YAF Expels Ron Paul

[danarhea]

Young Americans for Freedom has booted Ron Paul from it's membership, because "questions the military empire". Said the YAF director, Jordan Marks:

It’s a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative/libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security then our current socialist presidential regime. Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board. Good riddance and he won’t be missed.

You know, I have to disagree with this decision in the strongest terms. Conservatives and Libertarians have contributed greatly to some aspects of the antiwar movement. In fact, the web site Antiwar was created by Conservatives and Libertarians to protest Clinton's war in Yugoslavia.

But today I have the feeling that much of the rancor against Paul's stance is only because of who he is. After all, many that now bash him for his position strongly supported Clinton when he attacked Yugoslavia.

Finally, you can see with your own eyes that, while they are quick to paint Buckley, who founded their organization, as a Neocon, and CIA agent, they forget that his experience in the CIA was only 2 years in the 1950's, that he was against regime change without the will of the people being involved, that he was for legalization of marijuana, believed that Iraq was a disaster. Buckley may have had a few views which ran opposite to his mostly Paleocon ideology, but he was nevertheless one of the greatest Paleocon thinkers of our time. What has happened to the YAF most likely has Buckley turning in his grave. This organization is not the same as the one Buckley founded.

Who represents Goldwater better? Ron Paul or the YAF? You decide in the poll.

Article is here.

 

[StillBallin75]

It’s a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative/libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security then our current socialist presidential regime. Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office. YAF is starting the process by removing him from our national advisory board. Good riddance and he won’t be missed.

There is so much wrong with this quote I don't even know where to start.

 

[Jetboogieman]

There is so much wrong with this quote I don't even know where to start.

I think someone at the YAF is off THEIR MEDS.

 

[Cold Highway]

Not surprising in the least

YAF Kicks Ron Paul (and Bucket) « LewRockwell.com Blog

Young Americans for Freedom, the first neocon youth league—if you do not count the Young Trotskyites—has been a Beltway letterhead org since the early 1970s. Get this: it has 115 friends on Facebook. 115! Founded by CIA agent Bill Buckley, like National Review, it took libertarian domestic stands to cover its promotion of world military empire and the garrison state. Like NR, YAF eventually dropped all libertarian pretense. But now the ghost of the org, in order to get some attention (it worked) and to please those who advocate permanent war in the Middle East, has purged Ron Paul from one of its paper boards. I predict that this action, as true to its actual principles as it is, will be the end of YAF. But not even its 115 “friends” will notice. On the other hand, Young Americans for Liberty, a grassroots organization on campuses nationwide, is real. YAL is the future—the Paulian future.

 

[Redress]

Reading the Sharon Statement, I can see how Paul would not represent their foreign policy views.

 

[danarhea]

Not surprising in the least

YAF Kicks Ron Paul (and Bucket) « LewRockwell.com Blog

The irony here is that the YAF was started by Bill Buckley.

 

[Renae]

Oh goodness, a conservative group that supports the military kicks an extreme isolationist??? MADNESS

The YAF is more Reagan then Goldwater. Reagan won two terms... Goldwater... oh he lost didn't he?

 

[Cold Highway]

The irony here is that the YAF was started by Bill Buckley.

Eh, Rockwell and Co arent exactly fond of Buckley either

The CIA agent, founder of the modern conservative movement, enforcer of warfare-state discipline on the right, brilliant writer and editor, transoceanic sailor, harpsichordist, TV star, charming aristocrat, founder of National Review and Young Americans for Freedom, enabler of neoconservatism, expeller of heretics from Birchers to Rothbardians, and thoroughly bad ideological influence in general, is dead at 82. Here is the NY Times obit. David Gordon and others will have more to say about him and his movement in LRC.

UPDATE Here’s Alan Bock’s kind obit.

William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP « LewRockwell.com Blog

Bill Buckley Made Me a Libertarian. Really. by Dan Spielberg

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. by David Gordon

Oh goodness, a conservative group that supports the military kicks an extreme isolationist??? MADNESS

Dr. Paul isnt an isolationist, try again.

 

[Renae]

Eh, Rockwell and Co arent exactly fond of Buckley either



William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP « LewRockwell.com Blog

Bill Buckley Made Me a Libertarian. Really. by Dan Spielberg

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. by David Gordon


Dr. Paul isnt an isolationist, try again.

In his often recited critique of 9/11, Paul never once mentions the fiery rage of jihadi fundamentalism that aims to restore “the lost caliphate” and invoke medieval Sharia. In Paul’s world, resentment towards “U.S. entanglements” led a group of sexually repressed Muslim men, brought up on a doctrine of aggressive Wahhabism (and the promised 72 virgins), to crash two planes into the Twin Towers.

Not once does he answer why, if U.S. foreign policy causes so many people around the world to “hate us,” Islamic murderers carry out their belt-exploding best in India, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and other unaligned (Muslim) nations.

From 2007 in the Washington Post, here’s Paul talking about America’s defenses:

There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. … I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.

Not only does his rhetoric shadow that of Ahmadinejad’s “wiping off the map” spiel, it unforgivably ignores the fact that a domestic passenger flight from Boston to Los Angeles inflicted 9/11. On how a submarine is supposed to infiltrate terrorism from within, he is less clear or visionary.

Pajamas Media » Ron Paul and the Dangers of Isolationism

 

[Cold Highway]

Pajamas Media » Ron Paul and the Dangers of Isolationism

It only shows how you neocons don't know the actual deffinition of Isolationism. Once again you people confuse Dr. Paul with Cold War and Nixon era relic Pat Buchanan. Point out CIA blowback isnt isolationist, its point out facts (you know the ones you people supposedly support) that if you bomb a man's home and kill his family (either directly or indirectly) eventually it will come back to haunt you. Dr. Paul has always advocated trade and commerece with all nations, isolationism is closing all the doors and pretend that the rest of the world doesnt exist.

 

[CriticalThought]

Pajamas Media » Ron Paul and the Dangers of Isolationism

So stretching our military thin across the world and making new enemies is how we improve national security?

 

[danarhea]

So stretching our military thin across the world and making new enemies is how we improve national security?

Of course it isn't, and is probably one of the contributing factors, among many others, of 911.

 

[Whovian]

There is so much wrong with this quote I don't even know where to start.

Like the part where they call him a big weenie?

 

[Renae]

It only shows how you neocons don't know the actual deffinition of Isolationism. Once again you people confuse Dr. Paul with Cold War and Nixon era relic Pat Buchanan. Point out CIA blowback isnt isolationist, its point out facts (you know the ones you people supposedly support) that if you bomb a man's home and kill his family (either directly or indirectly) eventually it will come back to haunt you. Dr. Paul has always advocated trade and commerece with all nations, isolationism is closing all the doors and pretend that the rest of the world doesnt exist.

I'm surprised at you, Ron Paul supports the Police.

 

[danarhea]

I'm surprised at you, Ron Paul supports the Police.

So do I. Sting rocks. :mrgreen:

 

[Renae]

so do i. Sting rocks. :mrgreen:

har har har.

 

[Cold Highway]

Murray Rothband also saw this years ago

Listen, YAF by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[American]

Eh, Rockwell and Co arent exactly fond of Buckley either



William F. Buckley, Jr., RIP « LewRockwell.com Blog

Bill Buckley Made Me a Libertarian. Really. by Dan Spielberg

William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. by David Gordon


Dr. Paul isnt an isolationist, try again.

See this is why non-conservative libertarians aren't getting voted into office in number large enough to make a difference. Ron Paul ****ed himself beyond recognition in the last Republican primaries. He just wanted us to turn off the war spigot cold, and the public went "What?" :shock:

 

[Ikari]

Young Americans for Freedom has booted Ron Paul from it's membership, because "questions the military empire". Said the YAF director, Jordan Marks:



You know, I have to disagree with this decision in the strongest terms. Conservatives and Libertarians have contributed greatly to some aspects of the antiwar movement. In fact, the web site Antiwar was created by Conservatives and Libertarians to protest Clinton's war in Yugoslavia.

But today I have the feeling that much of the rancor against Paul's stance is only because of who he is. After all, many that now bash him for his position strongly supported Clinton when he attacked Yugoslavia.

Finally, you can see with your own eyes that, while they are quick to paint Buckley, who founded their organization, as a Neocon, and CIA agent, they forget that his experience in the CIA was only 2 years in the 1950's, that he was against regime change without the will of the people being involved, that he was for legalization of marijuana, believed that Iraq was a disaster. Buckley may have had a few views which ran opposite to his mostly Paleocon ideology, but he was nevertheless one of the greatest Paleocon thinkers of our time. What has happened to the YAF most likely has Buckley turning in his grave. This organization is not the same as the one Buckley founded.

Who represents Goldwater better? Ron Paul or the YAF? You decide in the poll.

Article is here.

I don't know what happens with Ron Paul and all these other people. I mean, when he was running for the GOP ticket, all the "conservatives" were against him. I remember him being railed (that's not the right word, Hannity cannot rail anyone. But he did his thing where he starts yelling about this or that, not letting the other guy really get a chance to defend, and then says they're out of time, and as the guy walks away he just insults him a few times for good measure) by Sean Hannity after a GOP Presidential Candidate Debate.

I don't trust "conservatives" who say they like Ron Paul. They've shown their colors change with the wind. Certainly wouldn't want want of those jerks in my corner.

 

[Ikari]

See this is why non-conservative libertarians aren't getting voted into office in number large enough to make a difference. Ron Paul ****ed himself beyond recognition in the last Republican primaries. He just wanted us to turn off the war spigot cold, and the public went "What?" :shock:

I don't think so. I think what happened was that the right-wing propaganda machine moved in and they really didn't allow much of his message to get out. The idea was to paint him as and extremist and someone who doesn't know what he's talking about. Now they come running to him because it turns out he was right and people should have listened and now the "conservatives" fear for their political future.

Conservatives....you can count on them as much as you can't count on the French in a fight. HAHAHAHA

 

[Zyphlin]

So stretching our military thin across the world and making new enemies is how we improve national security?

Absolutely not.

Similarly reducing our forces world wide to where we have almost no strategic ability to defend ourselves or aid our allies abroad due to sufficient bases of operations is ALSO not helpful to our national security.

There's a middle ground here that sadly neither side will reach because they refuse to acknowledge that the other side has somewhat of a point.

 

[Ockham]

Absolutely not.

Similarly reducing our forces world wide to where we have almost no strategic ability to defend ourselves or aid our allies abroad due to sufficient bases of operations is ALSO not helpful to our national security.

There's a middle ground here that sadly neither side will reach because they refuse to acknowledge that the other side has somewhat of a point.

But that's the choice isn't it? A Ron Paul says, kill the MIC, close the foreign bases, increase homeland defense, stop projecting power across the world. That's how we used to operate - and there were 2 world wars that occurred in the 20th century. Then the U.N. was formed and the U.S. stepped up and basically because the world's police force. By pulling away from that model, it (IMHO) increases the chances of yet another world war sometime in the next 20-50 years. I'm not against closing bases... just not all of them. And if the U.S. isn't the cop, then some other country(s) should. Paul isn't an isolationist, but he believes in a military that's behind glass - only to be broken in case of emergency. It's a very romantic thought. Then again, I can't see more money, more bases and more use of our military. Maybe there's a compromise... cut the bases overseas by 50% and we'll move the remainders around depending on which despots are acting up.

 

[Zyphlin]

But that's the choice isn't it?

What's the choice? Have our forces stretched thin to all reaches of the world or have absolutely no foreign bases?

No, that's not the choice. Its not an "A" or "B" question with only two possible solutions. Your later portions of the post speaks to the right methodology. Work with generals and find out what Bases are of the utmost importance with regards to the ability to deploy forces in defense of our allies or in defense of our nation should it happen. I don't believe that in general having a base in central europe, in the middle east, in the pacific, and in south america would be a bad thing. I actually think its a very needed thing. I don't believe though we need dozens of military bases all throughout the world on top of our military presence in many nations. As I said, a middle ground.

Similarly, I don't think in general we need to be acting as the world's police. At the same time, I don't think we can believably close our eyes and go "lalalalala" to the world and what's going on in it, or its potential effect on us. The ironic thing about Ron Paul and his supporters going on and on and on about Blow Back is they ignore that there is ALSO blow back from not acting. They seem to routinely however ignore the fact that consequences could and can occur from refusing to act as well. I think we should be extremely restrained with our use of military force, and I'm of the mind that you use the military much like you use a gun...you only pull it out when you're resolute on killing if the need is there. But we should act at times, it is ignorant for us to assume that what happens in the world isn't going to have an effect on us just as much as it is ignorant to assume that our actions in the world won't have an effect on us.

 

[Ockham]

What's the choice? Have our forces stretched thin to all reaches of the world or have absolutely no foreign bases?

No, that's not the choice. Its not an "A" or "B" question with only two possible solutions. Your later portions of the post speaks to the right methodology. Work with generals and find out what Bases are of the utmost importance with regards to the ability to deploy forces in defense of our allies or in defense of our nation should it happen. I don't believe that in general having a base in central europe, in the middle east, in the pacific, and in south america would be a bad thing. I actually think its a very needed thing. I don't believe though we need dozens of military bases all throughout the world on top of our military presence in many nations. As I said, a middle ground.

Similarly, I don't think in general we need to be acting as the world's police. At the same time, I don't think we can believably close our eyes and go "lalalalala" to the world and what's going on in it, or its potential effect on us. The ironic thing about Ron Paul and his supporters going on and on and on about Blow Back is they ignore that there is ALSO blow back from not acting. They seem to routinely however ignore the fact that consequences could and can occur from refusing to act as well. I think we should be extremely restrained with our use of military force, and I'm of the mind that you use the military much like you use a gun...you only pull it out when you're resolute on killing if the need is there. But we should act at times, it is ignorant for us to assume that what happens in the world isn't going to have an effect on us just as much as it is ignorant to assume that our actions in the world won't have an effect on us.

So how then do we, the people, temper a view like Pauls and at the same time, temper the views of the MIC which makes billions on wars that we engage in? Do we elect a Ron Paul and shake it up? I don't think that will do anything --- I think the power shift has to come from the House and Senate and I'd suggest mostly the House. This is where the money is approved and appropriated. If we're going to take a middle ground view, we have to start replacing our representatives, which will take at a minimum 10-20 years for a multitude of reasons. Sure it'll help if the President or State Dept. or whomever is in the WH supports such cut backs, but as we see... the money, the re-elections, the benefits far outweigh something as paltry as debt, insolvency, budgets, etc. At least, that's my perception from a politicians point of view.

 

[danarhea]

Just a quick note here. I see that Sarah Palin has voted for Dennis Kucinich 3 times in this poll. :mrgreen: