.
The book, " hopes it will atone for what he now considers his sinful vote to empower former President George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003." http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/foa_...
My point exactly! That is to say, Sarah Palin holds one vision of America's role in the world, and Paulians hold the polar opposite. I am assuming that there is some consternation in the Paul Camp over Rand's touting the endorsement from Palin. Why is Paul happy to be endorsed by one who embodies the foreign policy he and his throng abhor?
This is a clear example of mutual political expediency.
Palin is trying to have it both ways. Her first instincts are with Rand Paul and traditional conservative foreign policy. But since McCain picked her she's been under tremendous pressure to toe the NeoCon line on foreign policy. Big government liberal internationalism.
Indeed there is some uneasiness being voiced on sites supporting Paul. You are correct that is a clear example of mutual political expediency, with Ron Paul in one conversation with a DailyPaul blogger saying that one has to,"look at the big picture."
As to insulting you Ms. Pryor. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was just needling you to get more information from you. By describing yourself as someone who was once an anti-American monarchist, I was intrigued by what you were actually refering to. Your initial decription was just to vague to get a complete picture. Next time I won't needle, I'll just ask "please, tell me more." Best wishes~
Time for the GOP to Dump the NeoCons!
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10935
A lot of Reagan quotes used up there Jeanette. Let's not forget Reagan endorsed Ron Paul, and Ron was one of Reagan's first supporters. Also, please don't give me the 9/11 changed everything line because that argument doesn't hold water at all. When times get tough, that's when you must rely on your principles more than ever. What good are principles if every time they are tested, such as on 9/11, you give them up? And empirically, the post 9/11 era foreign policy by any objective standard has been a bungling affair, and by many accounts an abysmal failure.
Yes and the other argument you oftentimes use is Paul called Reagan a failure. That's because Paul has high standards, you don't. We're sick of politicians promising us liberty, less spending, and smaller government and then going into office and doing the exact opposite. Strictly by that standard, yes Reagan failed.
I don't presume to know what Reagan would say about the War on Terror, but I do think it's safe to say that Reagan would be disgusted to see Ron Paul openly lying about US pre- and post-war intelligence for the sole purpose of advancing his career.
Wow, Calvin, and I assume you have proof of your statement? So, if I said that Bush started the Iraq war because he was a reincarnated spirit of Nebachaneezar as a part of my argument, could I use that?! What evidence do you have. What do we have? Facts and quotes from Reagan himself!!!! Reagan left the middle east because he said "we will never understand the politics of the middle east".. He was actually a very intelligent man, not a self righteous, US soldier killing, empire buiding, treasury bankrupting neo con like whom you support! You are rediculous
Not that I expect you to examine it with an open mind or anything (if your very thoughtful and grammatically-sound comment are anything to go by), but actually, yes I do:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?...
Yes Calvin, please explain. Wait a second. Let me put down my Bush special recipe Yellow cake~ Delicious!
It's all there. I know that reading things from honest information sources can be jarring at first….
Not really jarring. I have read all this previously on FrontPage before. Same authors. Same script~
You can lead a horse to water, but…
Ha! That is a fair comment. Best wishes and good night Cal~
Cal;
Dorothy Parker's version of that old saw might be more appropriate in this case:
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think"
Just because Sarah has endorsed Rand Paul there is no need to degrade her. So unseemly.
What did Ron Paul lie about.???
Whenever he says we were misled into war, he's lying. Whenever he says that Saddam had no WMDs or WMD program, or that Saddam had not connections to international jidhadist groups, he's lying. Whenever he pals around with Alex Jones, or tells some idiot that yeah, a new investigation into what *really* happened on 9/11 would be a good idea, he is giving legitimacy to an especially foul lie.
He didn't have any WMDs And he didn't have any ties to Osama. Even Bush has admitted this!
*sigh* You need to be better informed.
Enlighten me Calvin. I never saw a WMD in Iraq, and I never talked to any other officer who had located any, so perhaps you can tell me where they were, and where they are now?
Saddam did not have WMDs, that is a fact.
Connections to international terrorists? Ok, sure, so does the United States government, we negotiate with insurgents all the time. Does that make us terrorist allies?
Saddam's primary motivator was power, not ideology. What little ideology he had was fiercely anti-Wahhabi, and pro authoritarian-socialist.
One of the more accurate accounts of Palin I found interesting:
http://amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00040/
That was a very good and interesting article. Thanks for posting it.
Neo-conservatism is a broke and broken philosophy. It's been shown for the false bill of goods that it is. Sarah Palin, the Pauls, and hundreds of thousands of people across this country who understand federalism, states' rights, constitutionalism, and the difference between an empire and a republic are going to either re-take the Republican Party, or consign it to the dustbin of history. Either way, you Trotskyites can either go back to the Left where you belong, or accept the political irrelevance you so richly deserve.
Horowitz…YOU ARE A JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best thing to happen to Palin is RAND PAUL (RON PAUL).
She claims she wants COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS but she has NO idea what those are. NOW…she can tap into some REAL common sense thanks to the Pauls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Contrary to popular opinion, scientists have not yet been able to quantify a link between the number of exclamation points & capital letters in a comment and the persuasive capacity of the comment……
nor have they been able to quantify a link by the number of ellipses used…….
Heh. That's almost clever. Almost.
Thank you for acknowledging the effort. You are one a the few here that has a sense of humour.
;We have been in retreat continuously for the past say 40 years. It looks like we are going to get out altogether. Now the only thing we have to worry about is Iran's newly acquired capaability with intercontinental ballistic missisles. In case you think that they are too scared to use them let me quote a pssage from the Ayatollah Khomeini. (That's a Grand Ayatollah who in Iran trumps all the little Ayatollahs. "We do not worship iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land (Iran) burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." See. Not a word about Israel.
Comparing Rand Paul to Michael Moore? The Neo-Cons have reached a desperate new low. After the rest of the country turned on the Iraq war and Republicans lost in '06 and '08, one would think the hawkish right would wisen up and realize that nobody is in line with their aggressive military policies. Rand Paul believes in the Constitution. Period. Anyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't believe in the rule of law.
This sentence:
"Deviating from principled intellectualism will reduce the Tea Party to a gruesome mirror image of the eschatological, savior-seeking deplored in the Obama apotheosis."
is hilarious. Palin and "principled intellectualism?" Palin is a pitchforker, pure and simple.
Jeanette Pryor, sincerely, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul's statements about "Just War,"
in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Dyyd4rcuZc
- there is an important segment at 4:55 – I know you disagree–
but I imagine you don't think he's insincere?
Neo-con THIS! How about an America with some common sense. Our troops fight wherever they are sent. Our freedom has been paid for with their blood. Ron Paul has a decent domestic policy but his foreign policy is a joke. You leave scum like Saddam or the nut in Iran or Venezuela alone long enough and we'll get our asses attacked again, do any of you Paul morons happen to remember 911 or were you even born yet.
Fiscal responsibly is fine but the NUMBER ONE job of our government is to protect us from our enemies in case any of you Paul kool-aid drinking idiots would like to know.
It's merely a play on words…
Do you really think Cal was calling her a horse ?
No. My comment was directed at you. He was calling me a horse. Ha! Palin is cultured enough to support Obama's troop surge. So please stop referring to her as a horticulturist, you thespian~
"Palin is cultured enough to support Obama's troop surge."
Cal;
You do seem to attract these loons, don't you.. ?
"You do seem to attract these loons, don't you.. ?"
Heh. Story of my life….
"Palin is cultured enough to support Obama's troop surge"
This is called a sardonic sentence. You miss the intended humour.