Tag Archive | "republican"

Ron Paul vs. the Media and Lobbyists

With the arrival of 2012, the American Presidential election is sure to be a topic which is on many people’s minds, both in America and abroad.

Among the candidates, there is one person in particular who seems to earn the anger and vitriol of the media, special interest groups, and lobbyists.  That person is none other than Dr. Ron Paul, the 76-year old physician and congressman from Texas.

It seems every time there is a news story on the mainstream news regarding his campaign, it is almost always negative.  In contrast, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the media gushed over Barack Obama, and the media coverage of his campaign was almost entirely positive.  What can only be described as an all-out attack on candidate Paul in the media, by both neoconservative and far-left pundits, should be very telling indeed.  While the media is consistently lambasting Ron Paul for supposedly “racist” newsletters published in his name, they hardly ever bring up Obama’s association with a black supremacist church.  Then again, if observation tells us anything about the way that the media operates, the more vociferously the media clamours against something, the better the chance is that there is something half-way decent about that something.  And, when the “left” and the “right” (for the lack of better terms) start agreeing on who to hate, that something might be a very decent thing indeed.

You may already be familiar with some of these criticisms.  On the left, people criticise him for being a “racist” and an “isolationist” who opposes illegal immigration.  They also dislike his views regarding civil liberties, because he would apply civil liberties equally to all American citizens, including European-Americans, African-Americans and Asian-Americans.  Of course, this isn’t good enough for social liberals, who believe that human rights only apply to certain groups.  But while we’re at it, neoconservatives aren’t helping Paul either, citing, among other things, his refusal to become a hard-liner with respect to Iran, and lack of support for Israel (disregarding that he’d end all foreign aid) as a key reason why he is “too extreme” to be a viable candidate.  Even the more liberal wing of the Republican Party seems to think that Paul is “too conservative”.

Ron Paul: Visionary or dangerous man?

It’s far from the purpose of this essay to endorse any candidate in a democratic election.  Moreover, here at RidingTheTiger, we’re far from being libertarians, although we might agree with Ron Paul that the government wastes too much time and money with things that are ultimately non-issues.  However, in one respect, Dr. Paul does deserve credit.  He has been consistent, and stands up for what he believes in.  And he comes across as being an honest man.

Te way that the media, as well as certain non-government agencies view Ron Paul is revealing.  The current front-runner, as the Iowa Caucus would have us believe is Mitt Romney.  But, Romney, it turns out, is not that different from Obama.  His record as governor of Massachusetts was far from what might be called “conservative”.  The American Spectator reported that in 2008, despite his attempts to cast himself as a right-of-center conservative, he had “previously staked out liberal positions on abortion, guns, immigration and a litany of other issues”.  Santorum, who came in second place in Iowa, was originally projected to get only half as many votes as Paul, causing some people to suspect voter fraud.

It is a known fact that most of the media favors the Democratic party.  Because of this, a weak Republican candidate would be seen favourably to the media, if only because it would make Obama look stronger.  For instance, some observers had noted that the choice of McCain as the Republican nominee in 2008 was a blunder, which allowed Obama to more easily win the election in that year.  But leaving aside party-politics for a moment, to those who pull the strings on Capitol Hill, if Obama’s not going to win, his opponent should at least be someone who is not that different.

One group has a vested interest in smearing Paul (besides the obvious suspects at the Federal Reserve) seems to be the Zionist lobby.  As the Forward reports, the far-left ADL accuses Paul of having “extreme views on U.S. aid to Israel” and having “racist and homophobic but also anti-Israeli” views.  It should come as no surprise that these are the same accusations being made in the media by both the “mainstream” sources, as well as those who consider themselves more “conservative”.  Meanwhile, a more recent Forward article praises Romney and Santorum for being “professed Israel-lovers,” while hinting that Republicans should jump ship and vote for Obama, in the event that Paul should get the nomination.  The reason for the ADL’s hostility is clear.  Paul’s ideas do not benefit Israel exclusively.  And it follows that the media, which is closely linked, politically speaking, to the ADL is being used to slander him at every possible opportunity.

People who are aware of their situation in America are tired of having their Constitutional rights violated.  Many people have also begun to realise that the liberals and neoconservatives are both two sides of the same coin, and are no longer surprised by any revelation of the government’s hypocrisy or crookedness. Ron Paul, at least in his rhetoric, and to a large extent in his voting record, has shown that unlike the other candidates, who are willing to circumvent the Constitution to either the bankers or foreign interests, he is at least willing to defend the Constitution.  On the other hand, the candidates championed by the media all promote the expansion of Federal power and cater to every possible definable special interest.  Ron Paul clearly opposes such an abomination and the media, as well as special interest groups (namely AIPAC and the ADL) support it.  This is the fundamental difference between Ron Paul and other candidates, and why the media and special interest groups go out of their way to denounce Paul much in the same manner that the Soviet commissars would denounce dissidents.  The great danger for the lobbyists and the special interest groups is that to the average person, Paul represents something of a bye-gone era of American common sense.

