The War On Ron Paul By Susan Westfall
(2011-05-23 at 23:23:53 )

The War On Ron Paul By Susan Westfall

Whether the media establishments want to admit it or not, and believe me
they do not, Ron Paul IS the -front runner- for the Republican Primary.

Despite voracious denials and vitriolic arguments from almost every
quarter to the contrary, he is the only one with a chance of shutting out
Obama for the Presidency in 2012. He appeals to all sides of the aisle,
and is attracting the much sought after Independent swing vote almost as
fast as he has the youth of the nation. The Internet is indisputably Ron
Paul country as countless polls and google trends have repeatedly shown.

The gradual change in political rhetoric f lowing out of Washington, D.C.
over the last 3 years ref lects an explosion of interest in the freedom
message he spreads so tirelessly. The continuous growth in popularity of
talk and news shows focusing on freedom and the Constitution broadcasts
loud and clear the rising prominence of issues he has brought to the
debate. For anyone with any powers of discernment, it is a No-Brainer.

So why do media pundits, dime a dozen politicians, and innumerable
experts of self-aggrandized consequence spend great swathes of time,
eff ort, and someones money working so hard to convince the people
otherwise? You can not turn on a TV, pick up a paper or surf the Internet
without encountering the words -He can not win,- or some other lame
variation repeated ad nauseam with great gusto. According to all the most
acclaimed talking heads, that mythical beast -The Front Runner- has yet
to be seen on the horizon and is still to arise from some unknown lair,
-blazing a new trail- of GOP fame and success across political skies
sometime in the not too distant future. Their blind adherence to this
tired refrain boggles the mind. Personally, I can find only one reason
for the constant repudiation...fear. Fear of the known...Ron Paul, and
f ear of the unknown...future largess. The status-quo is cornered and its
biggest backers are f lailing in desperation through media and political
mouthpieces.

With decades of consistency on record as proof, it is well known by all
in Washington that Ron Paul will not compromise his principles for money,
power or personal gain. Ron Paul is simply...not for sale. Lobbyists for
special interests have never been able to rent his vote. This is such an
undisputed reality that they do not even darken the door of his
congressional off ice. His opinion can not be leased by the highest
bidder, nor his silence ensured through threats and coercion. He is a man
who stands his ground, refusing to back down, f lip-f lop, or play the
political game of corporate footsie that entangles so many on the Hill.

This is the kind of strength America not just needs, but deep down
hungers for in a President. America does not need a President with the
strength to circumvent law by executive order, ignore Congress and engage
in needless conf licts, or break international and common law to achieve a
victory.

Those who stand to lose the most under a President who would not
compromise the Peoples Liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law
for any reason are deathly afraid of Ron Paul.

If we apply Donald Rumsfelds ludicrous scale of measurement, in use long
before he popularized the phrase during his tenure as Secretary of
Defense, then Ron Paul could aptly be termed a "known, known". Needless
to say, much heated discussion has probably occurred in many a smoky back
room about this unpleasant reality. Logic tells us that a good number of
those rooms might even be located in the Pentagon. Ron Paul has never
made a secret of the fact that he would like to: reduce military spending
to that needed for defense only; bring the troops home from all foreign
bases; and restore foreign aff airs to a non-interventionist policy more
bef itting a Republic that purports to be the shining example of liberty.

Accomplishing these goals would of course mean a vast reduction in the
present size and budget of the military industrial complex and can be
only a cause for apprehension in those quarters. If recent world events
are any indication, the threat must be great indeed. In an unprecedented
f lurry of eff iciency the military, under direction of Commander in Chief
Obama, has recently not only rescued another country from tyrannical
oppression, but tracked down and killed the worlds worst terrorist,
Osama Bin Laden, thus proving its undoubted worth and necessity.

Unfortunately, the tyrant really is not gone yet and no one can f igure
out exactly what happened with the Bin Laden operation. Nevertheless,
we have been assured of the worthiness of our current pedal-to-the-metal
monetary support for the military industrial complex. If we have not
then we are obviously unpatriotic and borderline terrorists ourselves.

Of course no one would actually dare accuse Ron Paul of being
unpatriotic. They would be laughed right off the media stage, no matter
how lof ty their perch. So the approach is made from a diff erent angle.
That of foreign aid. Dr. Paul has clearly stated on numerous occasions
that he would cut foreign aid to all countries, not only because of our
f iscal situation but also because he believes we should respect the
sovereignty of all nations and not try to dictate their policies through
bribes or bombs.

Cutting foreign aid in and of itself does not seem to be a problem. Polls
ref lect that a majority of Americans support cuts to foreign aid.

However, the idea of cutting all foreign aid brings on an instantaneous
and seemingly mass hysteria with regards to Israel.

If we dare to look past AIPAC and other lobbyist groups for answers which
contain more rational ideas than the usual accusations of anti-semitism,
unpatriotic betrayal, or abandonment of democratic friends, informative
sources soon surface. In a report by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M.
Walt of University of Chicago and Harvard University respectively, the
"special relationship" between the US and Israel is explained more fully.

Surprisingly, the military complex appears to play a weighty role here as
well. A brief look at some benef its specif ic to Israel include:
retaining 25% of aid dollars to subsidize its own defense industry
instead of spending 100% to subsidize the US defense industry as other
countries must do; not having to account for how aid dollars are spent;
and being provided " with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems
like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need." There is
a plethora of information in just this one report that evidences the
detrimental eff ects of the "special relationship" American taxpayers
purchase annually with their foreign aid dollars with what would appear
to be little or no benef it to themselves. Interestingly, there is growing
evidence of a substantive support in Israel itself for an end to US
foreign aid which is seen by many there as "an aff ront against Israeli
liberty and sovereignty, as well as a drain on the development of
numerous sectors of the Israeli economy, such as the weapons and
biotechnology industries." Based on just the above facts it can be argued
that perhaps it is time for the American People to debate the prudence of
an industrial complex deciding our military decisions, instead of a
decisive military def ending our national borders.

Having hurled their verbal slings and arrows of foreign policy insanity
and foreign aid abandonment, most pundits proceed to trot out the next
big issue to be refuted...individual liberties. Of course they do not
often mention those actual words, but delve deeply right to the perceived
heart of the issue...heroin. Ron Paul wants to "legalize heroin" is
touted gleefully to choruses of "and prostitution!" A round of smirks is
the cue for visions of marauding bands of crazed, drug abusing
prostitutes to begin dancing through the viewers heads and scare them out
of ever considering Ron Paul as a viable candidate for anything, much
less Republican party nominee. A thinking person might wonder why the
fascination and focus on heroin, other than for the shock value of
course, whenever individual liberty is mentioned. "Protecting individual
liberty," Ron Paul often explains, "is the purpose of all government.
Individual liberty is the right to your life, the right to your property
and the right to keep the fruits of your labor." With those two simple
sentences and a clear constitutional understanding of what they actually
mean in regards to Federal Government Overreach, almost everything that
the status quo f ights to maintain is essentially negated. Is it any
wonder the most inf lammatory phrases are employed at every opportunity
to derail the very idea?

No matter how much Washington, D.C. wishes to protect Americans from
themselves, lif t them out of poverty, provide for their well-being, or
ensure their saf ety from dangerous products and enemies, it cannot do
so without inf ringing on their individual liberties and violating the
Constitution.

The Federal government we live with today no longer serves the interests
of the American people, but serves the special interests of: corporate
cronyism; militarism for prof it inf luence and empire; centrally planned
debt management, counterf eiting, fraud and currency debasement.

Those who would maintain the status quo, despite its almost certain
destructive end, are beginning to realize just how much they have
underestimated the power of a quiet, consistent message of truth
delivered to the people by a man of principle. A man who would be
President not for the power he could wield over the people, but for the
power he would give to the people by restoring their Republic. So war
has been declared again, but this time the war is on liberty...
and Ron Paul.

May 23, 2011

Susan Westfall is a mother, a libertarian, and an educator.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.