I support Ron Paul for president. I don't want four more years of a welfare-warfare state. I don't want four more years of Patriot Acts, extraordinary renditions, and draft threats. I don't want four more years of paying unconscionable amounts into a system that really only benefits the bureaucrats employed by it.
Now, I've had that sinking feeling for a short while, ever since the New Hampshire primary, wondering if it is even worth the effort to support a libertarian candidate who did not even finish in the top three in the "Live Free or Die" state. That night, I was absolutely depressed over that event.
However, as time went on, I considered some basic facts; all states prior to February 5 had delegates taken away from them, due to the fact that they WERE before February 5. Those states, while good PR for their winners, lost a lot of electoral clout by that stunt. But they also gave time to the hundreds of states voting on February 5th to consider their options.
Now, on the day of the New Hampshire primary, a very nasty smear piece came out about Ron Paul being a racist. What was the evidence? Articles in a single newsletter over a period of time, making statements that are on their face very racially inclined. However, how does one make the claim that a typewritten document reflects Ron Paul's personal beliefs? The only thing this proves is that during the time of these articles' publication, Ron's hand was a little too slack in quality control... which could be a bad thing in the Presidential race... if that slackness were to have persisted to this day, 15 years later, after having no doubt faced the accusations multiple times during his congressional run.
If he was slack then, and faced with those damning pieces of evidence of that slackness for all the congressional races since, I don't think he's going to be repeating that mistake, do you? And until someone can summon up an example of Ron Paul actually saying something incriminating, I am not going to put any credence to the claim that Ron Paul is a racist. And no, I refuse to fall into the guilt by association trap; racial groups support Ron Paul for the same reason that truthers, brothel owners, and anarchists (such as myself) are behind him.
Because we are being targeted by laws that are unconstitutional; just because hate speech is reprehensible (and a complete waste of otherwise good energy), this does not mean that it should be outlawed. Just because prostitution involves sex (and runs a risk of diseases) does not mean that the law has to puritanically crack down. Just because anarchy is marketed as the violent Darwinism of Mad Max, this does not mean that we support such a horrid lifestyle.
Just because the people oppressed by laws are supporting a candidate who supports freedom, does not mean that he agrees with them; in fact, the following quote perfectly sums up this particular situation: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The movie "The American President" (rather apt for this situation as well) does this one better:
"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say, 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.'"
You want to claim that this is the Land of the Free? Then you cannot just protect popular speech. You must also protect the most vile, hateful, poisonous of speech imaginable.
Not so easy, is it? Perhaps freedom is a little too scary for you?
Ron Paul stands on the side of freedom, even at the potential cost of his election. He stands alone on many votes. He stands alone in a group of warhawks. He stands alone against the War on Drugs. He stands alone on a great many things, thereby not only earning the name "Dr. No," but also "Goldbug," "Unelectable," and worse by people who have forgotten the reason for this country's birth.
Such bravery alone makes him worth the Presidency.
No comments:
Post a Comment