Mark Levin plays an audio clip Of Ron Paul accusing George Bush and the CIA of dealing drugs. Is Levin conducting a witch-hunt against Paul, or is he right to play these clips? You decide.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
Not if they are true…
tomyj1
The Paulites are as protective of the truth about RP as Obama’s ilk is of the truth about him.
Odd how that works.
Daniel Noe writes: “Mark Levin plays an audio clip Of Ron Paul accusing George Bush and the CIA of dealing drugs.”
Given that Dr. Paul is most assuredly “outside [what Mr. Levin calls] the conservative mainstream” (which most definitely did include George H.W. Bush – as Director of the CIA [1976-1977] dealing drugs for purposes of operational expediency), what does that say about the corrupt and fraudulent character of What Mr. Levin considers “the conservative mainstream,” anyway?
That a scrupulously honest observer – and constitutionalist – like Ron Paul notes this behavior in the Republican establishment, and does not hesitate to comment upon it says that:
(1) Ron Paul is not a blind party loyalist, willing to betray his principles both as an American and as an oatrh-sworn officer of the U.S. government,
(2) The Republican Party establishment was then and continues now to be absolutely and unquestionably corrupt,
(3) Mr. Levin is a duplicitous individual incapable of simple moral or intellectual integrity.
The first two points advance reasons for supporting Dr. Paul in his campaign for the presidency.
The third marks Mr. Levin as a professional failure in the world of journalism, and therefore to hell with him.
Tucci78
Please see my comment below re Ron Paul being a voluntaryist.
Did you know this, or are you just finding out?
If the former, then lets have a real conversation as to what his / your vision really is rather than hiding behind a redefined “liberty” etc. If the latter, then do you still stand with that, or will you run from hims?
God bless
Sapient squeals in alarm in an effort to demonize voluntaryism (“the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all”) and asks me personally if I know of Dr. Paul’s sentiments which align with those of the people who characterize themselves as voluntaryist, such as Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith.
Having followed the political career of Dr. Paul for roughly thirty years now (and having met and spoken with him at some length during a convention about a quarter-century ago), I’m not only aware of his sentiments in this regard but heartily endorse them.
Each of us, as physicians, secure from our patients and/or their caregivers “informed consent” before undertaking diagnostic and therapeutic activities on those patients’ behalf, and we tend to think of such consent as absolutely essential to every aspect of the doctor/patient relationship.
Should such consent not also be essential in the relationship between the officers of government and the private citizen?
What is it that bothers you about “consent,” Sapient? Are you, perchance, either a thief or a rapist?
Tucci78
Just checking…and just to make sure I know where you stand: are you advocating a stateless society?
BTW: I am always curious how a stateless society would work when those who promote it can’t even refrain from insults,etc on a website. That said, I do hope for an honest and adult conversation w/o the typical RP / anarchist insults, “are you a rapist or thief,” squeal,” etc.
The reason Ron Paul seems a “bit” of our the mainstream, has been outed. No, not by his enemies, but by his friends over at the Mises Institute, founded and CEO’d by Paul’s former chief of staff.
I challenge you to watch their video “Ron Paul is a voluntaryist” and note the caption:
“In this video, using Ron Paul’s own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul’s goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State.” –Graham Wright, Ron Paul is a Voluntaryist..
BTW: in case you do not know, voluntaryism is the anarchist branch of the Libertarian party.
Ron Paul himself has said he takes voluntaryist positions.
Watch what Ron Paul says and you will see he looks at a time “before” the Constitution as the ideal rather than what the Constitution was designed to accomplish:
ADAM KOKESH:
Do you think we have a chance of achieving a society based on those ideals (voluntaryism) in America?
RON PAUL:
Not soon. We had a relative voluntary society (you know) in our early history, but steadily, even after the Constitution was passed, steadily it was undermined and it systematically grew, it grew certainly through the 20th century; that is the authoritarian approach, which is the opposite. That is: the government tells us everything we can do and can’t do. [..]
RP incessently quotes and refers to Murray Rothbard…and that should be enought in itself to alarm you.
RP supporters: you either know it, or have just found out. There is an “anarchist bomb” awaiting the unsuspecting.
So, if you knew ,lets have an honest conversation as to what you REALLY want for this nation.
God bless
“There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness.” — George Washington Maxims
Sapient puzzlingly yelps: “RP [Ron Paul] incessantly quotes and refers to Murray Rothbard….”
