Ron Paul Invokes Christ After Reveling in Soldier’s Death

This is how Ron Paul greeted the news of the murder of Navy Seal, Chris Kyle.

And here is Ron Paul attempting damage control:

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend’s violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP

You know, at some point you just stop typing. Ron Paul should have done that at the words “Mr. Kyle’s family.” But he had to just double down in order to make a political point.

Perhaps Paul’s next step is to pay the man’s family a visit to pay his respects where he can tell Mr. Kyle’s widow and children that his dad had it coming to him.

62 Responses to Ron Paul Invokes Christ After Reveling in Soldier’s Death

  • Ron Paul and the Libertarians who support him are idiots, many of whom have the hubris to call themselves Christian. I have nothing but disgust for these people. They support legalization of dope smoking. They oppose nuclear energy. They damn our military. Nothing in them is redeemable.

  • The cult of personality surrounding this man is frightening, especially looking at the comments justifying his vile words.

    One of the troubling tendencies of our time is the tendency of certain political figures to draw followers who are utterly incapable of ever offering fair criticism.

  • Now that just ticks me off. The guy served his country, which is entirely distinct from “living by the sword”, which I would equate to being a gang-banger in some big city somewhere. Perhaps Christ should have told the centurion that his servant didn’t deserve to be healed because the centurion deserved to lose his servant for living by the sword. Maybe Ron Paul should remember that he voted to put our soldiers in harm’s way when he voted to authorize military force following 9/11.

  • I am sorry for my initial response, Paul Z. I just get so disgusted and appalled at some of the things this jerk says. Why are people following this man, some of whom claim to be Christians? We are supposed to be crazy about Christ and the Cross. That’s what St. Paul said he was crazy about – that’s all he said he taught and preached. This guy – Ron Paul – is as much a messiah to the Libertarians as Obama is to the liberals. He is just another one of those little – and sometimes not so little – Antichrists.

    I really need to focus on Jesus and not jerks like this who get me upset. I am going to say a Hail Mary, turn the problem over to her, and go to bed. Have a good night, Paul Z.

  • Thanks for that Paul. It is important to keep in mind that, despite my agreements with them, there are many honest libertarians and Ron Paul supporters. For good or ill, they are generally not the ones hounding social media sites.

  • One small technical correction Paul. SEALs, like Marines, don’t refer to themselves as soldiers. Only the Army refer to themselves as such. SEALs, because they are Nave are still considered sailors.

  • “Soldiers” is used as the generic, though.

    It tends to get the same flinch-response as calling someone a “Former Marine.” (Assuming that someone isn’t trying to insult the guy, I mean.)

    Strictly, it should be “Soldiers’ death.” I believe that the second man killed was a PTSD sufferer being helped. (And, counter to Ron Paul, treating PTSD at a gun range is acceptable– it’s along the lines of the “dust yourself off and get back on the horse” theory of being bucked off. Having PTSD doesn’t mean you become a psycho that can’t be near sharp objects lest you go all Friday the 13th.)

  • Ron Paul is an anti-christ? I’ve heard some extremely absurd comments made here, but that one is truly demented. How one can decry legalizing pot and opposing nuclear energy (neither of which I condone) as the greatest evils in the world while supporting a candidate and a party that champions economic recklessness and wars of aggression is totally, totally beyond me.

    Ron Paul is certainly not perfect (his comment here seems misguided), but the hatred levied at him by self-identified conservatives who allegedly value federalism is simply nonsensical. A clear testament to FOX News’ propaganda capabilities.

    Paul is such an interesting case. No one knows how to deal with him. Criticism of him usually reveals the meaningless of the political language of modern times, in a truly Orwellian fashion. In this bizarre world, anyone who opposes military and political imperialism is automatically “an isolationist.” Anyone who respects the rights of the State’s to engage in the majority of their own governance (which means that each State could enact as much or as little legislation as the want, create a government that is as big or as small as they want) is apparently a “libertarian,” and not a constitutionalist or a federalist, as common sense would seem to indicate.

    Ron Paul is the antithesis of an anti-christ. He seeks no power nor personal gain for himself. He is the epitome of a civil servant, someone who runs for office not to protect and further his own interests, but to preserve the integrity of the rule of law. He ran in this past presidential primary not with any real hope of winning, but in order to share his message of sensible governance. His message has been embraced by scores of young conservative Christians, committed to traditional values and subsidiarity, yet put-off by the GOP’s unwavering commitment to destructive economics, torture, drone strikes, and the usage of the Big Government machinery when it has been in their interest.

