5 votes

Lew Rockwell on Rand - "The Apple Fell Far From The Tree"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2012/06/19/284-r...

Brian Wilson (5m s54 mark): "There's an awful lot of presumption that the apple wouldn't fall far from the tree".

Lew Rockwell (5m s59 mark): "No, no. The apple fell far from the tree. This was not coordinated. This was Rand entirely acting on his own."

EDIT:

The part below is Lew commenting on Ron, by the way. I'm definitely excited to hear Ron has "great announcements" going forward.

Lew Rockwell (5m 37s mark): "I think many many great announcements by the way about what he's done, what he's going to do after he's out from the yoke of Washington DC in January."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Are you for or against Ron

Are you for or against Ron Paul's flag burning amendment?

Murray Rothbard was against it.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Ron Paul re: flag burning:

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize why I oppose this Constitutional amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the Constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court. Thus, if this amendment simply restored the state's authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.

However, I cannot support an amendment to give Congress new power to prohibit flag burning. I served my country to protect our freedoms and to protect our Constitution. I believe very sincerely that today we are undermining to some degree that freedom that we have had all these many years.

Mr. Speaker, we have some misfits who on occasion burn the flag. We all despise this behavior, but the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First amendment protections of political speech the majority finds offensive. According to the pro-flag amendment Citizens Flag Alliance, there have been only 16 documented cases of flag burning in the last two years, and the majority of those cases involved vandalism or some other activity that is already punishable by local law enforcement!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

http://www.salon.com/2007/11/12/paul_3/

You're perfectly underscoring

You're perfectly underscoring my Ron Paul thesis. He attempts to have every issue in two or more ways.

He is saying we need to overturn the idea of flag burning as freedom of speech - social conservative.

He is saying we need to allow states to manage this issue - constitutional conservative.

He is saying that it is protected by the First amendment and property rights - libertarian.

There, in three paragraphs, he said three different things and appealed to all three of his bases.

So, how can it be protected by the First Amendment AND be a subject of state banning at the same time?

How can it be NOT freedom of speech AND freedom of speech at the same time?

Remember that he submitted an amendment that allowed for states to ban flag burning, in contradiction to the freedom of speech and, really, the 4th and 9th amendments. You can't be a pure libertarian and believe that the government should be able to ban you from damaging your own property!

Perahps he moved on this subject when Murray Rothbard came out with his paper against flag burning laws. I don't remember what year that was.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Here's where you are confused (or are trying to confuse)

Ron Paul reluctantly supported H.Res 255, a rule regarding the Amendment, but he opposed the H.J. Res 4 itself;

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule (H.Res 255), although unenthusiastically. I am not too excited about this process, and certainly I am not very excited about this proposal to amend the Constitution (H.J Res 4). As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment (H.J Res 4) as very unnecessary and very dangerous."

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSession2624/start/69...

Yes, as usual, he's having it

Yes, as usual, he's having it both ways so he can say one thing to one audience and another to a second one. Thanks for proving my point.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

H.Res 255 and H.J. Res 4 are two different things

So of course he has two different opinions on them.

Don't you realize that H.Res 255 and H.J. Res 4 are two different things?

If you don't realize that then it's no wonder you're confused and wrongly thinking he's "having it both ways." The fact that you think this proves you don't understand what you're talking about, even when you were given a direct link to the actual debate in Congress.

He IS having it both ways.

He IS having it both ways. He's saying that the courts shouldn't protect flag burning, that the states should be allowed to ban flag burning, but at the same time saying that they should ban flag burning after they give them the constitutional power to do so. He doesn't like the 14th Amendment, which protects the people from civil rights abuse by state and local government.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

No, he's having it one way.

Constitutional; which happens to be what he's sworn to do.

And even given his exact speech to listen to, you are completely distorting his position. This must be your goal.

Right. He's for flag

Right. He's for flag burning, but he's against it is not 1 way.

He is for the Constitution as written, but thinks it protects speech just a bit too much is not 1 way.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

You're a tool

Who's using you?

Nobody. Not Gary Johnson,

Nobody. Not Gary Johnson, not Ron Paul, certainly not Mittens or Barry.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Then why are you distorting things?

And lying about Ron Paul? Are you just a dishonest person?

You're a tool for yourself?

So, weird.

How am I lying for godsakes?

How am I lying for godsakes? I am quoting him directly! He supports giving states the power to ban flag burning because he didn't like that SCOTUS said that you can't punish someone for burning a flag, unless it's someone else's flag.

What is so difficult for you?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

That is a lie.

He supports states rights, and he clearly states so. He also opposes burning bans, and he clearly states so.

If you're not a tool, you're simply a liar. But my best estimate is that you are a tool of deception.

You don't understand his

You don't understand his tactic. He's saying one thing, while doing another. He was angry that people were using their freedom of speech in a way that offended him. And/or that his constituents like the flag burning ban, so he figured out a way to be for it, while also being against it.

SCOTUS protected your freedom of speech and he tried to do an end run around them so that states could impinge up on it.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Dr. Paul is saying one thing only, and it's constitutional

You're confusing three ideas, with a single law, our Constitution.

Dr. Paul is defending our Constitution and rule of law. Our Constitution prohibits the federal government from infringing on your right to burn any flag you like. Our Constitution also states that all other powers are reserved for the states and people. So, if the local people of a state decide to ban flag burning then that's where it could happen, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul himself specifically endorses it or not.

And if one state chooses to impose a ban, then other states are likely to not; resulting in a competition of ideas and places to live.

He has said that he doesn't

He has said that he doesn't like people burning the flag. And he presented a bill that would allow states to ban it precisely because he doesn't like it.

Seriously, are you in this level of denial?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

You're obviously confused

Show me exactly what you're talking about.

4. Your right to show a lack

4. Your right to show a lack of respect to the U.S. flag.
Many Ron Paul supporters have taken to using a modified U.S. flag as their online profile picture - upside down, crossed out, burning, or otherwise indicative of protest. But if their candidate was actually elected, his history indicates that this would become illegal in many states.

Ron Paul doesn't get much flak on this issue because he has consistently opposed federal constitutional amendments banning flag burning, most recently - and persuasively - in a 2003 speech. But pay special attention to how he closed that speech:
We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.
He wasn't kidding. In 1997, Rep. Paul had already proposed a constitutional amendment:
SECTION 1. The States shall have power to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and Congress shall have the power to prohibit destruction of federally owned flags.
And if you're familiar with the history of flag desecration statutes, you know that they have historically been enforced on a state level anyway. Ron Paul is fine with laws banning flag burning; he just wants to be sure they're not enforced by the federal government, and he wants to be sure the federal court system doesn't interfere with their enforcement.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Ron Paul's speech:

"Who owns the flag?"
http://youtu.be/4jcd7C6MfhY

The About.com author, Tom Head, takes a few sentences out of context, undoubtedly intentionally.

How do you think this

How do you think this rambling diatribe refutes my point?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Watch the video

I did. I think he had it

I did. I think he had it like 8 different ways in that one.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

What does the 10th Amendment state?

How about the 1st?

Apparently Ron Paul doesn't

Apparently Ron Paul doesn't think it applies. Well, he says it does, then says we should give the power to the states to take away that freedom. He was really bothered that the court protected property rights and political speech all by itself.

Ron Paul loves the flag which is odd for a supposed libertarian. A flag denotes statism and nationalism.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Lie

"As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment [anti-flag burning] as very unnecessary and very dangerous." - Ron Paul

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize

Mr. Speaker, let me summarize my views on this proposed amendment. I have myself served 5 years in the military, and I have great respect for the symbol of our freedom. I salute the flag, and I pledge to the flag. I also support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned state laws prohibiting flag burning. Under the constitutional principle of federalism, questions such as whether or not Texas should prohibit flag burning are strictly up to the people of Texas, not the United States Supreme Court.

******Thus, if this amendment simply restored the states’ authority to ban flag burning, I would enthusiastically support it.*******

Ron Paul

Go ahead, spin that for me.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Again he supports restoring states' authority & our Constitution

But he also specifically states that he is not in favor of banning flag burning himself.

Reading comprehension is important, and you fail.

But this is my point!!!!! He

But this is my point!!!!!

He says he wants to give the power to ban the flag to the states, outsourcing it, and his usual "have it both ways" fashion, he THEN says he's not in favor of anyone ACTUALLY banning flag burning.

This is the same thing he does with his earmarks! He inserts them by the hundreds of $millions, then votes against them, knowing that they will pass. So he can say he votes against earmarks while being vocally FOR them!

He is a MASTER at this.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"

Anything not authorized in Constitution is left to states/people

What part of that don't you understand? Ron Paul doesn't support flag burning, nor any infringement upon liberty or property. He's defending constitutionally limited government and the rights of the states and people.

Same with earmarks - Congress passes a big pork bill, and Ron Paul does his best to account for the spending and return the funds to the people, rather than handing it over to the executive branch of the federal government.