The Top 8 Reasons Horowitz Groupies Need to Get a Freaking Clue

Wesley Messamore
Oct 27, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Calvin Freiburger, a columnist over at David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog, recently published a piece organizing several specious and empty charges against Ron Paul into a list of "The Top 8 Reasons Ron Paul Is an Abomination Who Should A Be Cast Out of Decent Society."

(Quick note to Calvin:  Dude -- publishing lists on multiple pages is the most annoying publishing habit on the Internet ever.)

Notice to begin with, the totally disproportionate hyperbole of the title. While the author in his list accuses Ron Paul supporters of suffering from various derangements (e.g. against President Lincoln, or against the Jews) it is invective like that in his title which exemplifies the derangement that Horowitz types have for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's disagreements with them over foreign policy and history make him an "abomination" worthy only to be ostracized and exiled, despite his 20 year record as the taxpayer's best friend in Washington, an outspoken advocate for the Second Amendment, and a tireless sponsor of aggressive pro-life legislation.

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes, to pass an unbalanced budget, or to raise congressional pay -- and he's never taken a government-paid junket. Despite his model conservatism on all these issues, the man is an "abomination" for daring to suggest that the same feckless Washington establishment which breeds more poverty with its misguided War on Poverty might just breed more terrorism with its War on Terrorism.

While they are ever-willing to compromise on some (or all) of their alleged conservative principles to support and defend men like George W. Bush and John McCain, neoconservatives will apparently never compromise in the other direction and support or defend someone like Congressman Paul, or even be willing to tolerate his existence in their version of a "decent society."  Talk about derangement.

Before briefly addressing each of the eight reasons the Horowitz groupie gives for Ron Paul's banishment from "decent society" (as if there were anything decent about the perverse Washington establishment and its runaway military-industrial complex), allow me to point out that most of them involve the author's historical disagreements with Paul, not Ron Paul's policies or exemplary voting record as a congressman.

Venture into the realm of public policy and the specific nuts-and-bolts solutions we need to implement if we are to survive as a great and prosperous nation, and you should only find yourself ashamed as a self-identified conservative to oppose a "Ron Paul agenda" in Washington. None of the neoconservatives' darlings, on the other hand, have lifted a finger to seriously limit the size, role, and influence of Washington -- not even in the domestic policy arena.

The NewsRealBlog columnist naïvely asserts in his introduction that this is a good time to refute Paul's errors in history and foreign policy because "Paul's talk of the Constitution lines up pretty well with the rest of the Right" on domestic policy "where the electoral action [currently] is" found. Perhaps the rest of the Right's talk lines up pretty well with Paul and the Founding Fathers on domestic policy, but their actions never do.

That's why so many Republicans in Congress voted for the TARP bailouts; and that's why the Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins, and Newt Gingriches of the mainstream "conservative" Right defended those bailouts before shamelessly attempting to co-opt the Tea Party movement, which arose primarily as a backlash to the bailouts and other big-government policies that "the rest of the Right"  has supported for decades.

While the Horowitz blogger detests accusations by Ron Paul supporters that his wing of the party hates limited government, it's curiously suspicious that the neoconservatives so brazenly praise, defend, and compromise with politicians and pundits who always support policies which grow government, while singling out and excoriating a Congressman from Texas, who happens to be one of the very few Republicans in Washington who is not responsible for the suicidal Federal budget deficit and always-growing domestic welfare state.

So what is Calvin Freiburger's beef with Ron Paul?

#8. He argues that Ron Paul is a "Founding Faker" who "doesn't faithfully apply the Founders' words," but hijacks them to his own ends when it comes to foreign policy. He says that the wisdom and justice of going to war in the Middle East are not directly deducible from the Founding Father's writings, but that they are a matter of the contemporary evidence from the region.

Calvin ignores the fact that Ron Paul doesn't at all treat the issue as directly deducible from the Founding Fathers a priori. The truth is that Ron Paul makes a formidable and detailed case for a better foreign policy in the Middle East on the basis of contemporary evidence from the region, often including facts and reports from Washington's own defense establishment to support his assertions.