    He, again, is by no means perfect, but was a breath of fresh air in a Republican primary that was otherwise dominated by unapologetic war-firsters who show no regard for life if it isn’t American and the puppets of corporate interests.

  • Ron Paul is beneath contempt. He is a small, bitter man who took advantage of the murder of a man infinitely braver than himself to leap aboard his hobby horse. Unlike Ron Paul who voted for the war in Afghanistan, Chris Kyle had absolutely no say in the wars that he fought. As a Seal he fought with courage and skill as he was bound to do by his oath. That Ron Paul should attempt to take advantage of his death to spill some bile is only to be expected by anyone familiar with Paul’s career. The deluded supporters of this wretched fraud need to take a very long look in a mirror.

  • JL, your repeated attempts to defend the indefensible are really absurd. His comments are misguided? The man spoke of another man’s death with undisguised glee. He then chose to hide behind a false piety in order to defend his comments. And you chalk up the reaction to Fox News brainwashing?

    As I said, the cult of personality is strong with his followers.

  • Maybe we should change his title from (R. Pluto) to (R. Alpha Centauri) or (R. Black Hole)?

  • Or maybe (R. A Hole).

  • How one can decry legalizing pot and opposing nuclear energy (neither of which I condone) as the greatest evils in the world while supporting a candidate and a party that champions economic recklessness and wars of aggression is totally, totally beyond me.

    Ron Paul has a long history of goldbuggery. If you are looking to him for an antidote to ‘economic recklessness’, you are going to be disappointed.

    but the hatred levied at him by self-identified conservatives who allegedly value federalism is simply nonsensical. A clear testament to FOX News’ propaganda capabilities.

    If your ‘capabilities’ at assessing what people say to you were better developed, you would have realized that the predominant response to Paul is a mixture of derision and annoyance. Ditto his supporters.

    Paul is such an interesting case. No one knows how to deal with him.

    Yes, they do. They ignore him because he is unserious.

    Criticism of him usually reveals the meaningless of the political language of modern times, in a truly Orwellian fashion. In this bizarre world, anyone who opposes military and political imperialism is automatically “an isolationist.”

    Paul is actually something of a parody of an early 20th century politician. That particular descriptor fits quite well. It bothers his supporters, but so what?

    Anyone who respects the rights of the State’s to engage in the majority of their own governance (which means that each State could enact as much or as little legislation as the want, create a government that is as big or as small as they want) is apparently a “libertarian,” and not a constitutionalist or a federalist, as common sense would seem to indicate.

    Boo hoo.

    He seeks no power nor personal gain for himself.

    He has been an elected official for over 25 years. He is seeking something.

    yet put-off by the GOP’s unwavering commitment to destructive economics, torture, drone strikes, and the usage of the Big Government machinery when it has been in their interest. He, again, is by no means perfect, but was a breath of fresh air in a Republican primary that was otherwise dominated by unapologetic war-firsters who show no regard for life if it isn’t American and the puppets of corporate interests.

    You would be taken more seriously if you could characterize an argument without caricaturing it.

    Eyes on the prize, JL. A man was shot to death in the course of an ordinary pastime by someone with a screw loose. Paul reacted to that with a silly non sequitur in an effort to make a political point. There is a word for someone who does that and for the person offering defenses for someone who does that. The word is ‘jackass’

  • Even as a Ron Paul supporter I have to say the “sword reference” under these circumstances was not appropriate logically or from a “human decency” perspective. However, his second sentence, I do have to say makes some sense. I know Kyle’s heart was in the right place trying to help out a fellow vet, and perhaps this type of therapy might work with some, but it might have been prudent to get a professional opinion before taking such a risk. Heck, dealing with psychological issues is hard enough for licensed professionals.

    Having said that, RP would have been better served by not saying anything (kind of like the First Amendment “hecklers” – even if right in some respect, it really does not help their cause). The comment did have a pretty high level of jackassery.

  • However, his second sentence, I do have to say makes some sense. I know Kyle’s heart was in the right place trying to help out a fellow vet, and perhaps this type of therapy might work with some, but it might have been prudent to get a professional opinion before taking such a risk.

    I have heard from vets this morning who say the immersion therapy does work, but where Kyle may have erred is in not ensuring that the man was getting some other form of therapy as well. In other words, immersion therapy by itself is not sufficient.

  • Paul’s comment about PTSD doesn’t sound like an assessment of the technique. It sound like snark. Now, part of that could be that everything in tweet form sounds like snark. But especially combined with the first sentence it has an inappropriate tone to it. The first sentence is, of course, indefensible.

    Hats off to c matt for criticizing his own guy. Not enough of that online. JL’s declaration that the comment “seems misguided” doesn’t help his argument at all.

  • “How one can decry legalizing pot and opposing nuclear energy (neither of which I condone) as the greatest evils in the world while supporting a candidate and a party that champions economic recklessness and wars of aggression is totally, totally beyond me.”

    I will deal only with the “nuclear” part of the comment (since I started it). Admiral James O. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations in these United States gave a presentation at the American Nuclear Society Utility Working Conference on August 16, 2011, entitled, “Let’s Do the Right Thing.” Unfortunately, I cannot share it in a public forum. :-( Nevertheless, I can share the following. In this presentation he describes how low cost, abundant, clean, safe energy supply generates prosperity. He shows a map of the world during night time and then in a subsequent slide focuses on the Korean peninsula where the contrast between the poverty stricken North and the wealthy South [which gets 20.5 GWe from 23 reactors (almost 30% of its electricity supply)] is held in stark relief as seen from space. He describes how 1.4 billion people in the world – 20% of the planet’s human population – do not have access to electricity and are living in abject hunger and poverty, a condition that has plagued the majority of our species for most of its life. He shows a bar graph of per capita energy consumption where countries like the OECD ones have the highest level of prosperity, health and longevity, and countries like Sub-Saharan Africa are wracked by pestilence and mass starvation. The difference is energy access. He shows how per capita income rise and poverty falls in developed countries that have an abundance of low cost energy, and the reverse happens in countries where access to low cost energy isn’t available. And of course, we all know that electricity from coal is better than no electricity, and electricity from gas is better than from coal, and electricity from nuclear best yet (only six people died from Fukushima compared with 33,000 who die annually in the US from coal-fired power plant pollution, but no electricity kills even more than coal). And for all the renewable energy advocates, if wind were so great, then we would still be using sailing ships to transport goods across the ocean as the Vikings did, and if solar were so great, then we would still be baking bricks in the sun as the Summerians did 4000 years ago. No wind – no electricity; no sun – no electricity. That’s the condition previous to coal use and what is holding 1.4 billion people in abject poverty and starvation.

    So yes, I stand by my implication that depriving people of access to low cost, safe, clean, abundant energy is evil. There is enough uranium and thorium in Earth’s crust to generate the energy necessary to feed, house, and keep warm in winter or cool in summer a population of 12 billion for ten thousand years or more. That’s what Dr. Bernard Cohen, Physics Professior at the University of Pittsburg, said in the late 1970s / early 1980s. He did NOT exaggerate. The good Lord has given us everything we need for our prosperity, and denying that to those in need is evil.

    Now not every Ron Paulist or libertarian is anti-nuclear energy, nor should on the other hand nuclear energy ever be used except in a safe and responsible manner. But dumping fossil fuel refuse into the atmosphere willy-nilly and creating slush ponds of radioactive coal ash next to coal fired power plants isn’t responsible either (yes, coal releases more radioactivity in the form of naturally occurring radium, uranium and thorium than a nuke plant does). And even less responsible is touting solar or wind as panaceas when spinning reserve from fossil or nuclear is always required.

    Want to end starvation and poverty? Go nuclear. It’s really that simple. A photo of the planet at night shows who has prosperity and who doesn’t. But we elect evil, greedy leaders who will plunge all of us into darkness and we do so because we want to suckle at the teat of the public treasury and have govt bail us out of the bad decisions we make instead of being personally responsible and accountable. We have a President who opposes coal, oil, gas and nuclear, but touts useless freaking solar and wind. So when the lights go out in the coming economic collapse, just remember what I told you. Poverty has been mankind’s normal condition for most of his existence on this planet and what we have today is an abberation.

  • JL-
    false accusations– especially when they’re as moronic as taking basic recognition of really bad behavior as meaning “Ron Paul is an anti-christ”– do not improve the image of rabid Ronulans.

    You’ll notice Bonchamps isn’t here making ludicrous accusations, even though he does agree with Ron Paul on some points. Probably because he’s not a cultists, he just agrees with some points.

    Heck, even Rand Paul had more class, with the simple statement: “Chris Kyle was a hero like all Americans who don the uniform to defend our country. Our prayers are with his family during this tragic time.”

  • Foxfier-

    My comment was in response primarily to Paul Primavera, who did, in fact, call Ron Paul an anti-christ.

    “This guy – Ron Paul – is as much a messiah to the Libertarians as Obama is to the liberals. He is just another one of those little – and sometimes not so little – Antichrists.”

