I’ve occasionally gotten “carping comments” accusing me, directly or indirectly, of only paying “lip service” to the notion that I’m “not a conservative”. One sits in “moderation jail” right now as I figure out what to do with it.
(Dealing with such things is last on my “to do” priority list… there is also a “carping comment” from the same source bitching about the ‘delay’ in their posts… Well, that’s what you get when first you practice the art of being a bottom sucking filter feeder carp(er). No, not sorry. It’s just a fact) Were a conservative agenda being shoved down my throat against my will, I’d be saying more against it. Since it isn’t, and won’t be for years (decades?) I see no reason to toss rocks at them.)
But something has come up that gives me a chance to Throw Stones at both sides (and perhaps in some small way demonstrate that my contempt for un-truth has no sides…)
He’s painted as a ding-bat coo-coo-bird “Right Wing Conservative” by the “Loony Left” (and not by my Democrat Texas Uncle nor by my Democrat Florida Friend…) and he’s painted as just a ding-bat by the Radical Right.
(Oh, I also had, in the letter in “Moderation Jail”, a complaint that I used “Dimocrat” – which I reserve for the most Dim of them… i.e. not my Texas Uncle who has a lot of clue nor my Florida Friend who is also richly endowed with clue, nor even Lieberman who’s clue drove him away from the Dimocrats… more on that later- but did not similarly insult Republicans. Apparently either being completely unable to read “Radical Right” or more likely being so in agreement with the positing that he simply could not see it as an insult to those on the right… But such is life in the middle of the road, being run over from both sides…)
So Ron Paul has said many things with which I agree (at this moments all the Dimocrats will be painting me as a “Bright Red REPUBLICAN MONSTER DING-BAT WHO LOVES RON PAUL!!!!”; not being capable of getting out of their hedge-hog rut long enough to realize that I might simply look for truth and that even a stopped clock “tells the truth” twice a day… [at this moment all the Radical Right who Loves Ron Paul will be painting me as a “Bright Blue DEMOCRATIC MONSTER DING-BAT WHO HATES RON PAUL!!!”. Such is life in the middle of the road…] but I digress) and he has said some things that I think are a bit nutty (repeat above parenthetical digression but swap the two words “REPUBLICAN” and “DEMOCRAT” and swap attribution of the “who hates whom”…).
But, by and large, he follows a Libertarian Agenda, so I find I agree with more of his stuff than that which I find to be trash. (Now both sides will commence tossing verbal grenades at me…)
OK, his latest missive is one with which I am in complete agreement. I can find nothing in it that is not correct, and accurate. I’m reproducing it here, in full, as found in a link (that I suspect also had no rights to it… then again, I’ve never heard of a politician complaining that someone promoted their speech…)
From (h/t R. de Haan):
Ron Paul: Libya Airstrikes Unconstitutional – Only Congress Can Declare War
March 18, 2011
Mr. Speaker: I rise to introduce a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya. As many in the administration, Congress, and elsewhere clamor for the president to initiate military action to support those seeking to overthrow the Libyan regime, Congress sits by, as usual, pretending that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution does not exist. According to this long-ignored section, ‘‘The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
This is black letter law, not some aspirational statement by our Founders. Their intent was indisputably clear: Congress alone, not the Executive Branch, has the authority and the obligation to declare war if hostilities are to be initiated against a foreign state that has not attacked the United States.
Let us be clear about one thing: for the US to take action to establish a “no fly” zone over all or part of Libya would constitute an act of war against Libya. For the US to establish any kind of military presence on the sovereign territory, waters, or over the airspace of Libya is to engage in a hostile action that requires Congressional authorization.
Whatever we may think about the Gaddafi regime, we must recognize that this is a coup d’etat in a foreign country. What moral right do we have to initiate military action against Libya? Libya has not attacked the United States. Neither the coup leaders nor the regime pose an imminent threat to the United States and therefore, as much as we abhor violence and loss of life, this is simply none of our business.
I would remind my colleagues that we have been here before. In the 1990s we established “no fly” zones and all manner of sanctions against Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in attempt to force him from power. When that did not work — at a high cost in Iraqi lives — the US ultimately went to war to achieve these ends. The costs of this war, I do not need to remind my colleagues, was much higher even, in US military lives, in Iraqi civilian lives, in our diminished moral standing in the world, in our economy. Yet none of us seem able to learn from an enormous mistake made only a few years ago. Once again a bad man is doing bad things thousands of miles away and once again irresponsible voices are demanding that the US “do something” about it. Will we ever learn? We continue to act as the policemen of the world at our own peril, and as we continue we only accelerate our economic collapse.
Let the supporters of yet another war in the Middle East come forth to make their case for a US attack against Libya. I will strongly oppose such a move, but it should be very clear that if a war against Libya is to be initiated it must be declared by the proper Constitutional authority: the US Congress.
OK, some housekeeping just so not TOO many rocks are headed my way:
1) Being in agreement with the points a person makes does not make you a blanket supporter of the person. Mussolini had the trains run on time and Stalin advanced the Russian economy greatly. I admire both for those things. They were both power hungry bastards that I would assassinate in a heartbeat as a C.I.A. operative and would gladly pull the trigger myself with zero remorse. Is that clear enough? (For some reason many folks, especially those on the more loony side of left and the more radical side of right, start with “the agenda” and if you don’t fit it, you must be “evil”, so being both pro and anti an “evil person” must mean you are evil (and lying)… If you start instead from “did a thing work” and leave out the agenda, it all ‘fits’, but they can not leave out the agenda, for it drives all… I’d say “all thought” but that would require “facts not in evidence” from both ends…)
2) “The facts just are. -E.M.Smith” so Ron Paul makes some statements about what the constitution says. Easy enough to check. Read it. That IS what it says. Don’t like that? Go pound sand. There is no constitutional right to be happy or have everything be what you like. (Though you can pursue happiness…)
3) “The ends do not justify the means”. That really bad stuff will happen from what is going on in Libya does not justify ANY “means” to ANY “ends”. There is zero value or importance of the outcome toward any agreement (or lack of agreement) with “the facts” and it does not justify changing the process. See #2 again.
4) There is a process to reach “consensus” as to the “means” to be applied. The “ends” and expected outcomes ought to be presented to that process and, well, processed. Then you can bitch about the events being so horrible that someone ought to do something… IFF the consensus on Libya is “something needs to be done and we ought to do it” they I’m ready to join-up and “do the doing”. Until then, “Not My Problem”. The Dimocrats are SOoooo fond of “consensus” just right up until it might blow up in their collective faces…
5) Not being susceptible to an “Ends justifies the means” argument does NOT mean either that I agree with “the other side” nor does it mean I’m “an evil heartless bastard”. It does mean that I see the “need” as saying “Go to Point #4 and do the approved path”.
So I find myself, at this point, in 100% agreement with Ron Paul on this speech. We ought not to delegate our responsibility to others just because it is unpleasant. Let those who would send the children of this nation (and of particular families and parents); let those who would send the parents of young children, the children of those soldiers; let them stand up and defend their reasons and be known and counted.
If they can’t muster the guts to do that, they need to resign right now. They are not fit to “serve” and deserve nothing more than to lick the boots of those soldiers they would send to death. Republican AND Democrat alike.
Under the Republicans, we did the same stupid dance. They are just as bad as the Dimocrats on this score.
The whole POINT of the mandate for congress to declare war is to make it hard and painful to go to war. When you can, with impunity, send someone else to die for your aggrandizement, the only result is evil. We have a congress of cowards on both sides unwilling to even show the courage of a vote, but quite willing to send good soldiers to their death on the chance they would personally benefit; as long as they have “plausible deniability”. Not Good Enough.
So “man up” congress. Stand up and say, in public and for the record, just why any sons and daughters of others ought to go die for your cause.
Otherwise, STFU; sit down and keep those folks at home with their families.
Sidebar on Lieberman
Some time back, we had an election or three… At one time Lieberman was running on one ticket and John McCain was running on another. Since then, Lieberman has become an “Independent” (meaning he told the party bosses to go pound sand… gotta love that…).
WHILE Lieberman was a Democrat, I was talking with my Florida Friend and lamenting my choices.
What I opined then, and hold to, to this day, was that we had the wrong tickets from both sides. What I wanted, what I would love to vote for was a McCain / Lieberman ticket.
I wasn’t sure, then, if it ought to be a “Lieberman / McCain” ticket, but thought it would be “well worth the fun” to have a Jew as VP so the “nutter radical Muslim Arabs” (who had recently attacked us) could decide if they wanted to attack the President and have a Jew with his finger on the nukes… I thought there was certain “poetic justice” in the scenario…
FWIW, while I usually avoid directly Political topics and prefer to stay in the Economic and Technical, my present political preference would be to vote for exactly that ticket. Though given recent events I’m leaning a bit more toward “Lieberman / McCain”…
So, back at Now
So, who among us is really ready to stand up and say “I vote for casting the First Stone.”? Clearly, it’s nobody in Congress. The only person who even wants to stand and be counted is Ron Paul, and he is against.
Given that, exactly why are we busy setting about to cast a “boat load” of stones?