Random Observations On 2012

RON PAUL'S supporters are often unfairly accused of disregarding electability. The truth is that electability matters greatly to us, but only if we have multiple candidates to choose from. Many of us are unwilling to support RINOs and known liars who

• have shown a willingness to tailor their message to the audience (and thus cannot be trusted to follow through on anything they claim to believe in),
• have embraced bigger, more intrusive government as the preferred solution to a host of social and economic ills,
• supported a government mandate to force Americans to purchase health insurance,
• eagerly look forward to sending more American soldiers into harm's way while having never served in the military themselves, and
• view the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution as bothersome details to be skirted by fair means or foul.

For us, there is only one choice. Every one of these statements applies to every Republican presidential candidate left in the race, except for Ron Paul.
If electability trumps principle so completely that these facts shouldn't matter, then what is the real purpose of this election? It would seem that Albert Nock was right when he wrote in 1936 that elections had become merely "a contest for control and management" of an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus and the power it afforded. Is this election about whose turn it is to run the big government, or is it about limiting the federal government?

ON THAT note, here's a thought for those of you who claim to believe in "small" government as opposed to "big" government. What makes government big: the price tag or the level of involvement in people's affairs? The Tea Party movement has rightly called much attention to the insanity of our government consistently spending more than its revenues. It has also argued effectively for the economic benefits of keeping money in the private sector where it can be used productively rather than destructively. But the election results so far indicate that many conservatives are willing to settle for promises of a more efficient government in lieu of a more limited one.
I submit that government is not made smaller by reducing spending, but by repealing excessive and unjust laws and regulations. A government which more efficiently intrudes itself into the affairs of individuals, families, businesses and foreign nations does not appeal to me.

DONATIONS from active duty military personnel to Ron Paul''s campaign in the last quarter totaled six times the amount given to all other Republican presidential candidates combined. Not bad for the one candidate who isn't afraid to criticize the unjust wars these men and women are being called on to wage. Come to think of it, maybe there's even a connection.



YOUNG VOTERS have overwhelmingly backed Ron Paul in the election thus far. Conventional wisdom (or its modern substitute) looks to youthful rebellion as the explanation. There's probably a bit of that, but as one who has rubbed shoulders with more Ron Paul supporters than most media pundits even know about, I think there's a more relevant explanation. Americans who are thirty and under, for the most part, are skeptical of the federal government's ability to deliver on the absurd promises our grandparents extorted from it. Many of us view entitlement programs as somewhere between a Ponzi scheme and a bad joke, rather than hallowed symbols of the American Way. We tend to be equally skeptical of the idea that the rest of the world longs to be liberated and democratized by an overwhelming application of military force, and perhaps less inclined to oblige even if such a desire exists. This is understandable, considering that we hope to inherit whatever is left of our country when the baby boomers are finished looting it.



DR. PAUL is often criticized for not promising to endorse the eventual nominee, whoever that is. Some GOP elites are on record saying that he should be thrown out of the party for his unwillingness to make such a commitment. Does anyone really think that any of these hypocrites would endorse Dr. Paul if he were the nominee? I didn't think so. Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, among others , have indicated that they would vote for Obama rather than Paul. Hmmm.



AT THE RISK of sounding a bit conspiratorial, I can't help noting that:

• Ron Paul is the only candidate whose percentages in every caucus and primary, without a single exception, have gone down as the total percentage of votes reported goes up;
• Ron Paul was close to winning Iowa and close to second in Nevada;
• For the first time in history, Iowa's vote count was moved to a secret location;
• Iowa and Nevada both claim to be unable to report a precise count;
• Both caucuses were handled so badly (whether intentionally or not) that the Iowa GOP chair and the Nevada GOP chair both resigned afterward.

I'm just saying.

This Was A Battle?

This recently leaked video provides the context for an excellent piece of advice from one of America's finest: Don't bring your kids to a battle. It also explains just what qualifies for "a battle" to video-game addicts turned loose on the real world, with formidable weapons and technology and the arrogance of the world's only superpower behind them. Don't let kids watch the video, either.

I don't for a minute believe that the actions of this crew are representative of most American soldiers. Nor do I believe, on the other hand, that this was a unique, isolated incident. Here are two examples from my own personal experience:

A friend of mine currently serving as an infantryman in Iraq told me personally that one of his superiors, during a routine patrol in southern Baghdad, fired a missile at random into a civilian dwelling to demonstrate the weapon to a new member of the unit, then justified his actions to his furious fellow-soldiers by reminding them that the US would compensate the homeowner (assuming he survived to file a claim) for the damage.

A former Blackwater medic who was teaching a tactical EMS class I took last year told us: "Blackwater isn't running around over there killing innocent Iraqis, mainly because there are no innocent Iraqis." I know, this wasn't an American soldier, but the attitude is common to many in uniform as well as out.

What I do believe is that some American soldiers are simply violent individuals who enjoy the opportunity to kill and destroy (case #1 above); that some are decent Americans who lose their moral compass in the violence and confusion of alternately fighting and supporting various elements of an insurgency created by their own leaders (case #2 above); and that the large majority are just too cowardly to expose the actions of the first two groups.

By the way, my apologies to the anonymous posters who occasionally post relevant comments here: I've been so inundated with spam comments that I've had to limit comments to registered users.

Thanks, Xman!

I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to "xpressive1515" for a beautiful illustration of the problems I've been addressing in my last two posts. When I said that many Americans, conservatives and liberals alike, are incapable of critical thinking, and that most conservatives are "inexcusably myopic" in their views on the sanctity of life, I didn't expect to have my statements underscored by such a pointed object lesson.

This individual disliked my assessment of the moral questions raised by the killing of non-combatants in war. They began charitably enough, noting that I am a product of the "extremely liberal" northeast. Unfortunately, I can claim no such excuse for the unconventional opinions expressed here. I am actually the product, by the grace of God, of a west coast navy pilot with excellent critical thinking skills and a southern preacher's daughter with a passion for history. They conspired to instill in us a love of learning, and encouraged us to study God's word and grapple with the difficult questions raised by our studies rather than simply trying to clone themselves. My grandfather was the only member of his gun crew to survive Okinawa. I have ancestors who fought in WWI, both sides of the War Between the States, the War of 1812, the Revolutionary War, and the French and Indian War. I am married to the granddaughter of, not one, but two navy captains. I live in an extremely conservative area, one of the heaviest Republican concentrations in the country. I am actually a Republican myself. In short, the explanation offered for my inability to reconcile the concept of justice with the killing of civilians is insufficient. I must accept full responsibility for my opinions.

The aforementioned charity, besides being misplaced, was remarkably short-lived. This individual began by taking issue with the concept of "innocent civilians," stating a biblical principle dealing with man's relationship to God and arrogating that principle to the question of man to man relationships. They further developed this fallacy by stating that "justice sometimes requires the killing of one's enemies to right wrongs" and invoking the bombing of Hiroshima, Hanoi and Iraqi and Afghan villages as examples. No attempt was made to demonstrate the assertion, so naturally, I asked what connection, if any, existed. Specifically, I inquired as to "the connection between justice as you understand it and the preventable deaths of non-combatants who have no control over the political, strategic or tactical actions of their nation's military?"

At this point, our xpressive friend had four options: (1) - attempt to demonstrate the justice of the actions in question; (2) - revise the history of the actions themselves (a common technique known as lying); (3) - try to redefine the concept of justice to reconcile the two; or (4) - ignore the question altogether. Quite honestly, I expected the first - or at the very least I hoped for it.

Instead, our friend offered an eight point rebuttal that consisted of transparent fallacies and other minor irrelevancies, none of which brought any new or old information to bear on the question. As an explanation or defense of the author's opinion it is unworthy of attention, but taken as an example of a decrepit state of mind that is all too common, it may be worth a cursory examination.

Passing over the first item for lack of words with which to answer it, we come to a sarcastic expression of regret that our military was not informed of the injustice of wiping out two entire Japanese cities to avoid the necessity of an invasion. Actually there were Americans who spoke out against our adoption of the Nazi method of air warfare at the time. The military leaders who made that decision justified it on strategic grounds, for the obvious reason that it could be justified on no other. I personally reject the notion that the only options were a wholesale slaughter of civilians or a long and bloody invasion. The bomb could have been used against the Japanese fleet or against land based military assets. Negotiations could have been opened with the Japanese with a real likelihood of success, considering the fact that their backs were to the wall. Since neither of these alternative steps were taken, we will never know whether our choices were really as limited as indicated. Regardless, bombing non-combatants to bring one's enemies to the table is morally indistinguishable from killing a murderer's family members to help bring him to justice.

The third item misquotes my assertion that Vietnam posed no credible threat to Americans, presumably because our friend was unable to dispute the actual statement. It is much easier to make one's opponent say what one wishes he had said and then attack the straw man than to go to the trouble of inventing historical details out of thin air. Items four and six allege similarities between my position and those of Carter and Obama, more evidence that the author didn't bother to read my previous posts to understand the perspective that so grated on his nerves.

Item five bothered me, I confess. The invocation of "the spirit of '76" brings the methodical revision of our history into sharp focus. The spirit of '76 was a passion for freedom and a grim determination to protect one's liberties, family, neighbors and homeland at all costs. Professional soldiers invading a foreign nation unprovoked have nothing in common with those farmers and tradesmen who stood together on their own soil to defend their homes and repel an invader.

And then, the coup de grace! I am a suspected North Korean who may have received assistance with voting from ACORN. How will I ever hold up my head again in cyberspace after that brilliant rebuttal?

Actually, the mere fact that xpressive1515 hit "submit" on that comment should be enough to shame him or her into hiding for a while. While I don't expect that to occur, I hope this display of foolishness will serve to prompt more thoughtful consideration of the fundamental question here by those who possess the requisite cognitive skills. I have many good friends who disagree with me, and all of them could have done a better job of defending their position. But none of them are able to address the real reason that conservatism is dying. Until Americans begin to associate conservatives with intellectual honesty and consistency again, they will not recognize true conservative thought as superior to liberal emotionalism, because what passes for conservative thought today is mostly parrotted, euphemistic party-speak.