    I’ll address other comments shortly.

  • The cult of personality can cut both ways. Those who dislike certain politicians can characterize said politician in the worst possible light. Ron Paul’s two tweets are full of ass-hattery. However, I fail to see any gleeful elements in them.

  • JL, I rated Ron Paul too high with the descriptor, “anti-christ.” Delusion demogogue is perhaps the most he rates.

  • JL, of course it was wrong to call Paul an anti-Christ. It was also wrong of you to call people “war-firsters” and corporate puppets.

  • I find it reprehensible that Paul had the audacity to criticize a man who killed 160 in defense of our freedom. Mr. Kyle was indeed part of the pride of our nation and this generation’s Fredrick Zoller. May his soul rest in peace

  • Glenn Beck tweets that Ron Paul has joined the Westboro Baptist Church.

  • I’m going to respond to a number of comments in this one message, as I am writing in a place with no internet connection.

    First off, I feel I need to clarify something. My comment was prompted by and served as a reply to Paul P’s comments that Ron Paul is an Anti-Christ (since redacted) and that his (alleged) support for legalizing weed and opposing nuclear power (two positions he actually doesn’t hold) made him an evil, idiotic, non-Christian, of which nothing was redeemable. Here are the relevant comments:

    “Ron Paul and the Libertarians who support him are idiots, many of whom have the hubris to call themselves Christian. I have nothing but disgust for these people. They support legalization of dope smoking. They oppose nuclear energy. They damn our military. Nothing in them is redeemable.

    This guy – Ron Paul – is as much a messiah to the Libertarians as Obama is to the liberals. He is just another one of those little – and sometimes not so little – Antichrists.”

    My comment was not meant to defend Mr. Paul’s tweet in any way, shape, or form. In fact, I said it was misguided. That probably wasn’t strong enough. It was wrong and he shouldn’t have made it. So, to those who indicate that my defense of Paul against assertions that he is an anti-Christ, idiot, and non-Christian is synonymous with me condoning this particular comment, you are wrong.

    Now on to specifics replies.

    @Paul Z, who said:
    “JL, your repeated attempts to defend the indefensible are really absurd. His comments are misguided? The man spoke of another man’s death with undisguised glee. He then chose to hide behind a false piety in order to defend his comments. And you chalk up the reaction to Fox News brainwashing?”

    Please see above. Also, I’m curious as to what my other acts of “defending the indefensible” are.

    @Art, who says:
    “Ron Paul has a long history of goldbuggery. If you are looking to him for an antidote to ‘economic recklessness’, you are going to be disappointed.”

    I don’t think Ron Paul is a comprehensive political savior, not all. As I’ve said, I find his foreign policy and his conception of federalism to be his most appealing attributes. Paul is not so much a model candidate as he is a needed counter to unethical and destructive policies championed by the GOP establishment, namely an aggressive, invasive, and imperialistic foreign policy and an unfortunate tendency to use the federal government to protect and then bail out selfish and reckless private corporate practices. The fact that some of his ideas are admittedly “kooky” doesn’t change my opinion that he’s right on these two vital issues.

    “If your ‘capabilities’ at assessing what people say to you were better developed, you would have realized that the predominant response to Paul is a mixture of derision and annoyance. Ditto his supporters.”

    I disagree. In this thread alone people have levied the following charges against Ron Paul: he is an Anti-Christ, he is an idiot, he is not a Christian, he is not redeemable, he is a wretched fraud. I can’t read into people’s hearts, but I have an inkling that such venom is the product of more than just annoyance and disagreement.

    “Yes, they do. They ignore him because he is unserious.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “unserious.” He doesn’t act with the appropriate gravitas? Or his ideas are “not serious?” I assume you mean the latter, and again, I’m not sure why you describe him as such. Certainly, his ideas do not necessarily translate into easily implementable policies, but he hasn’t been running to get elected. He’s been in the public spotlight to offer a much needed critique of the GOP establishment and its abandonment of authentic federalism and nuanced, cautious foreign policy. If you disagree with his ideas that’s fine, but I’m not sure how that’s grounds for writing off him and everything he says as “unserious.”

    “Paul is actually something of a parody of an early 20th century politician. That particular descriptor fits quite well. It bothers his supporters, but so what?”

    On the spectrum of isolationism and imperialism, Paul is definitely a shift away from the imperialism pole. So if that’s what you’re trying to get at by calling him an isolationist, then fine.

    “Boo hoo.”

    ?

    “He has been an elected official for over 25 years. He is seeking something.”

