Was I Unfair To Ron Paul Supporters?

I received some email from a Ron Paul supporter who said that I was being unfair judging them all by the statements of a few whackos--and as the email exchange continued, he proceeded to add another Ron Paul whacko to the list:

Fred T. was a pro-abort lobbyist(love of money?), is a CFR member and has never shown by his actions(not his words) to be a lover of liberty. The lash he wields may be gentler than Hillary, but a lash it will be.

I see that Thompson apparently did work for a firm that did some lobbying on behalf of abortion groups, and appears to have been rather peripherally involved in advice to them. I can't claim to be surprised, nor particularly pleased. Now, Ron Paul is pro-life, and introduced a bill defining that life begins at conception. This does not surprise me. Dr. Paul is an ob-gyn, and apparently seeing a late-term abortion performed as part of his residency left a deep impression on him. I can appreciate and even support a pro-life libertarian position; I just don't believe that a complete ban while a strong minority still supports abortion on demand will be enforceable. (There's a lot that can be done to strongly discourage abortion without a complete ban--and a lot of private persuasive effort that can be done to shrink that abortion on demand minority.) What astonishes me is the mental gymnastics that pro-choice Ron Paul supporters have to perform to explain why their positions are not incompatible.

CFR: Council on Foreign Relations. When I start to see people blathering on about the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, I can pretty quickly discount that they know much about anything. I've read so much John Birch Society literature over the years. It's unfortunate that the Birchers engage in these bizarre conspiracy theories, because much of what they have to do say about the proper role of government is quite sensible in a conservative vein--but then the CFR/TC stuff completely destroys their credibility. If two members of the CFR say the same thing, it's proof of conspiracy. If two members of the CFR say opposite things, it's proof of internal conflict within the conspiracy.

Conspiracy requires intelligence; stupidity is so much more common.

You are aware that if you look at the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto you will see central banking, income tax, free public education among the planks and what candidate other than Ron Paul wants to undo these communist doctrines that we live under.

The problems with this statement are that:

1. The Communist Manifesto's "central banking" plank isn't the Federal Reserve System. It is actually:

Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

The Federal Reserve System does not have a monopoly on banking or extending of credit. Not even close.

2. Support for free public education in America predates the Communist Manifesto. Thomas Jefferson (someone that many libertarians worship without actually understanding his positions) was among the big supporters of public education.

3. The income tax is hardly a Communist plot. The U.S. government during the Civil War adopted an income tax. I don't like paying income taxes. I would prefer a national sales tax--easier to administer, less discouraging to hard work. But seeing the income tax as a Communist conspiracy is deranged.

Politics ultimately will not be our salvation, but what concerns me is this delusion that Hillary is the enemy, if she is why have the Republicans greatly enlarged government power, knowing that she might become President someday.

Because Republican politicians concentrate on getting re-elected more than anything else. Unfortunately, limited government as a system can only survive until the voters figure out that they can vote themselves money out of the public coffers. Some of this expansion was because voters demanded more; some was because special interests demanded more, and Republican politicians were afraid that if they didn't start shoveling out the money, a Democrat would win the next election.

If the U.S.A minded its own business and truly unshackled the productiveness of free people, who would we fear?

Continual terrorist attacks. Islamofascism isn't angry at America about our support of Israel. It is angry that much of the world is both non-Muslim, and rapidly advancing in economic status, while Islamic nations have trouble getting out of poverty while sitting on an ocean of petroleum.

Is being a truther worse than being a proponent of abortion?

Yes, being a "9/11 Truther" is worse than being a proponent of abortion. The "9/11 Truthers" are committed to claiming that the U.S. government did a horrible crime that Osama bin Laden has boasted was done by his people!