Newt Gingrich calling Ron Paul “no better than Obama” was a top Drudge Report headline yesterday. Right below it read another headline, “I need another $1.2 trillion,” featuring a smiling Obama and a story about the president’s plan to increase the debt limit.
Jack Hunter | All Articles
- Send Email
- Subscribe to RSS
Jack Hunter is a contributing editor at Rare.us. He has appeared frequently on Fox Business, Michael Savage and as a regular guest host on The Mike Church Show on Sirius XM. Hunter is the co-author of “The Tea Party Goes to Washington” by Sen. Rand Paul and assisted former Sen. Jim DeMint with his book “Now or Never: How to Save America from Economic Collapse.”
As Ron Paul has risen in the polls, so has the frequency of attacks against him. “Any stick will do to beat a dog” goes the old saying, and the whacks against Paul range from reasonable to ridiculous. Expect the attacks to continue. Expect them to get more ridiculous.
Many Republicans love Ron Paul’s limited-government philosophy but have problems with his foreign policy. This is understandable given the state of today’s Republican Party. But what many Republicans probably don’t realize is that Paul’s foreign policy is part of his limited-government philosophy — and it’s a crucially important part. If the American right does not begin to at least consider Paul’s foreign policy, it will continue to forfeit any hope of advancing a substantive conservatism.
American conservatism has long been synonymous with protecting and promoting the U.S. Constitution. Barry Goldwater explained what it meant to be a conservative leader in his famous 1960 book “The Conscience of a Conservative”:
James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” wrote: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
When John McCain proclaimed in 2008, “Today, we’re all Georgians,” unfortunately he was not talking about the Southern state. No, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee was declaring his — indeed, all of our — support for the nation of Georgia, which that year became involved in a brief military conflict with neighboring Russia over who had claim to the region of South Ossetia. Which country’s soldiers fired first became a matter of international dispute, but the Bush administration made clear that this would not become America’s dispute; there would be no military response by the United States. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed that America had successfully avoided a shooting war with Russia during the Cold War and he saw “no reason to change that approach today.”
Since 9/11, Senator Lindsey Graham has said repeatedly that we must fight the terrorists “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” But this week, Graham threw that all out the window. Apparently, we are now at war everywhere. Forever.
These days, virtually all Republicans call themselves “conservatives” and claim to be dedicated to cutting spending, balancing budgets, reducing debts and limiting government. Most of them are liars. The failure of the super committee this week was but the latest reminder.
An editorial in the August 1960 edition of National Review described the conservative youth activists who agitated to get Barry Goldwater on the ballot with presidential nominee Richard Nixon:
I’ve been a conservative my entire adult life. During that time, I’ve watched the conservative movement fail. Sure, I’ve seen supposedly limited-government candidates win elections and promise to shrink government. What I haven’t seen is government shrink. Ever.
Conservatism is a negative philosophy. I don’t mean “negative” in the sense that it proposes something undesirable. I mean that it seeks to negate objectionable aspects of the human condition. Man has a propensity for evil. This means that men must be restrained in some fashion — which is precisely why conservatives have typically stressed religion, conventional morality, humility, etc.
This may sound harsh, but current U.S. foreign policy is a disaster. Most Americans will admit as much if they examine our most significant foreign interventions individually.
For much of the time I’ve been a conservative, I’ve often thought “What’s the point?” Not that I was going to start believing any differently, or go off and be a liberal or something — but what was the overall point of worrying about politics when nothing ever really seems to change?
I became a conservative because of Rush Limbaugh. In fact, only three contemporary American political figures have had a real life-changing influence on me: Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan during his presidential runs in the 1990s, and Ron Paul, for whom I remain a humble servant as his 2012 campaign’s official blogger.
Last week, Senator Rand Paul hosted an event called “Property Wrongs: A Discussion with the Victims of the U.S. Government's Assault on Private Property.” The event was held in the same room as the Watergate hearings, but unlike those hearings, Paul’s event went largely unnoticed by the media. That’s a shame, because the stories told there need to be heard. Each represents a greater threat to American liberty than the Watergate break-in.
The Occupy Wall Street protest — which has now become a nationwide occupy-any-street movement — has reminded me of two things: 1) How much I hate partisanship; and 2) How silly liberalism really is.
The United States Constitution is the law of the land. Our nation’s founding charter was intended to reflect our British common law heritage, the lessons of Greek democracy, and the principles of the Roman Republic. It contains historic civil liberties protections that date back to the Magna Carta.
People are reluctant to admit what they are when what they are is considered bad. Alcoholics often have a laundry list of excuses for their alcoholism. Adulterers often justify their cheating by blaming inattentive spouses. Murderers often plead that insanity or bad parenting is the real culprit.
My father has always been my hero. His story is the classic American story of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, working hard and enjoying the fruits of America’s free market system.
When actor Vince Vaughn telephoned Congressman Ron Paul about two and a half years ago, it was not because he was interested in becoming a political activist, although he was interested in a political issue. The Federal Reserve and its inherent problems had become of increasing concern to Vaughn, and he knew that Rep. Paul was one of the most outspoken critics of the United States’s central bank. Paul obliged Vaughn, recommending books and websites related to the actor’s questions, and the two began a relationship first based on shared philosophical interests which would develop into a friendship. Vaughn even invited Ron and his wife Carol to the Hollywood premier of Vaughn’s movie “Couples Retreat” last year.