    It seems to me that he is genuinely concerned about the GOP’s departure from an authentic interpretation of the Constitution, and has used his public platform to raise awareness of this reality. I suppose he gets paid, so yes, it would appear that his self-interest is in someway served by his political career. I guess he isn’t Jesus.

    “You would be taken more seriously if you could characterize an argument without caricaturing it.”

    This entire thread is filled with almost nothing but caricatures, so if that’s an argument that more or less everything said on this topic so far does not deserve to be taken seriously, then I agree.

    “Eyes on the prize, JL. A man was shot to death in the course of an ordinary pastime by someone with a screw loose. Paul reacted to that with a silly non sequitur in an effort to make a political point. There is a word for someone who does that and for the person offering defenses for someone who does that. The word is ‘jackass’ ”

    I defended Paul against charges that he is an Anti-Christ, a non-Christian, and an idiot. I did not defend his comments regarding Kyle, although perhaps I didn’t condemn them forcibly enough. Still, I’m relieved that I’m not a jackass according to your definition.

    @Paul P, who said:
    “I will deal only with the “nuclear” part of the comment (since I started it). Admiral James O. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations in these United States gave a presentation…”

    Paul, we all appreciate your wealth of knowledge with regards to nuclear power. And I agree with you that nuclear power has the capacity to do a lot of good in the world (though I think you’re belief that it can single-handedly solve most of the world’s problems is errant, and smacks of a Baconian conception of conquering nature and perfecting mankind through science). However, you didn’t really address my point, which is namely that if Ron Paul and his followers are evil and irredeemable for (allegedly) supporting the legalization of pot and (allegedly) opposing the use of nuclear power, then certainly the same could be said for Romney and the rest of the GOP establishment who, in my estimation, support far more nefarious positions.

    Furthermore, I actually want to address the charges you levy against Paul ( I can’t speak for the majority of his supporters).

    From everything I could find, Ron Paul most certainly does NOT oppose the use of nuclear power, on principle. He seems to be opposed to the idea of the federal government subsidizing nuclear power.

    “Congressman Paul supports nuclear, wind, solar, and any other forms of energy production, However, he opposes subsidies to them as he does not believe that the federal government has the right to take money from one person to subsidize the energy desires of another. However, Congressman Paul has sponsored legislation to provide tax incentives to alternative energy sources.”

    “I think nuclear is great. I think it’s the safest form of energy we have.”

    “I’m scared to death they are going to quit building nuclear power plants.”

    “Much of the reaction to the nuclear power crisis in Japan is “overblown,” but the U.S. seems unlikely now to build another nuclear power plant, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Tuesday night.

    “My guess is, when the dust settles, it won’t be nearly as bad as some of the scare tactics we have been reading about in the past couple of days,” Paul, an advocate of nuclear power, told Fox Business Network. “Nuclear power is very dangerous, but it is also the safest form of energy we have.”

    And with regards to marijuana, Paul is certainly not for legalizing weed across the nation. He is simply for allowing the states to decide this matter, as the Constitution seems to suggest.

  • Thanks, JL, for the correction with regard to where Ron Paul stands in respect to nuclear energy.

  • And, unbelievable as it may seem, Paul’s presidential run never took off . . .

    Twain: “Suppose your were a Congressman. And, suppose you were an idiot. But, I repeat myself.”

    Poor judgment, lack of circumspection, inexperience, immaturity, ignorance (lack of context). Open mouth, place in size twelve . . .

  • @T. Shaw:

    In a country where “Twilight” is popular literature, and Lady Gaga and Maroon 5 dominate the airwaves, I really don’t think popular support is a very worthwhile indicator of something’s value.

  • “In a country where ‘Twilight’ is popular literature, and Lady Gaga and Maroon 5 dominate the airwaves, I really don’t think popular support is a very worthwhile indicator of something’s value.”

    Gotta agree with JL, here. Popular support is probably an indication of how valueless something is.

    ;-)

  • Paul is unpopular ergo he is worthwhile, especially when he makes comments such as that Twit.

  • Above all, versus a lot of the people criticizing Ron Paul such as Ted Nugent and Glenn Beck, Ron Paul is a veteran and our country would be a lot better with a lot of his policies, last I saw, America was still a place of Free Speech. And has one seen now per over at the Blaze, the alleged killer, Routh was in a Mental Institution 2 times over the 5 months so I’m sorry to say, that indicates that the gun range probably wasn’t the best place to take Routh.

    All that said, Ron Paul spoke inappropriately as if he did not understand the situation well. His remarks were in poor taste.

