Lens of Liberty

As the campaign for the GOP nomination moves from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul has confounded the expectations of the mainstream punditry and likely many of his own supporters. Despite his continued success, there are several issues which continue to dog his campaign. The racist and homophobic statements made in newsletters that were published under his name have been a problem for Paul for almost two decades and he has yet to effectively deal with them. There is also the tendency of his campaign to draw support from unsavory fringe elements and then fail to disassociate himself from them.

I personally find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Whatever may have been written in those newsletters, as disgusting as some of it may have been, I have never heard him say anything racist, nor does he support any policies which could be reasonably categorized as racist. If he isn’t a racist, how do we explain the offensive, racist things published under his name? There are really only two explanations. Either he is a grossly negligent manager or he is willing to tolerate racism from others if it advances his agenda. Neither is an admirable trait in someone seeking the Presidency. The latter is especially damning.

Paul’s tendency to look the other way when those supporting him or even speaking for him make hateful statements or propose repulsive policies is not a easy thing to overlook. It doesn’t comport with Paul’s espousal of a belief in individual liberty to ignore such vile rhetoric. You have to ask how it is that Ron Paul can take on the monetary elites, speak out against the military-industrial complex, often as a lone voice against powerful entrenched interests yet he never finds a way to denounce two-bit cranks who are too often drawn into his sphere. When making a decision to support any political candidate, let alone someone seeking the Presidency, these are not questions that can be easily dismissed, if at all. What must be asked is this; in this election, given the alternatives, are these fatal flaws?

What are the alternatives? Realistically, it’s Romney and Obama, but to my mind it doesn’t much matter, all the candidates represent the status quo. On the issues that matter, the issues that will define the direction of the country, they are nearly identical. Mitt Romney is a Republican Bill Clinton without the philandering. He has no real core beliefs that I can see, at least none that can’t be changed when expediency demands. President Obama has proven over the last three years that anything he claims to stand for is ephemeral. Neither man can be counted on to restrain the growth of the State, or to protect individual liberty.

Consider the parallel ironies of 2012 Presidential race. Obama was elected by those who were angry at the excesses of the Bush administration only to find that, in nearly every meaningful way, Obama continued Bush’s agenda. The base of the Republican Party who were so outraged by the bailouts of the banks and of Wall St and by the passage of Obamacare, has somehow managed to propel a Wall St insider who pioneered the individual mandate to a commanding lead for the GOP nomination. The absurdity is almost too great to be believed.

So, knowing that the two realistic alternatives represent the same doomed course, with more war, more debt, and more attacks on civil liberties; can one overlook Ron Paul’s flaws? I have turned this question over and over in my mind. I cannot simply dismiss these troubling tendencies; I cannot pretend they don’t exist or that they are merely a creation of the establishment out to destroy him. In order to support Ron Paul, you have to accept that these flaws are part of it. It must never be condoned or defended or excused, simply accepted.

I believe that Ron Paul will sincerely attempt to do what he proposes; restore individual liberty, devolve power from Washington, bring an end to the wars in the Middle-East. Actually implementing those things will be exceeding difficult, if not impossible given the makeup of Congress but at least the effort will be made, and that is a step in the right direction. Given the gravity of the problems we face, is there any choice but to live with Ron Paul’s flaws?

The newsletters are offensive, but are they more offensive than the thousands of deaths caused by the wars we are waging? I abhor the sickening bigotry of some fringe Ron Paul supporters, but is it worth giving up on our most basic liberties because of them?

When it is all said and done, after all the wrestling and soul searching, the only answer I can come up with is NO.

Iowa Rep. Steve King responding to a question about Alabama’s immigration law:

In the world I grew up in, a police office would see somone on the street and say why are you here? What are you doing? Who are you? I don’t know who you are. Now we get to the point where the ACLU can take the position that law enforcement can’t do their job.

I guess this is what passes for small government conservatism today.

Video here via the Alyona Show.

Whatever you think of the Occupy protesters, there is no excuse for this:

When terrorists employ this sort of tactic, attacking someone when they try to aid an injured person, we rightfully decry their inhumanity. Why do we excuse it when done by police? There has been very little violence from any of the protesters, so why do city officials insist on deploying heavily armed personnel to attack them?

Occupy Wall St continues to proves two things: Liberals don’t know shit about economics, and that we live in a police state.

-Adam Kokesh 11.10.26

Ok, so technically it was from yesterday’s edition of Adam vs The Man

Brooklyn police held Takesha Griffin for five days after she we struck in the leg by a stray bullet, because they wanted her to say that her friend who drove her to the hospital was the shooter. There was an outstanding warrant for Griffin, but it was due to a clerical error, something the police may have found out if they had bothered to take her before a judge.