So, in perhaps what can only be described as a “Bizarro-like,” down-is-up (or politically speaking, “left-is-right”) fashion, we’re being told that Ron Paul would destroy America, and is somehow going to be bad for us if he wins.  It may ultimately be true, as others have noted here on this site, that America’s collapse is not too far ahead.  While it’s sad that those who choose to vote are voting for the lesser of two evils, I doubt that if Ron Paul wins, it could be any worse than another term of Obama, or a term of Romney or Santorum.  The fact is that if the liberals and neoconservatives are free to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior through social engineering, this process will be far more painful than it already is.   Nearly a century of bad politics have shown that their manifesto is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad ideas which have done more to harm Western civilisation than anything else.

However, for those who believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility rather than the Freudo-Marxist welfare state that America has become.

Ron Paul, however imperfect he may be, is miles ahead of the other candidates.

Posted in Current Events, North America, PoliticsComments (0)

Ten Years Later: The Role of Liberalism in 9/11

September 11th was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and appalling in any part of the world.  As extensive as the damage to property and loss of life was, it does not compare with the damage done by cultural liberals and by liberal internationalists who seek to extend the hegemony of secular and liberal imperialism over the nations of the world.  In many places around the world, secular liberalism has failed, and the people living in such societies now face an unprecedented assault on their civil liberties and property rights, while in other nations, people face the ill effects of liberal interventionism in political and cultural affairs.

Although the events of September 11th have been seriously lamented in the press, there must also be a serious inquiry into the causes and perpetrators of this event.  If such an analysis can be faced with honesty, then it should come as no surprise that there are political and cultural dimensions that contributed, and indeed justified the attacks on the United States as a cultural and a political identity.  The political dimension is exemplified through internationalism and interventionism, which has been the prime motivator for the dislike of the United States in not only Muslim countries, but many European, Latin American, and Asian nations.  The cultural dimension is exemplified by organizations such as the ADL, SPLC, American Civil Liberties Union, the National Organization for Women, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch, and by individuals like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer.  To a lesser extent, it is also represented by the mainstream media, by Hollywood, and by the American music industry.

What could have caused the monotheistic affirmation of “Allahu Akbar!” to ring through the streets of the Muslim world?   The fact is that had America not been a hedgemon, and merely been a small decadent state, it would be ignored by the rest of the world, including the Islamic world.  The cultural left was responsible, since the end of World War Two, for the deluge of decadence and immorality in every sphere of human life, and combined with the interventionist tendencies, the deluge overflowed the boundaries of America comparable only to the pagan barbarity of the ancient Gauls, Celts, or pre-Islamic Arabs.

On the social scale, although they would seldom admit it for fear of criticizing a “non-white” people, liberals are violently opposed to the way of life in Muslim countries.  While some of these liberals became the so-called “neoconservatives,” others stayed liberal and joined the ranks of the media, or became members of radical activist organizations.  Furthermore, many leftists sympathized with Israel, which in its initial stages was a leftist state, as exemplified by the kibbutz and its distribution of labor.  The left, in fact, hates the socially conservative atmosphere of many cultures, including the Islamic culture of the Middle East, and the Confucian culture of China.  To them, those cultures represent something which is totalitarian, barracks-like, and patriarchal.  Indeed, in the early 20th century, when strong Nationalist and Populist movements held sway in Europe, many on the right looked for a potential ally in Islam, and the Traditionalists also thought highly of the Islamic system.  Evola, for instance, praised Islam, saying that it contained “a traditional completeness,” while Guenon and others converted to Islam.  On the other side of the spectrum, leftists like Orianna Fallaci, were deriding Islam for not abiding by the standards of Western leftism.

The extensive network of media, non-profit organizations, politicians (both “Democratic” and “Republican”) are crusading today not for Christianity, but for secularism, and herein lies the problem.  Although there have been wars between Islamic and Christian powers in the past, the conflict can be in no way compared to these conflicts. From Hollywood, where movies containing drug use and sexual perversions are rampant, to the promotion of gay rights by the American embassy in Pakistan, to non-profit organizations which distributed contraceptives to Muslim girls, values which are not only anti-Muslim, but anti-Christian, are being promoted extensively by political elites.  These same political elites have opened up American borders to millions of illegal immigrants, begun unjustified wars, promoted racial conflicts for their own gain, and have undoubtedly done irreversible harm to American society at home by promulgating the welfare state.

In 1925, decades before September 11th, Rene Guenon wrote the following:

To be resolutely ‘anti-modern’ is not to be in any way ‘anti-Western’; on the contrary, it only means making an effort to save the West from its own confusion. In any case, no Easterner who is faithful to his own tradition would view matters differently, and it is certain that there are far fewer opponents of the West as an attitude, than of the West as it has become identified with modern civilization.

There are those today who speak of a ‘defense’ of the West, which is odd, to say the least, considering that it is the West, as we shall see later on, that is threatening to submerge the whole of mankind in the whirlpool of its own confused activity…

The Islamic critique of American culture, then, cannot be dismissed as a mere “hatred of freedom,” and though it does not always match the Traditionalist outlook, is similar enough to give it some merit, and cannot be dismissed so easily.  Many Americans can agree that American culture is increasingly decadent and vulgar at all levels.  They would also agree that since the 60′s, there has been a cultural clash between the cultural left and right, which witnessed the destruction of the family, the secularization of society, and the eroding of human morals.  If this was disturbing to American conservatives, it must also be even more deeply disturbing to devoutly religious Muslims who not only have to endure the destruction of their homes by the American military, but also see their way of life threatened by relentless cultural assaults from left-wing organizations.

It is unfortunate that today America has not learned from the mistakes of the past.  In the end, both Muslims and Westerners face a common threat: the threat of liberalism and globalism, both of which are intertwined with each other: liberalism is like a virulent disease, and globalism the vector that carries it.  Liberals must not only apologize to their fellow Americans for September 11th, but they should apologize to the world for the cultural damage they have done prior to that incident, and the post-September 11th environment.  Meanwhile, America as a whole needs to not only cease and desist from its entangling alliances, dreams of nation-building, and interventionist politics, but needs to reassess its cultural orientations.  The people who are interest in self-preservation should join Muslims in condemning the global moral degeneracy that is produced by liberalism.

Posted in PoliticsComments (0)

Mr. Obama of Amerikwa and Dr. Ahmadinejad of Iran

As the 2012 elections approach, the candidates of both American political parties are lining up to see who can best appease their masters.  A big issue, especially for certain lobbyist groups such as AIPAC, is how the next President of the United States will deal with Iran.  The major candidates, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, have already endorsed the position that military conflict with Iran may be necessary.  The Obama regime has not hidden its hostility towards Iran, by imposing sanctions in an effort to further cripple Iran’s economy, or by supporting anti-Iranian terror brigades.

So as Barack Obama attempts to run for a second term, it is only fair to compare to his Iranian counterpart, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad or Obama: Who represents the interests of his people better?

In 2010, the Indian press reported that Obama would spend nearly 200 million a day on a visit to India.  During that visit, he was accompanied by a staggering 40 aircraft and six armoured cars.  Obama’s private car, a black Cadillac had the ability to launch nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks at the press of a button.  Furthermore, Obama booked all 300 luxury suites and 27 deluxe penthouses of the five-star Taj Mahal Hotel, at a rate ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 Indian rupees (450 to 900 USD) per night, and arranged a private excursion to the Taj Mahal.  James Corum, an American military historian pointed out, that the trip was largely a lavish publicity stunt, complete with an entourage that would dwarf the armed forces of even large nations.

On an earlier trip to Spain, Michelle Obama was criticized as being a “modern day Marie-Antoinette.”  During her vacation, an entire beach was closed for Michelle Obama and 40 close friends, for a price that cost US taxpayers a staggering $100,000 a day, not including the $147,563 which it cost to fly Air Force Two to and from the destination.  The American Conservative reported that:

Americans have come to expect Michelle to wear $500 sneakers and carry $2,000 purses while dining on lobster and caviar prepared by her personal chef and traveling to five-star hotels on the Spanish coast. They are used to her wastefulness — and her hypocrisy, considering the lavishness that occurs while the Obamas ask Americans to make sacrifices for the good of the nation, vacation on oil-stained beaches off the Gulf of Mexico, and have patience while the president socializes the economy against the will of the people.

Obama’s inauguration, the most costly in the history of the United States, cost the American taxpayers a whopping $170 million USD.  His other expenses include a black-tie Super Bowl party, dinners consisting of $100/lb Wagyu steak, and flying in a personal chef to make his pizzas.  And, in 2008, Obama hosted a series of 28 parties with over 50,000 guests.

All this while Obama oversees three wars, sending the working poor to die on false pretenses, and a crippling deficit of 14.6 trillion dollars, and while six million Americans lost their jobs during the Obama’s first year in office and retail sales fell 6.2 percent for 2009.

Enter Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the son of a humble village blacksmith, and President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  A civil engineer by profession, he gained popularity during his tenure as the mayor of Tehran by working to improve the traffic system and placing an emphasis on charity by setting up free soup kitchens for the disadvantaged.  Even as President of Iran, a nation of some 74 million citizens, he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move. Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets.  African leaders, impressed by Ahmadinejad’s humility in daily affairs, noted that he refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead.  While Obama wears suits costing $1500 and up, Dr. Ahmadinejad, a former University professor, dresses in modest clothing, and insists on driving to the Presidential offices in his own car.

As president, he vowed to “putting the petroleum income on people’s tables,”, meaning tht Iran’s oil profits would be used to benefit the citizens.  Under Dr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency, Iran’s real GDP reflected growth of the economy, while inflation and unemployment have also decreased.

With all this, we might be prompted to ask – who is really a man of the people?  Which one is a true leader, and which one is merely an extravagant figurehead with no real concern for his citizens?  If being a competent leader who has a genuine concern for his fellow man and living a modest life is any indication, then the answer is clear.

Posted in Middle East, Politics, SocietyComments (1)

    Leave a Comment

  • Stay up to date

  • Subscribe to the RSS feed
  • Subscribe to the feed via email
  • Follow us on Twitter!

Find us on Facebook

Traditionalist Books

More books...