  • Above all, versus a lot of the people criticizing Ron Paul such as Ted Nugent and Glenn Beck, Ron Paul is a veteran and our country would be a lot better with a lot of his policies,

    Ron Paul was born in 1935. Military conscription was in effect without interruption from 1948 to 1973 and men commonly enlisted in lieu of being drafted. The 1971 edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States published some summary statistics on the service history of men born during the years running from 1930 through 1938. The figures were as follows: 55% had been on active duty, 9% were in the Guard and Reserves throughout, 24% were disqualified on medical grounds, &c., and 12% were not called or were deferred.

    Glenn Beck was born in 1964. Military conscription was discontinued when he was eight years old. During the years he was of an age to enlist (1982 to 2000), there was no compelling reason to do so unless you were at loose ends or considering the military as a vocation. (The 1st Gulf War having been quite brief and fought by activating reserve units).

    From the same sources, you can construct an estimate of the service histories of the men born during the years running from 1939 through 1953 (and that would include Ted Nugent, b. 1948). A similar share were disqualified, but a much larger share (~30%) appear to have been deferred or simply not called. Most men in those cohorts (~63%) were never on active duty in the regular armed forces. You can criticize Nugent for not having enlisted. He never attended college, so he had no student deferment.

    last I saw, America was still a place of Free Speech.

    No one has proposed prosecuting Dr. Paul. He has a right to say what he pleases, not a right to be free from rebukes.

    And has one seen now per over at the Blaze, the alleged killer, Routh was in a Mental Institution 2 times over the 5 months so I’m sorry to say, that indicates that the gun range probably wasn’t the best place to take Routh.

    A psychiatric ward will be shot through with people who are in a miserable frame of mind for various reasons, people addled by voices in their heads, young women who have unaccountably lost interest in eating (or are engaged in vomiting up their meals), men of various ages who have fondled the youth of the nation, and oldsters lost in senile dementia. Very few are violent. A larger number are suicidal. Few people who commit suicide do so with a rifle, shotgun, or muzzle-loader.

  • Art Deco: Thanks for history lesson, that doesn’t change anything regarding Ron Paul being a veteran and Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent not being such.

  • “Paul is unpopular ergo he is worthwhile, especially when he makes comments such as that Twit.”

    Ah! I see what you did there! But alas, Chesterton you are not. The inverse of a given thing is not made true just because the original things itself is false.

  • that doesn’t change anything regarding Ron Paul being a veteran and Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent not being such.

    You brought up their service history as a means of giving a mulligan to Dr. Paul due to his military service. If you are saying their military service renders their character or judgment better, this example is not one you want to use. If you say that their decisions on military service are an indicator of their character antecedent to service, one has to note that they made the decisions they made in dissimilar contexts.

    While we are on the subject…

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/10/1053244/-Ron-Paul-s-Timeline-Problem-When-Where-or-Did-He-Complete-His-OBGYN-Residency#

    Is a discussion forum on lacunae in Dr. Paul’s published biographies. It appears he completed the internship and residency requirements to practice as an obstetrician and gynecologist at the end of 1969. It also appears he received a medical degree in July of 1961, give or take a few weeks. Not sure what the deal was in Pennsylvania or in Texas ca. 1965, but in New York ca. 1993 internship and residency for an obstetrician amounted to four years and residents were rotated out at the end of June. It would appear he was employed as a GP by the Air Force (with the title of ‘flight surgeon’) for an indeterminate number of years, then started his residency upon discharge. Medical residents in that era commonly worked 108 hours a week, so it is difficult to see how he could compete a residency and serve in the Air National Guard as his Wikipedia entry says (while siring 5 children).

  • “As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception.”- Ron Paul, 2007. This is what I find of importance per Ron Paul. Now, PaulBots and a lot of your Libertarian Party people really don’t follow this at all, the Libertarian Party in fact does not have this in its platform. Those people can be annoying but Ron Paul himself is fine and a Vet.

  • Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Only people who think the federal government, housed in the Imperial City, is the only level of government that matters make the mistake of thinking RP is a libertarian. He is a federalist.

  • JL: But Ron Paul is the darling of Libertarians similar to Sarah Palin’s status with Tea Party enthusiasts, I think he ran on their ticket for President one year, 1988 for the Libertarian party. Yes, it is often written that Ron Paul is more about States Rights and that is apparent if one knows his political positions. Perhaps it is easier to say Libertarian in the MSM rather than States Rights or Federalist Ron Paul.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/
    http://www.gopusa.com/news/2011/05/13/libertarian-ron-paul-running-for-president-on-republican-ticket/

  • JL: True (meant to start that last statement off in that manner) but..