Why should he not do so? Dr. Paul had known Dr. Murray Rothbard (an Austrian School economist who had written and spoken with scathing effectiveness until his passing in 1995) for some decades, and like many others who appreciate the value of Dr. Rothbard’s research into and thoughts upon practice and theory, Dr. Paul refers to Rothbard’s work as valuable explanations of how and why our economy functions.
As well as how and why that economy is impaired and is presently being brought to the brink of utter destruction by fiat currency inflation and other peculations perpetrated by those who are currently known by the apt term “banksters,” particularly the officers of the Federal Reserve System.
Why, Sapient, do you so frenetically fear Murray Rothbard?
For my own part, I enjoyed the man thoroughly, and continue referring to his publications from time to time. Rothbard’s fellow economist Walter Block once reminisced:
“When asked what was the source of his prodigious scholarly and popular output, he would reply: ‘Hatred is my muse.’ He would read something, say by a Marxist, Keynesian, or Chicagoite, become infused with disgust, and swear a mighty oath that this particular bit of idiocy would no longer stand, at least without a reaction from him.”
Jeez, how can anyone of moral and intellectual integrity not take delight in such a scholar and advocate of individual human rights?
Thanks
I DO like that Rothbard quote and couldn’t have said it better myself….Jefferson said something quite similar “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
So, I commend hm for that….sad Rothbard didn’t realize that anarchy is one of those bits of idiocy that is always presented as a good idea–but is the short road to tyranny.
Only elitists can look at its failure in history and believe it would be different for them, this time–so, they have missed the very basis of it–human nature.. But, such is the way of history, and those who believe they are above it for one reason or another.
BTW: I noticed Jefferson swore on “the altar of God,” Who’s reality give a whole different perspective. Might be important
Rothbard and the Founders are on opposite ends of the spectrum…and cannot both be right. I’ll go with them.
God bless
Just as many Americans were duped into voting for the Hoax & Chains mantra of Obama, it is a tragedy that some conservatives are of late being snookered with a similar tactic from the likes of Ron Paul. As history shows, Liber-als and Liber-tarians are two sides of the same coin of Libertinism/anarchism. Liber-alism leads to the tyranny of Collectivism and Liber-tarianism to the tyranny of Anarchy.
Of the three major policy platforms, Social – Fiscal – National Security; Liber-als & Liber-tarians basically agree on Social & National Security policy. Their main disagreement is over Fiscal policy. Further proof of this is, recently Liberals like Jon Stewart, Barney Frank, Marxist Oliver Stone-d, and Snoop Dog have all embraced Ron Paul. Ron Paul also votes with the likes of Barney Frank, Socialist Dennis Kucinich, et al. on Liberal issues. Paul also voted with Liber-als to force ho m ose x ua lity upon our combat troops during a time of war, and joining with Bill Ayres, Code Pink, and Michael Moore in calling the gay WikiLeaks traitor Manning a “true hero and patriot”.
The Liber-tarians, just like their Libertine cousins, resent our Judeo-Christian heritage and try to revise it & our Founders as being amoral, and our Constitution as the chaotic Articles of Confederation. However, once the façade is cleared away, many self-described Liber-tarians are actually exposed as secular humanists, agnostics, supremacists, neo-Confederates, or Dominionists.
Murray Rothbard, the mentor of Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, has been described as the Saul Alinsky of the Right. I disagree with the “Right” part of that statement, for as described above, Liber-tarians agree on more issues with Liber-als than Conservatives. Rothbardian Liber-tarianism, like Liberalism, springs from the well of anarchism. Murray Rothbard was a self-hating Jew and atheist like George Soros. This also explains Paul’s infamous “newsletters” controversy, the movement’s attraction for anti-Se mi tes of all sorts, and policy of appeasement towards j i h a d i s t s.
Ron Paul is also a “Voluntaryist” as shown by his own words on video. Internet search it today, as this is openly discussed by Liber-tarians online. Then checkout Paul’s “Lord of the Flies” vision for America on display at the annual Liber-tarian event called PorcFest: tinyurl (dot) com/7yqhozr
We need a new American Revolution to restore a Reaganesque conservatism, but not the French Revolution being called for by Ron Paul.
“Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.” – James Madison
9thID (ostensibly of the Psychedelic Cookie, but probably just Sapient sockpuppeting) – yammers about voluntaryism and strives psychoneurotically to conflate libertarianism with “Liberalism,” which writer Greg Costikyan once eloquently characterized as “milk-and-water socialism.”
Not friggin’ hardly, putzie.
Squeals of umbrage about Dr. Paul’s alleged “antisemitism” are hilarious, especially coming from someone who hates the man for his friendship with economist Murray Rothbard.
Last December, Walter Block (yet another explicitly libertarian professional economist) had published a “Response to a Jewish Opponent of Ron Paul,” a point-by-point refutation of various fatuously groundless excuses for objection to Dr. Paul’s candidacy.
In the process, Dr. Block referred to one of the many debunking dissections of the newsletter hoo-hah, published by Justin Raimondo four years ago, and that’s worth a look, too.
As for “Murray Rothbard…[having] been described as the Saul Alinsky of the Right,” I’m pretty sure that Murray himself would’ve kvelled to hear such a thing, as he sure as hell would’ve taken great pleasure in discussing such an idiotic contention.
Which makes me terribly sorry that Dr. Rothbard isn’t around to participate in such an exchange.
We miss you, Murray….
9thID
Indeed…well said.
What truly concerns me is the dishonesty and subterfuge here..seems to be born of elitism…but that’s just me. But there is definitely a redefining of crucial terms, etc so that it sounds like they are talking about one thing, but actually saying something the opposite.
RP cannot say he is a libertarian, or he wouldn’t be elected in his district…and wouldn’t now w/o outside money.
They cannot come out and say who they are and what they are for, because they will be soundly rejected, so they use the Constitution, a select number of “good Founders” and a false definition of “liberty” to hide their true intent and purpose.
Jefferson, who they do at least say they accept said “The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” –Thomas Jefferson, A Summary View of the Rights of British America, 1775
Funny, they can’t seem to muster that honesty thing.
BTW: did you like the “sock puppet” comment. Speaks for itself.
God bless
What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. James Madison: Federalist No. 51 (1788-02-06) [9]
The more the bleating masses of sheeple degrade a man, who they haven’t a shred of knowledge about, the more I am convinced that we are doomed, Ignorance will prevail in 12 just as it did in 08, it never ceases to amaze me as to how people can repete a lie so many times that not only do they believe it themselves… they are able to make others who cannot think for themselves, believe it as well.
I am certain that were mankind to venture forth into the universe, REAL intelligence would stare in amazement, as to how such ignorance could have come so far without destroying themselves.
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4609
Rip
Re: “Bleating masses.”
Am I to assume that appellation applies to anyone not so enlightened as to embrace Ron Paul?
I ask because that is precisely the sentiment over at the Mises Institute, and others on this therad re Ron Paul coming out of the closet and his role as “educator” leading people gradually into the anarchist view:
“Changing somebody into a voluntaryist is a gradual thing and it’s something that’s probably easier to glide into rather than jump into. So I think you’re right. But there comes a point where you reach critical mass and Ron Paul has appealed to all of the people who are serious thinkers and at that point he can drop the anarchist bomb on his fans.”
So, do I gather than you would be one of those “serious thinkers” while the rest are “bleating masses?”
Kinda self affirming isn’t it? “Only serious thinkers embrace RP and voluntaryism. How do you recognize a serious thinker? They have embraced RP and voluntaryism.”
What is so amazing about that is that this is precisely what a group loosely called “the elite” do…kind of a condescension thing….where they are “above” the rest and the laws made by the rest just don’t apply to them.
OMG–that is what the voluntaryist think too.
You may have RP and Rothbard, Spooner, etc. I’ll stick with Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Locke and the rest.
God bless
“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” –Thomas Jefferson
After having read some of the posts above, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps erroneously, that some of us still do not understand the wore LIBERTY. The root word comes from Latin – libre – which means free. Then to top it all off, Ron Paul is vilified for championing the idea of liberty!
The arguments are inconsistent.
Some say they believe in Liberty, but not Ron Paul’s brand of Liberty. They seem to prefer the brand of Liberty promoted by the One World Order members of the Council on Foreign Relations -ie. You are free to do exactly as I tell you. Peace Robert Walker
Robert
There is true liberty, which we are all for ,and there is its counterfeit. The root word of anything may have no bearing on its usage at a particular time.
What does have a bearing is that the Founders made a clear distinction between true liberty, and license, and anarchy…they are not the same thing, though, like a good counterfeit, it tries to come as close to the real thing as possible.
“This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.” —George Washington, Farewell Address.
Anarchists do not agree. The Founders held sacred “We the people,” while anarchist disdain the idea.
All that glitters is hardly gold.
God bless
Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honour, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, April 16, 1776