A Word of Advice to the Non-Insane Paulites (if You Exist)

I’ve been in lots and lots of arguments about Ron Paul over the past several months, in which serious doubts as to the congressman’s credibility have been raised.  In response, I’ve been treated to all sorts of inane lectures of varying literacy on non-interventionism, blowback, history, progressivism, the Constitution, and, of course, those darn Jews.

What I’m almost never treated to are serious attempts to refute the facts backing up my claims (despite the fact that Paulites are pretty adamant that I’m “slandering” their prophet).  For instance, when I argue that Paul presents a biased, misleading view of the Founders’ foreign policy views, they don’t bother to explain why my read of the evidence is incorrect, or put forth new evidence that would change the picture.  When I reveal that Ron and Rand misrepresent the facts surrounding Iran (as well as other facts about the War on Terror), they’re similarly silent on the details.

Here’s a tip: If you guys wanna be taken seriously as anything other than blind cultists, evangelizing with pre-scripted talking points isn’t gonna cut it; you have to honestly consider and respond to what people actually say about your guy.  When you try to change the topic, you’re not making dents in anything but your own credibility.

Why Let Reality Get in the Way of a Good Meme?

When we last left Self-Defeating Left-Wing Zealot Scott, he was making an ethically-challenged fool of himself over abortion.  This evening, while browsing Boots & Sabers (which I really need to get back in the habit of reading more often – sorry Owen!), I came across the following comment from our pal:

Many conservatives eschew expert opinion in the first place, so what’s the big deal?  Everything from CBO reports to scientific opinion—it just doesn’t matter because you can’t trust those eggheads.  Me, I’m a big fan of learning.  I like to acknowledge someone else’s expertise and learn from it.

Again, the only proper response is:

For good measure, background behind his bull about the CBO can be found here & here, and about “scientific opinion” here.

“American Right to Life’s” Misguided Pro-Life Profiles (UPDATED)

I recently came across a website called Pro-Life Profiles (hat tip: Lisa Graas), which evaluates the pro-life credentials of various center-right figures, from GOP candidates to conservative activists.  The first thing that’s important to note about the site is that it’s a project of American Right to Life.  ARTL proclaims itself the “personhood wing of the pro-life movement,” but according to the National Right to Life Committee, ARTL is a scam that does little more than raise funds from people who confuse them with the more well-known NRLC.  Who’s right?  I can’t say for sure, but I’m inclined to trust NRLC (despite some disagreements with them) based on my familiarity with all the work they undertake on behalf of the pro-life movement, whereas I know of ARTL doing no such work.  (UPDATE: In the comments, ARTL spokesman Bob Enyart claims the ARTL that ran afoul of NRLC was a different, now-defunct organization.) I report, you decided.

Their website seems entirely devoted to tearing down other pro-lifers as traitors to the cause (or at least insufficiently devoted), and that’s the exclusive mission of Pro-Life Profiles.  Admittedly, they have found several legitimate reasons for criticizing politicians such as George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and even Sarah Palin, and they’re correct to stress that the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement must be full, nationwide legal protection for the unborn as full human beings.  Unfortunately, in their zeal to reach the ultimate goal, they make profoundly wrong moral and practical arguments against various valuable, common-sense pro-life policies.

For instance, in criticizing Concerned Women for America and its president, Wendy Wright, ARTL argues that pro-lifers should not support laws that require obtaining parental notification/consent, or require being shown ultrasounds, before obtaining an abortion.  They claim that it’s immoral to support any law that tacitly accepts abortion’s legality, and that such laws are somehow counterproductive to the goal of legal protection for the unborn.  Among their arguments (many of them are vapid & repetitive, and life is short, so I’m only going to address the highlights):

ARTL: They don’t actually reduce abortions, and in fact may increase abortions.

ME: Simply ask yourself: does having to inform or get permission from your parents to get an abortion, does that make seeking an abortion easier or harder?  If a women sees an ultrasound showing that unborn babies aren’t simply a lump of tissue, is she more or less likely to go through with it?  Though these laws won’t prevent abortions in all cases, it should be obvious which direction they move things in.  In particular, does ARTL mean to deny the enormous power of ultrasounds to change people’s hearts and minds?

ARTL: It’s immoral to support any law whose end result still permits abortions to take place.

ME: You’re not giving abortion tacit approval by voting for something less than outright prohibition if outright prohibition is not an option available to you.  If it pushes the law in the right direction, and if it saves lives, it’s not only moral, but necessary.  Strategy is not an either-or proposition; you have to pursue every available avenue.

ARTL: “Thirty years of evidence also shows that the regulation strategy has failed to move the federal judiciary, which is mostly Republican and overwhelmingly pro-choice, toward the right-to-life position.”

ME: This is just stupid—who ever said they’re supposed to move the judiciary?  Reducing abortions legislatively and getting good judges on the bench are both important goals, but one has nothing to do with another.  Again, it’s not either-or.

ARTL: Such regulations “call upon our own judges to uphold laws that regulate killing the innocent, and thus turn conservative judges increasingly against the personhood of the unborn.”

ME: Their link claims that “Antonin Scalia has publicly stated that he would strike down any law that prohibited abortion in all fifty states, and Clarence Thomas has ruled that the public has the right to decide to legalize the killing of unborn children.” I don’t know what cases/remarks they’re referring to, but in Scalia’s case I suspect he was simply noting that, as a judge, he does not have the authority to criminalize abortion.  And unfortunately, he’s right: judges are not policymakers, and even the language of the 14th Amendment discusses “born” citizens, making any judicial abortion ban shaky Constitutional ground.  That’s why pro-lifers should fight for the Human Life Amendment.

ARTL: These laws “will keep abortion ‘legal’ if abortion is wickedly ‘returned to the states.”

ME: “Wickedly” returned to the states?  Short of a constitutional amendment, you can’t make much legislative headway until you return it to the states by overturning Roe v. Wade (and popular support for state abortion bans will certainly come before enough support to pass a national constitutional amendment).  Because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the states have the right to determine abortion policy.  Reverse Roe, and abortion automatically becomes illegal in those states whose pre-Roe abortion bans remain in effect, and the rest of the states get a fighting chance.  Pro-choice politicians would no longer be able to hide behind the Supreme Court.  This scenario is bad why?

It’s absurd to think parental notification laws would prevent full abortion bans.  Even if they did give tacit approval to the principle of choice (which they don’t), they’re mere legislative acts, and can be superseded by new legislative acts with a simple majority vote.

Absent in ARTL’s analysis is any recognition of Constitutional originalism, separation of powers, or judicial restraint.  Understandably-frustrating though it may be at times, the Founders placed clear limits on how political goals—even noble and essential ones—may be pursued.  In their view, how much should the pro-life movement respect the rule of law? If they think the ends justify the means, and that the Right should embrace judicial activism, they should come out and say so.  But before that, they’d do well to brush up on how past leaders reconciled human rights and constitutionalism, and think twice before condemning the rest of us as traitors to the unborn.

Rand Wins, America Loses

I’ve put a lot of effort here and on NewsReal into defending Sarah Palin from various attacks.

Tonight, I regret every word of it.

Thanks in no small part to her endorsement (as well as that of James Dobson, Jim DeMint, & Erick Erickson), the deranged Rand Paul won the Kentucky GOP’s Senate nomination (more on Paul’s hideous record here and here).

Palin’s celebration of Paul’s victory on tonight’s “Hannity” consisted entirely of empty blather straight out of the Paul camp’s press releases: the grassroots are rising up, the establishment better take notice, blah blah blah.  Does she know anything about Paul’s record?  About how he’s diametrically opposed to her own views on national security?

Some of you who don’t share Paul’s affinity for appeasement or his tolerance of bigotry might nevertheless think Paul’s win is no big deal, because he only has one vote and most foreign policy will be set by the executive branch.  But first, consider that Democrats campaign for keeps – we all know the lengths to which Democrats will go to falsely smear conservatives as extremists; just imagine the field day they’ll have with all of the real dirt in Rand’s closet.  I predict a Democrat victory in the general election.

Second, odds are that more than a few mushy Republican pols and would-be candidates will interpret Paul’s win, and his legitimization by other mainstream “true” conservatives, as an indication that it’s okay and/or smart politics to tack left on defense issues.  Do we really want two pro-appeasement political parties?

I hope Jim DeMint is rewarded with the primary challenge of his life.  And Sarah Palin has proven that she does not deserve the presidency.

The Paul File Continued (Updated)

The following is an addendum to my recent NewsReal posts about Ron & Rand Paul’s disgusting relationship with radicalism and their dangerous misrepresentation of facts on all things national-security and foreign-policy related:

During the 2008 Republican National Convention, Ron Paul held a counter-event, & the campaign invited crackpot Jesse Ventura to speak there. Ventura’s tirade about what “really happened” on 9/11 was met with wild applause by Paul’s audience.

On 9/11 Truther Alex Jones’ show in 2007, Paul claimed, “if you have a 9/11 incident or something like that, they use that to do the things that they had planned all along.”

In January 2008, Paul’s Midland County, MI, campaign coordinator was one Randy Gray, who happened to moonlight as “a longstanding active and vocal organizer for the Knight’s Party faction of the Ku Klux Klan.”  The campaign did not comment on the controversy, but did scrub all traces of Gray from their websites. Continue reading

Rave Reviews 4!

You like me!  You really like me!

“It’s much easier to call people who are smarter than you are names then it is to argue facts, thanks in no small part to our liberal educational system.”Randy

“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.”M.P. O’Neal

“Enjoy that 100 trillion dollar currency debt you fools have mortgaged your children to them banksters.”joe

“The author is another neocon Jew.”Joseph Zrnchik

“…a man with a sheep’s brain…”Bob

“Unintentionally Hilarious”JB

“…just awful…”More Stew

“What a sickening, hateful, sheltered, judgement, Friedburger brain bubble boy. He’s one of the the perfect examples of intelligent design. Cripes. What a creep.”CJ

“…misinformed…”Lord Howard Hertz

“Good God.”Zach W.

“…dude if you are a polysci major I suggest you do a little more research before writing your blog because you lack any real depth of knowledge in the topics you discuss. Spend a little more time studying and less time dreaming up stuff.”LeftofLiberal

“…desperation…illegitimate…”annica2

“Boy you really are a fanatic nut head.”RightWing

“Keep dreaming, but the reality is, you are the joke of this nation. The silent majority will just simply go back to the polls and vote Obama back in and you imbeciles can rant for another four long years. You will never learn. The dumbing down on the Right is almost totally complete!”Liberallyproud

“…confused reasoning…”PalmettoPatriot

“Trading insults gets you nowhere. It only benefits those who have nothing to say. As you mature you will most likely have a better appreciation for civil discourse and refrain from trading insults much less initiating such exchanges.”The Inquisitor

“If you can’t win the debate, start name-calling, eh?”John Galt

“Study history sometime.”Elijah

“…both intellectually dishonest and immature.”M.P. O’Neal

“Not a good way to advance a cause.”princeliberty

“…you and the neo-conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering liberals.”freedomfor you

“You’re arguing against a premise you wrongly inferred from the quote you posted. Comprehension is a wonderful thing, if you can comprehend what you’re reading that is. In this case you can’t.”ED

“Carl your embarassing egotistical remarks are astounding for someone writing a publication with how many readers? It seems half of them don’t even like your obviously biased and ethnocentric reporting.”James

“Perhaps, Calvin, you should try another line of work.”Rightwingarbage

“You are not in tune with America…”truthbetold

“Thumbs down…extremely biased…You wrote a very poor article.”sas473

“More incessant neocon babbling…”Carpe Cerevisi

“…another lame attack from a RINO…”delapaz

“This article is terrible.”T. Evans

“Why did I just subject myself to the slandering overtones of a hyped up alarmist co-ed, which was expected prima facie by the name Calvin Frieburger, in order to get my intellectual fix this morning. It’s usually the poli-sci guys that cry the loudest when they’re getting the crap kicked out of them for bloviating to everyone. AAAAh!!!!!”A Smith

“This is bad journalism.”Joseph

“…you know nothing about the military.”David

“One only has to read the title of this faulty hitpiece to know it deserves all the contempt possible and it simply 100% baseless misinformation.”Stefan

“…Zionist…”Edip Yuksel

“I could not read much more than the 1st paragraph or 2, Calvin, you are completely wrong on so many levels. You may have a few facts straight, but your inferences are miles off target.”JR

“Hypocrisy thy name is JEW! So Paul is disqualified from being taken seriously in American politics for some ‘unacceptable’ connections with white ethnocentrists. Meanwhile having deep connections with Jewish activist organisations the ADL, AIPAC, AJC etc etc is just fine. Why on earth shouldn’t Paul be ethnocentric enough to stand up for the interests of the traditional population of the United States? You know – the ones who’ve died in their thousands in Iraq for Israel? I’m sick of hyper-ethnocentric Jews telling us who and who is not a legitimate participant in the American political process.”Peter Mansfield

“…stupid sh**…”Steve

“The author of this propaganda is a BLATANT IGNORANT IDIOT.” freeme

“…basically neo con apologist…”Hammer

“If a college kid getting the typical US socialist education thinks there’s a problem, it’s practically 100% certain that the opposite is the truth.”Syd Barrett

“Totally twisting of facts!”freedom lover in KY

Calvin Freiburger Online: shouldn’t you be reading?