    Rand Paul actually by definition might be even less of a Libertarian but that won’t stop news reports calling him the most Libertarian member of Congress.

  • JL,

    Ron Paul is a libertarian and a federalist. Meaning, while he respects state’s rights, if he had his say at the state level, it would be a libertarian state.

    I mean, he is a proponent of Austrian economics, legalizing drugs, non-interventionism, the non-aggression principle – he is an ideological libertarian.

  • Fair enough, Bonchamps. I’m just making the point that he wouldn’t impose ideological libertarinism at the state-level across the country. States would be relatively free to decide the extent and size of their governments. Right?

  • Of course. Ron Paul isn’t fighting to establish a new ideological regime. He is fighting for an originalist application of the Constitution.

  • Is it really correct to say that he is “FOR legalizing drugs?” Rather, isn’t it the case that he believes the legality of this issue should not be decided at a federal level?

    Not to be nit-picky, but I feel it’s a crucial distinction, especially when trying to challenge assertions that Ron Paul is a soulless heathen who wants everyone to smoke pot.

  • @JL: Absolutely correct JL, this would be illustrated say with prostitution regulated in Nevada or the marijuana laws now in Washington and Colorado, the States are deciding these issues.

  • JL,

    It is correct to say he is for legalizing drugs.

    One can believe, without contradiction, that the legality of the issue shouldn’t be decided at the federal level, and that the states should, for any number of reasons, legalize drugs.

    What he doesn’t believe is that they ought to be forced to.

    Surely there are all kinds of things we think are good ideas that we still believe ought not be forced. I would say drug legalization is one of them. Yes the states should be able to make drugs illegal. But for various reasons, they shouldn’t, and we have the right to conduct our own public campaigns to inform voters why they shouldn’t. That’s where I’m coming from on this.

  • One can believe, without contradiction, that the legality of the issue shouldn’t be decided at the federal level, and that the states should, for any number of reasons, legalize drugs.

    Whether or not to allow street drugs to be shipped across state lines or across the international border is a question for the federal legislature.

  • Regarding the legalization of drugs, at least one Bishop in the Roman Catholic Church has common sense, though he resides in a country other than ours:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/argentinian-archbishop-stresses-opposition-to-drug-legalization/

  • Paragraph 2291 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

    —–

    Note the words: “direct co-operation in evil” and “gravely contrary to the moral law”.

    And they should be legal? Really?

  • Last comment on this – I hope: The Church (or at least some very important and knowledgeable people in the Church) has said again and again no to drug legalization. See Section 3.2 in “PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR HEALTH PASTORAL CARE CHURCH: DRUGS AND DRUG ADDICTION” (I can’t seem to locate the actual text, only the preface – darn!):

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/rc_pc_hlthwork_doc_20011101_chiesa-droga-presentation_en.html

    The preface to this handbook says that it , “…does not treat suppression, to which the Pope makes reference stressing that we all have to fight against the production, processing and distribution of drugs in the world and that it is a special duty of governments to face with courage this fight against the ‘traffickers of death.’” That sounds like a war to any reasonable person.

    EWTN has an article entitled, “SHOULD ‘SOFT’ DRUGS BE LEGALIZED? Pontifical Council for the Family”.

    http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM

    Basically, while the article seems to waffle, the point remains: legalizing drugs makes acceptable what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “direct co-operation in evil” and “gravely contrary to the moral law”.

    So, do we believe in what John Paul II and the men under him determined, or do we believe in what someone else says whom we do not know and whose pseudonym is that of a long dead Frenchman?

  • @Art

    “Whether or not to allow street drugs to be shipped across state lines or across the international border is a question for the federal legislature.”

    Yes, but if drug use and drug production were legalized in a particular state, said state wouldn’t necessarily need to ship drugs over international borders. Of course, that could lead all sorts of messy inter-state differences in drug law and instead of having the Mexico-US dynamic we have now, maybe you’d have something like Minnesota-Wisconsin with the associated gang violence.

    I am, for the record, opposed to legalizing drugs, but I think most of my ideas aren’t really relevant in a pluralistic society with natural rights embedded as a permanent philosophical fixture.

  • Of course, that could lead all sorts of messy inter-state differences in drug law and instead of having the Mexico-US dynamic we have now, maybe you’d have something like Minnesota-Wisconsin with the associated gang violence.

    1. States can and do vary in the contours of their drug laws. Nothing new there.

    2. Mexico does not allow free traffick in street drugs. They just have difficulties enforcing the law.

    3. All else being equal, you would not expect Minnesota and Wisconsin to have problems with organized crime of the same magnitude as Mexico. The homicide rate in Wisconsin as we speak is 2.4 per 100,000. That in Minnesota is 1.4 per 100,000. These are among the more tranquil states in the union. Chile has homicide rates in this range, but as a rule Latin American societies are fairly crime-ridden and homicide rates in the range of 13 to 25 per 100,000 are normal.

  • Paul P,

    I don’t believe people should go to prison for using or possessing drugs.

    I support and have called for the U.S. military to destroy the drug cartels in Mexico.

    Your public attacks against me, under your name and the name “Abner” are malicious, pathetic, and will no longer be tolerated.

  • Who are you, Bonchamps? Why do you need a pseudonym?

    The Church has said no to legalizing a direct cooperation with evil and has called on govt’s to fight against it.

    Who cares who Abner is. You know who I am, but no one knows who you are except for being a libertarian spokesperson and a promoter of dope legalization.

  • Thanks, Art Deco. That’s my whole point. Bonchamps is brilliant when it comes to liberty and philosophy and those kinds of subjects. I have quoted him admiringly on Facebook and at my blog. But he’s dead wrong about some things and he just doesn’t want to hear it. Unfortunately, I can’t argue as eloquently as he. Nevertheless, he’s still wrong about drug legalization and one other subject I won’t mention. Gee whiz!

  • Nonsense. I’ve never avoided answering your questions and responding to your points and making my reasoned positions quite clear. It is you who can’t tolerate me disagreeing with you, you who resorts to making outrageous and unfounded statements about my character, you who posts lengthy screeds attacking me.

    You should be ashamed of your behavior. You should apologize for it.

  • “The Church has said no to legalizing a direct cooperation with evil and has called on govt’s to fight against it.”

    That’s as good a basis as any, in my opinion, to oppose something.

    What troubles me is that it is inconsistently applied. That is to say, I find that many times on this blog, by authors and in the comboxes, Church moral and social teachings are used to legitimize already held-beliefs, but are not necessarily sources of belief and conviction in their own right. So we see Church teaching used to oppose things like abortion and gay marriage (correctly), but being ignored in other areas where it may conflict with pre-conceived positions,

    I find this especially true in matters of foreign policy. In fact, authors and commentors have not only failed to use the abundance of Church guidance in forming their positions on these matters, which include but are not limited to economic sanctions, wars of aggression, torture, and the current US drone campaign, but they often hold positions that are directly in contradiction to the Church’s proscriptions.

    I think this is a topic certainly worthy of exploration, and I would like to hear comments from others.

  • Paul:

    Although I am as against the decriminalization of the possession and use of drugs as you are, it is not a matter of Church teaching per se as you seem to believe. The handbook you link to expresses a prudential judgment and is therefore not binding.

    Although I am against the decriminalization of marijuana, I think a valid argument can be made for it. But harder drugs like heroin and crystal meth, it would be dangerously assine to decriminalize the possession and use of such drugs, given their extremely addictive nature and the danger that people under the influence of such drugs pose to society.

  • “instead of having the Mexico-US dynamic we have now, maybe you’d have something like Minnesota-Wisconsin with the associated gang violence.”

    Well, we do already have a similar situation with regard to cigarette smuggling across state lines from low-tax states (MO, IN) to higher-tax states (IL). I have yet to see any evidence of violent gang border wars raging across the Mississippi or Wabash rivers, however.

  • I find this especially true in matters of foreign policy. In fact, authors and commentors have not only failed to use the abundance of Church guidance in forming their positions on these matters, which include but are not limited to economic sanctions, wars of aggression, torture, and the current US drone campaign, but they often hold positions that are directly in contradiction to the Church’s proscriptions.

    1. Drones are precisely targeted and much less likely to result in the death of innocents than other technologies.

    2. There is no comprehensive and binding Church teaching which prohibits the use of economic sanctions, aggressive war, or torture (or the use of enslavement as a legal punishment). It is the justice or injustice incorporated in their use that is key.

    3. ‘Torture’ is an inflammatory term to describe various practices (simulated drowning, noodling about with the temperature in jail cells, &c.) not normally considered to be under that rubric. Peace-and-justice Catholics need their excuses and making a great deal of hay about this is one of them. It’s 79% humbug. More humbug concerns capital punishment (with regard to which certain boundary conditions are at least clear), various and sundry welfare programs, and ‘preventive war’.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .