Ron Paul’s Campaign for Lunacy

Published by Parcbench on January 22, 2010:

Just when you thought he couldn’t possibly test the limits of rational Americans any further, Ron Paul comes out with yet another absurd and treacherous statement — this time advising his followers at a Campaign for Liberty event in Atlanta that “the CIA must be taken out”. The Congressman’s latest in a series of harmful diatribes that aids our enemies condemns the Central Intelligence Agency as somehow “harmful” to the United States and informs his enthusiastic audience that the US Military’s “morale is down” even as (presumably) the US government is “looking for a few more wars to fight”.

Earth to Ron Paul: What exactly has the CIA done that is “harmful”? Using harsh interrogation techniques richly deserved by enemy combatants to prevent further attacks against the United States, including the plot to blow up the Library Tower in Los Angeles? If that’s the “harm” to which you are referring, I say waterboard away!

Assuming there is some truth to Paul’s declaration that the US Military is demoralized, could that have something to do with the politically correct way our out-of-touch bureaucrats are forcing them to fight a war against extremists who don’t play by any rules? When US Navy Seals are punished instead of lauded for capturing a high-value terrorist target for the “crime” of giving the guy a fat lip, I’d agree that is demoralizing. So is the story of Army Ranger 1st Lieutenant Michael Behenna, serving a 25-year prison sentence for shooting an Al-Qaeda operative. Isn’t killing the bad guys before they can harm more innocent people an objective of going to war?

Regardless, I suspect that’s not the type of demoralization to which Ron Paul refers. After all, one day after a suicide bomber attempted to blow up an airliner on approach to Detroit on Christmas Day, he represented the “Republican” side of the aisle on CNN by falsely blaming the event on “US occupation of Yemen and Nigeria.” No wonder CNN enjoys hosting him on their unfair and unbalanced network!

As for the claim from his avid supporters that Paul’s economic policies and staunch exhortations to audit the Federal Reserve justify his perilous foreign policy, according to Open, the Texas Congressman sponsored 23 earmarks totaling over $80 million, ranking 33rd out of 435 representatives.  Doesn’t sound very fiscally responsible to me.

Still, even if the Texas congressman actually practiced what he preached economically, the fact remains that there is a Global Jihad raging, replete with ideological zealots with no regard for human life and an insatiable desire to kill all infidels — Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Atheist, Agnostic, Deist and every other belief system that refuses to submit to Allah. And no amount of denial is going to change that.

So instead of playing the role of “useful idiot” for Al-Qaeda, perhaps Congressman Paul could do something truly revolutionary by supporting the West’s efforts to stop Islamofascism, tepid as they may be. He could start by apologizing to the brave men and women of the CIA and the United States Military, before thanking them for giving him the freedom to promulgate his kooky theories to his own brand of Kool-Aid drinkers.


Yes We Did!

Published by Parcbench on January 21, 2010:

The title of my post comes from a popular Facebook profile photo that began showing up everywhere in the exhilarating aftermath of Scott Brown’s incredible victory last night. Along with many other South Florida conservative activists, I cheered the election returns at Wings Plus in Coral Springs, where we took over an entire room and greeted every election update with the same kind of uproarious exuberance I recall from childhood and adolescence — whether watching Ronald Reagan give a speech, or the Philadelphia Eagles score a touchdown.

That Brown’s Rocky-style victory in the final round occurred on the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s inauguration, and as a result of the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy earlier this year only intensifies the satisfaction and excitement among tea party activists across the country. It is also quite fitting that Massachusetts — site of the original Boston Tea Party — would fire the opening shot in a crucial mid-term election year.

Building on the momentum of New Jersey and Virginia’s gubernatorial races last fall, the second American Revolution ushered in 2010 by electing a candidate who believes in cutting taxes, limiting the size and scope of government, defeating Obamacare, and keeping the USA on offense against radical Islamic terrorism (even going so far as to defend waterboarding) — in the most liberal state in the country!

Who’d have thunk it?

Now I understand that many of us are to the right of Scott Brown on some significant issues. Like the majority of my tea party friends on Facebook, I too wish he held a pro-life stance, although he opposes partial-birth abortion and supports parental consent for minors. However, given the perilous circumstances we as a nation find ourselves in as a result of “hope and change”, it is even more critical to judge each race on its own merits.

A special-election senatorial race in liberal Massachusetts is quite different from a special-election congressional race in upstate New York. In the latter case, Republican party bosses — not the people — hand-picked a candidate who was at least as far to the left as her Democratic opponent. The situation was further exacerbated when Newt Gingrich inexplicably endorsed Dede Scozzafava for simply having an “R” after her name, but otherwise supporting odious legislation like Card Check, among other affronts to American freedom.

In that particular situation, supporting a true conservative like Doug Hoffman, the man the Republican establishment should have coalesced around, sent a clear and necessary message to the GOP elites in Washington that their conservative base was no longer willing to go along to get along. And they’ve further crystallized that message by refusing to donate to the RNC, in favor of donating their hard-earned money directly to conservative candidates.

But with the USA on the precipice, quibbling with Scott Brown for not being an ideologically pure candidate in a northeastern state where “unaffiliated voters” (i.e. Independents) and Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans would’ve been counter-productive and self-defeating. Aside from the fact that abortion is a states’ rights issue, in an age of radical Islamic terror, out-of-control deficit spending, government takeovers of private industry, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, milquetoast foreign policy and disturbingly weakened national security, it is but one of many in a long list of evils.

As the cliche goes, battles must be chosen wisely, and in politics, strategy sometimes trumps ideology. In the areas that matter in terms of defeating the Dems’ statist agenda — strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and limited government — Scott Brown is in alignment with conservatives. And the fact that grass-roots conservatives have mastered the internet (a medium previously utilized almost exclusively by the left), is a testament to the power and determination of everyday Americans when they recognize the urgent need to fight like hell for their freedom. If we didn’t see it before, we now know for certain that no matter where the race is run, its outcome affects us all.

Will Scott Brown possibly disappoint conservatives at some point in the future? Given the fact that, like everyone else in public office, he is also a politician, chances of that are pretty high. There are no perfect human beings, and therefore, no perfect candidates.

However, with Obama and the Dems in meltdown mode, Obamacare on the ropes and the rest of the administration’s radical plans for America in jeopardy as a result of a principled guy in a pick-up truck who didn’t consider it beneath him to shake hands with his fellow citizens outside in the cold at Fenway Park (and otherwise work his tail off to actually earn their votes), any future disappointment will be tempered by the euphoria of the moment they called the race for Brown.

Between that and the fact that the “truthers” on Facebook are having hysterical fits over Brown’s “we win, they lose” approach to Global Jihad, it’s a richly satisfying victory, indeed.

 I can hardly wait for November.

Truth(er) and Consequences, Facebook-style

Published by Parcbench on January 14, 2010:

One of the few silver linings in the otherwise dismally bleak consequences of the 2008 Presidential Election has been the nationwide revival of commonsense conservatism. With a renewed appreciation and respect for the United States Constitution, Americans from coast-to-coast have joined forces and channeled their energies into a productive, passionate movement now recognized as tea party activism – inspired by patriots like Seattle mom Keli Carender, and further incited by CNBC’s Rick Santelli. Throughout 2009, the momentum steadily increased in size and scope, as cities and towns all across America held passionate protests against massive government spending.

In tandem with this revitalized sense of patriotism, concerned right-leaning citizens finally mastered the medium that the left had used so effectively to propel their chosen “historic” candidate into office – social media and the internet. From Facebook to twitter to countless excellent blogs, conservatives began to employ technology to effect meaningful “change”.

Using this powerful, 21st Century tool, they found other like-minded Americans with whom they could disseminate important information on issues, candidates and meetings; take action wherever necessary; and generally keep each other energized and motivated for the long battles ahead.

As one of the aforementioned, I joined Facebook sometime in 2008, right around the time House Republicans took a stand for domestic drilling, but weeks before John McCain thankfully chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate (a woman whose career I’d been following for the better part of a year). I delighted at the ease with which I located other well-informed members of the citizenry, who were also horrified by the prospects of an Obama presidency, and equally angered by the fiscal recklessness we’d witnessed with the previous administration and congress.

Having the ability to communicate, plan, instruct, and otherwise commiserate with them was a welcome source of comfort and strength in an age of stimulus, czars, government takeovers of private industry, tax cheats, apology tours, and slobbering media sycophants.

And then came the truthers.

Oh I’d read about these folks on reputable blogs like Gateway Pundit, who documented nut-job radio host Alex Jones’ attack on Malkin at the DNC in August, 2008. Along the way, I’d even come across an excellent City Journal piece, Conspiracy of Crackpots, in which John Avlon chronicles the surreal – but not to be underestimated – nature of the movement, which at the time of his September, 2008 article, comprised over thirty percent (!) of the population, according to a Scripps poll.

In spite of YouTube evidence of their hero Ron Paul’s attendance at a 9/11 Scholars for Truth meeting in 2007 – during which he promised to investigate the “real” cause of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks with none other than Dennis Kucinich – it just never occurred to me I’d inadvertently “friend” any of these conspiracy loons on Facebook, thanks to a philosophical overlap on economic policy. For this same reason, I’d also friended “non-truther” but in most cases, no less fanatical, Ron Paul supporters. However, for the most part, we’d all co-existed in harmony, mainly focused on curtailing and ultimately destroying horrid legislation like Cap and Trade and Obamacare.

That all changed the day after the underwear bomber from Yemen tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on approach to Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. Object of truther-worship Ron Paul appeared on CNN where he openly – and might I add, stupidly – blamed the attack on “US occupation of Yemen and Nigeria”, a statement that is patently absurd. No matter: immediately following Paul’s treacherous appearance, the truthers who’d been lurking in the shadows of my friends’ list posted video of the entire Ron Paul versus Ben Stein spectacle on my profile page, enhanced with paeans to Paul’s alleged “brilliance”, and Stein’s apparent ignorance in branding the Texas congressman an anti-Semite.

The debate threads that ensued contained such delusional comments as “Al-Qaeda is a CIA fantasy”; the Tea Party Movement was started by “libertarians” but hijacked by “neo-cons” (every truther’s favorite pejorative for anyone who accepts the reality of Global Jihad); and my personal favorite, “Everyone knows Bush and Cheney hired the Israeli Mossad to fly the planes into the buildings!”

I soon realized it is impossible to employ logic with those who are willfully illogical. After many painstaking attempts, most of which included a timeline of terror predating and following September 11, 2001 (1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombings, USS Cole, Madrid bombings, London Subway bombings, etc); and then inquiring as to whether all of these were also “inside jobs” on the part of the US government, I finally gave up. They would simply ignore my question and respond with another rant about Israel, or another diatribe against “Darth” Cheney.

Good riddance to trash, right? You betcha!

However, there is one type of RP supporter even more disturbing than a truther—that of the holier-than-thou, Bible-quoting variety. This type uses scripture to back up the insane belief that we have no right to defend ourselves against radical Islam, as God is “punishing” us for the scourge of abortion. Now, let me state forthrightly: I am ardently and fervently pro-life. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that innocent life is sacred, regardless of circumstances (e.g. handicaps, financial situation of the parents, etc). I also believe that from a procedural standpoint, Roe versus Wade is unconstitutional, and should be overturned, thus sending the abortion issue back to the states, where it rightfully belongs. Sounds libertarian enough, no?

Voters of each state should determine the legality of abortion for their state, as well as decide on the ancillary issues, like restrictions on the procedure after the first trimester, and parental consent for minors. Yes, abortion is evil. So are beheadings, honor killings, rape rooms, stonings, destructive and deadly riots over Danish cartoons and suicide bombs strapped onto two year-olds. But try explaining that to a true Ron Paul believer.

To attribute the cause of Islamofascism – a rabid, hateful and oppressive political system wrapped up in a strident religious ideology – on the legalization of abortion in America is beyond ludicrous. Muslims have been attacking western civilization for centuries, long before the United States even existed. The difference is that they now have the benefit of modern technology to assist them, requiring evermore vigilance on the part of freedom-loving people everywhere. And as the leader of the free world, the American President has a solemn duty to do everything within his power to prevent the United States and our allies from experiencing further acts of bloody, murderous aggression at the hands of Jihadists.

As a self-professed Christian, Ron Paul has an obligation to speak out against evil. It may be enough for the Christian Paulnuts I’ve bumped into that their guy is “pro-life”, but it’s certainly not enough for this lifelong Catholic. Paul was the ONLY Republican to vote against sanctions on the Iranian regime; I guess he’s ok with the mullahs unleashing a brutal reign of terror against their own people for the “crime” of wanting their freedom.

Hey, if President Obama can go out for ice cream on a hot summer night while innocent Iranians are shot and killed on the streets of Tehran, why shouldn’t Paul vote against sanctions?

When my Christian Ron Paul supporter sanctimoniously inquired if I was a follower of Christ, my response was “Yes, and I’d like to stay that way. However, the ultimate goal of Global Jihad is to impose a worldwide Muslim caliphate in which infidels either submit to Allah or die. Therefore, I will only vote for candidates who espouse a sane foreign policy that includes staying on offense against radical Islamic terror.”

Again, no response to my statement; just some blathering about how it’s all God’s will anyway.

I patiently replied that obviously, whatever God wills ultimately prevails, but that the Almighty also expects us to speak out against evil; that we have an obligation to confront it. I then asked why she wouldn’t support Paul’s primary opponent, Tim Graney, a man who is simultaneously pro-life, pro-limited government and pro-national security. Why settle for someone who may be economically sane, but woefully naïve at best and perilously ignorant at worst, in matters of foreign policy? She offered no useful rebuttal, other than to malign me for my dislike of “the good doctor” who is after all, a “Republican” like me.

Gee, all this time I believed groupthink was only a requirement for lefties!

In the aftermath, I’ve been exercising my God-given and Facebook-approved right to approve or deny friend requests, delete and block friends who’ve become abusive or  illogical, and screen all friend requests for truthers and Ron Paulnuts prior to approving. For that I’ve also been condemned by some as (you guessed it) “un-Christian” and in many cases “anti-American” (Choosing the friends with whom you associate is now considered “blacklisting” in some circles. Who knew? My poor mom, a woman who always taught me that people judge you by the company you keep, will be devastated).

Simultaneously, this avid Tea Party protester will continue to fight against Obamacare, Cap and Trade, and every other travesty the “gangsta” congress and president try to ram down our throats, she’ll also continue to stand up for freedom by calling out “truthers”, condemning Global Jihad and supporting only candidates with the moral rectitude to do the same.