The NYPD’s chief spokesman, Paul Browne, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Shocker.

Judge Andrew Napolitano and Ralph Nader discuss the Judge’s new book “Lies the Government Told You”

Executing a no-knock raid on a home looking for a murder suspect, the use of military tactics leads to the death of a 7 year-old girl. The police claim that the weapon accidentally discharged. Regardless of whether or not that is the case, the  danger in the police using military style tactics should be painfully clear.

Continued from last post.

Some might ask why I care. The kid was doing something he knew was wrong and he wasn’t seriously hurt, so what’s the big deal?

It wasn’t.

This incident was not a big deal. It bothers me because it was a highly visible example of a trend that is truly frightening.  We as Americans have become far too cavalier about violence done in the name of law and order. Similar to the popular view of the tazer incident, people are not bothered by excessive violence used against those who break the law. They get what they deserve. If this describes you, then I have a message for you.

Wake up.

The charge of police brutality conjures up specific images in the mind of most people. A criminal leads police on a high speed chase which ends with a flurry of night sticks and accusations of racism. Wipe that from your mind.  Sure those incidents happen, sometimes the cops’ actions are justified, sometimes they’re not, but its doesn’t concern the average person because they will never be in that situation. I’m not talking about that type of brutality.

The video below is what I’m talking about. Everyone should watch this video, though I’ll warn you, it’s disturbing.

All of this for what? According to the police, inside the home they “discovered a grinder, a pipe and a small amount of marijuana”. They broke into the home, fired their weapons, shot two family pets (killing one), all in front of a 7 year-old child. They suspected that there might be a large amount of drugs in the home, but does that justify this level of violence?

Perhaps you are saying to yourself, “yes, but the guy did have drugs”. Yes, he did. If that is enough to allow you to dismiss this incident, then let me give you another example.

Cheye Calvo, of Berwyn Heights, MD returned from walking his two dogs and saw a package had been delivered to his home. Thinking it was something his wife had ordered, he brought it in the house and went upstairs to change his clothes. He then heard the front door shatter and gunfire coming from downstairs. A SWAT team had stormed into his home, shot both of his black Labradors and pinned  his 50 year-old mother-in-law to the ground and put an assault weapon against her head. The SWAT team was from Prince George’s Country Sheriffs Department and the box that had been left outside Calvo’s home was full of marijuana. Unfortunately, the Calvo’s had no idea what was in the package and had no involvement in drugs. It had been mailed to their home without their knowledge specifically so a drug trafficker could intercept it.

Did I mention that Cheye Calvo was the Mayor of Berwyn Heights? The Sheriff’s department was so negligent in their investigation that they missed this little fact. They never even contacted the local police to inform them about the operation in their town. The Sheriff’s department was also well aware of the tactic of shipping narcotics to innocent homeowners, but that didn’t stop them from assaulting the Calvo family.

Read the full story here. Cheye Calvo wrote an op-ed about the incident in the Washington Post as well. There is no video of this attack, but it’s safe to imagine the scene in the Calvo home that evening was very similar to the video above and the hundreds of similar raids that happen every day.

It’s not so easy to dismiss the inexcusable actions of the police in this case, is it? According to Radley Balko of Reason Magazine, these raids happen at rate of 100-150 a day in America, mostly in response to non-violent crimes. Still think it doesn’t effect you? Still think I’m crazy for being sensitive about excessive force by the police? What happened to the kid at the Phillies game was  insignificant in comparison to the two stories above. I said in the first post on this topic that my reaction to the tazer incident was instinctive. It’s because I’ve been following this trend towards a militarized police force that what I perceived to be an excessive response by the cop at the Phillies game triggered such a strong reaction.

Gene Healy writes in an article posted at Cato:

Whatever you think the right policy is regarding enemy combatants, warrantless wiretapping, and “enhanced interrogation,” the differences between Obama and Bush are far more stylistic than substantive.

He then compares the policies of the two administration regarding the “war on terror” and shows that “change we can believe in” was a great campaign slogan and that’s about all.

The attacks against John McCain during the campaign was that his would be a third Bush term. I wonder how many Obama voters have noticed that, in many ways, that’s what we’ve gotten with their guy. Since his inauguration we’ve seen continued reckless spending, plans to push the governments tentacles further into health care, and most of all foreign policy which is nearly indistinguishable from George W. Bush.

An appeals court in Wisconsin has ruled that police can attach a GPS unit to your car to track your movements, without a warrant.

“We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant,”

and the gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to…

Update: From the comment section of the Hit & Run post on this story: “If this is not intrusive can I start donating locking gas caps to the cops as a surprise?”