If Calvin would like to have a separate discussion and actually address the contemporary evidence for or against going to war in the Middle East, I would be happy to debate him.


#7. He accuses Ron Paul and his supporters of suffering from "Lincoln Derangement Syndrome." As amply demonstrated above, it is quite clearly the neocons who suffer from derangement, but okay -- I'll bite. The undeniable historical truth is that Abraham Lincoln did expand and permanently enshrine Federal power in an unprecedented way. Before his administration, the Federal government was properly understood as subordinate to the states. After Lincoln, the unhistorical, unconstitutional, and un-American opposite of this arrangement has been the paradigm in American government.

Calvin also criticizes Ron Paul's proposition that Washington could have bought the South's slaves for a fraction of the cost of fighting the Civil War and avoided all the bloodshed to boot. In support of his criticism, he links to a Gateway Pundit article that quibbles over Ron Paul's math, asserting that buying the slaves would have cost just over 1/3rd the price of the Civil War, not Ron Paul's much lower estimate of 1/100th.

The author laughably concludes that this was "not an option economically at the time" -- while defending the option that, by his own math, cost nearly three times as much and resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans and the untold disruption of economic life and destruction of businesses and property. I guess even in the 19th century, neoconservatives just love to do it the hard, expensive, and bloody way.


#6. Calvin criticizes Ron Paul's insertion of earmarks into Federal spending bills. To begin with, Ron Paul never votes for any of the appropriations he puts the earmarks into. Our Horowitz fan calls that a rationalization, but boy -- wouldn't it be grand if every Republican was like Ron Paul and always earmarked spending for their district, but then always voted against the bill? We could balance the budget in no time that way...but I guess Calvin would rather support Republicans who lard up bills and then vote for them -- so long as those Republicans think Lincoln was awesome!

Ron Paul actually makes a pretty good argument about earmarking:  If the bill is going to pass anyway, at least he can decide exactly how the money in it will be spent as an elected representative of the people by putting in earmarks. He says that ideally, every spending bill should be carefully earmarked, for otherwise the decision for how to spend the money ends up in the hands of an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. But again -- Paul would rather just not spend any of the money at all and let you keep more of your paycheck. And that's how he votes.

I challenge Calvin to name one politician in Washington with a better record on fiscal policy than Ron Paul. Name me just one.


#5. - #4. The Horowitz man accuses Ron Paul of being a "leftist" instead of a libertarian and attacks him for his "radical associations" with people like *gasp* former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. He also has to get in the fact that white supremacists have donated money to and endorsed Ron Paul. But that does not make Paul himself a white supremacist nor sympathetic in any way to racist policies.

I'm sure quite a few white supremacists agreed with Horowitz's outspoken criticism of slave reparations -- that doesn't make Horowitz a white supremacist or a racist. It's really aggravating to see a blogger use the kind of shameless, illogical leftist smears that I'm sure he would have opposed when his man Horowitz was on the receiving end.

And speaking of Horowitz hypocrisy, I'd be more than a little hesitant to blog on David Horowitz's website in criticism of conservatives with radical associations and leftist tendencies, considering that Horowitz was a radical communist for the first fifty years of his life -- making his transition into neoconservatism quite natural, I'm sure, as he was already comfortable with the central-planning, police statism, and mass murder wrought by communism...so why not that wrought by neoconservatism?


#3. The columnist complains that Ron Paul is "Israel's worst nightmare." Calvin, this is America. Our government is here to protect the freedoms of Americans, not those of any other country in the world. You write that you "suspect" that George Washington "might have" made a distinction between fighting for "another nation's mere interests and supporting her survival" -- a claim you do not substantiate, but let's a do a quick exercise with Washington's Farewell Address and insert "The Middle East" in each spot that Washington says Europe:

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities...

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

That clear things up?


#2. Calvin casts Ron Paul as "Evil's Unofficial Spokesman" for often finding "the enemy's version of events more credible than America's." First off, Calvin makes an equivocation in his use of the word "America." By "America" he means "Washington," but the conflation of the two allows him to accuse Ron Paul of being anti-American, when he's really just opposed to Washington -- and what conservative shouldn't be?

Most Americans know that it is the Washington establishment which threatens America's interests most. The Tea Party movement is filled with Americans who don't want Washington running our lives because it inevitably makes a mess of things. Ever consider that maybe Iranians feel the same way and don't want Washington running their lives either? Especially when it was Washington, after all, that toppled Iran's democracy to replace it with a dictator?

Now you tell me what's anti-American:  robbing America blind in taxes so that Washington can topple democracies and replace them with kings(!), or opposing such policies and pointing out that they tend to make people in other countries angry at us?


And #1. Here Calvin goes way over the line into totally deranged, neoconservative moonbattery. His final point is that Ron Paul is really just doing it all for the fame and money. Oh right, Calvin -- because back in the freaking 1970s Ron Paul knew that decades later in 2007, when he would be an old man, a movement of people would coalesce around him and fund his presidential campaign via a new technology called the Internet and help him make a killing in the market for books on Austrian economics.

That was definitely his plan all along. Way back then, Ron Paul knew that he would just have it made in 2007 if he stuck it out as a totally obscure congressman from Texas who would never achieve the kind of power or praise that politicians inevitably do when they sell out to special interests and grow Washington. That makes a lot of sense.

Or maybe he has the most consistently conservative voting record of any member of Congress because he actually believes in it. And maybe you're criticizing him so fiercely because you don't.


At best, Ladies and Gentleman, I submit the essay I have written above as evidence that Calvin Freiburger and people like him are very confused, and very misinformed.

Great response, Wes.

Bonnie Kristian's picture

Love it

's picture

Apparently NewsReal BLog has a Ron Paul phobia because this is not the first nor the last attack list posted here.

Look at Lisa Richards, a self proclaimed "constitutionalist goldwater conservative, influenced by hayek"

These People are just a joke

Shaun Bowen's picture

"considering that Horowitz was a radical communist for the first fifty years of his life -- making his transition into neoconservatism quite natural". Wake up conservatives. You are being deceived by leftists that only change their vocabulary.

Great rebuttal Wes.

Jeff Frazee's picture

Wow, I wrote a response too. I clicked the link to read the "article" first and then when I read youre entire post I was like, no way  just did the same thing. hahaha. I'm sure you're grammar is better than mine, but I left mine in the comments. Here it is.

 

8.) You say it is impossible that the Iraq or Afghanistan wars had anything to do with empire building… To the American people, yes it was a direct response to 9/11 but only because we were told lies from the Bush administration to get there. There are no weapons of mass destruction. We have our stake in the oil. We have our bases in the Middle East now. Empire effectively grown. And you are missing the broader point Paul is trying to make. That is that out foreign policies promote violence towards us. a rel="nofollow" href="http://(http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/10/ron-paul-was-right.html) We are occupying their holy land, and bombing their neighborhoods. With Iraqi and Afghani civilian deaths totaling nearly 900,000, thats 300 times the casualties of 9/11. You're telling me you can't see any reason we might insight anger with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq?

7.) "A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
        Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar." a rel="nofollow" href="http://(http://www.civilwarhome.com/warcosts.htm)

So far we see a total of about $8,300,000,000 not including the cost in damages and in inflation, mentioned above, which would bring the total higher. You also need to brush aside thousands of deaths… Now! There was an estimated 4,000,000(approx) slaves in the US at the time of the Civil War. Assuming every slave could be negotiated for purchase at $400 as the letters from Delaware implya rel="nofollow" href="http://(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335189,00.html) you get a total of $1,600,000,000. Even if the states insisted on double the money…
$3,200,000,000 < $8,300,000,000.
Triple that?
$4,800,000,000<$8,300,000,000
Therefore, it more than likely would have been much less costly in dollars and lives to buy all the slaves and free them.

6.) If you would listen to Ron Pauls personal answer regarding pork, he actually says that he is for pork if that pork is giving money back a district that gave it in taxes. Doesn't it make perfect sense that he would get his constituents what they rightfully deserve since they paid there taxes and those funds should be allocated to them?

Ron Paul being a smart man, realizes that his ideal of having absolutely no pork is not going to happen any time soon, and makes sure his constituents get what is rightfully theirs while at the same time making a moral statement by voting against the bill as whole. If you ask me he's doing the most efficient job possible there.

5.) Ron Paul openly said it is not a wise choice to build the mosque but he also said it is their right. What he was against, were people like Rush Limbaugh suggesting that the government step in to prevent the mosque building. He was against the government infringing the rights of one group because of the popular opinion of another group. He also openly defended the rights of the people protesting the mosque. The only thing he opposed was the government getting involved. Please get your facts straight

4.)"He pals around with 9/11 Truther Alex Jones, invites Truthers like Jesse Ventura to speak at his events, and on numerous occasions calls for a new investigation into what “really” happened on September 11."… Wow you really put a slant on that.

For starters, Ron Paul has never said he is a 9/11 Truther. (While I think your arrogance towards 9/11 truth is appalling, I hope that satisfies you.) He has said he would support an independent investigation because the people have a right to investigate it if they feel there are more questions to be asked.

As far as inviting Jesse Venture to events. No matter what your thoughts on 9/11, Ventura was a Navy Seal, a professional athlete, and a Governor. He also supports limited government and states rights which is dead on with Paul, so it does make some sense that he would be welcome to speak at an event with Paul.

As far as the newsletters go, they were a very long time ago, you cannot prove they were Ron Paul, and they entirely contradict his entire public office record. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I honestly don't care if people don't agree, because this is the only point you make I cannot indefinitely refute.

Paul has always said that he is willing to work with people on the things they agree with and look past differences. The only reason the fact that he talks to Alex Jones bothers you is because you're extremely narrow minded.

I also find it funny that you make it sound okay to generalize an entire muslim population in point 5 and then decry Ron Paul, for some mildly racist letters that he may or may not have written 20 years ago in point 4. Good form!

3.) This argument on your end revolves entirely around a security threat. You clearly believe that a security threat is an easy excuse to use our military and get involved over seas where we shouldn't be involved. I can't really refute your beliefs but merely say I have the opposite opinion and I do agree with Ron Paul that we should not financially or militaristically support Israel, or any nation. I also think we should let other countries deal with their own foreign affairs… Sorry if that makes me an abomination to you.

Oh also, Rand Paul makes his own decisions. I don't suppose we should criticize you if your kids make a different choice than you when they are in their 40s, completely out of your home, and married with kids.

Overall, acting like Ron Paul is 'anti-Israel' when he is against entanglements with ANY country, is like saying a vegetarian is anti-steak. It is also blatantly playing on peoples emotions with personal interests in Israel.

2.) If you'd like to start with 'chronic dishonesty' regarding Iran. How about our government repeatedly insisting Iran is building a nuke to kill us, when the UN has reported multiple times that they have found no evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. This sounds eerily similar to another middle eastern conflict, no?

1.) Ron Paul supporters understand his chances are slim and we knew that last year. We are more concerned with spread ing the message of limited government, sound monetary policy, and peaceful foreign policy. I do just want to point out quickly a nice little distortion you made though…

about 10,000 people attended CPAC 2010 and 2,395 voted in the straw poll. About 2,000 attended VVS and 723 voted. Mike Pence won with 22 percent giving him about 160 votes rounding up at VVS. Ron Paul got 5 percent giving him about 36 votes, rounding down

Lets look at CPAC… Paul won with 31% thats about 742 votes. Mike Pence ironically got 5% 120 votes. Lets combine these 2 polls to make one super straw poll . Ron Paul has a total of 778 votes, Mike Pence has a total of 280. I'll leave it at that.

 

's picture

So who's going to contact the guy who wrote the original piece to let him know about this response(s)?  Maybe leave a comment on the original article, Wes or Kyle?

Bonnie Kristian's picture

I left my response in the comments, and he has responded to almost every other comment. His response would be a hoot. But I think enough is said if he doesnt respond, haha.

's picture

People like Calvin are hacks and very far from anything intellectual. The most in depth literature he has probably ever read was probably something by Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulture.

Liberty = Freedom, no ifs ands or buts about it. Anyone that blasts Ron Paul must accept the fact that they are tyrants. Paul clearly understands the intent of the Founding Fathers. It is clear that Calvin does not even understand the world wide liberty movement of the 18th century  muchless what was happening here in America.

What a tool.

David Hazi's picture

One thing the Horowitz-clone failed to accuse Ron Paul of: supporting the gold standard! Neocons know their imperial wet-dreams would be impossible if there were a return to Constitutional money...

I was a member of the National Committee to Relegalize Gold when freshman congressman Paul was a champion of the restoration of our right to own gold, taken from us by FDR.

If for no other reason than the restoration of that essential right, Dr. Paul ought to be President! Or at least Speaker of the House!

 

's picture

It really irritates me to insist that Ron Paul (and by extension, me) are liberals when their positions are those of the traditional left.

Read more of their stuff, and you'll see that they think the idea of scaling welfare back to  a state level is too drastic to be a viable option.

They don't support overturning Roe v Wade.

They want to bully the rest of the world into some ever-changing definition of "compliance."

I could go on, but why bother?

I'm linking back from RedStateEclectic, too.

 

 

's picture

Well, one could argue that Ron Paul, and "by extension" those who share his beliefs in political thought and principles are, indeed, liberal -- within the classical sense, of course. Thomas Jefferson was himself...a liberal! =) I know what you were getting at, and you're right, these neo-conservatives are, in my mind, as liberal in today's sense as they come. =(

's picture

OH...and good write-up, Wes! Excellent responses to their "empty charges"...

's picture

Your rebuttal is sound, but might be too sophisticated for the folks over at NewsRealBlog to properly comprehend.

's picture

Niiiiice.

Bonnie Kristian's picture

This was a great rebuttal.  I've had my debates with the fascist Horowitz disciples.  They're progressive and we're constitutionalists.  They know Ron Paul is right in his interpretation of the constitution but it puts them in a position of admitting they don't care about the constitution so instead of just admitting that they just name-call.  How many times to have you heard them say - Ron Paul is a loon or bat sh  crazy?  A loon who was right about GSE's and Fannie and Freddie.  A loon who was right about the Iraq war and voted against it.  A loon who has been consistently preaching the same message forever.  I'll take that loon over the war mongers any day.  Hey Horowitz, where in the constitution does it say we should spend our blood and treasure to force (through the barrel of a gun) democracy on other people?

's picture

Dammm Wes! Great job.

Rachel Kania's picture

Or at least the smarter ones. I know someone who knows Calvin quite well, a Ron Paul supporter, of course---he even played in a brass quintet in the lobby for Ron Paul just last night! Calvin is probably bitter.

's picture

Dude, you nailed it. Good job!

Jihan Huq's picture

I loved the comment below the article on how 6 months ago that blog post would have received hundreds of comments, but today it receives much much less.  It shows you the respect given to Newsreal and Calvin Freiburger these days.  The author is a complete fool.  I'm not just saying that because I disagree with him.  It's because that's what people who know Calvin on a personal level have told me.

sentinel18's picture

Someone else hit the nail on the head.  Ron Paul pisses Neo-cons off because they know he is right on Constitutional matters, and his stances EXPOSE how wrong they are.   They would love you to think they are conservatives that love the country and the Constitution, but that just isn't the case.

Ron Paul shows us the right stance to take (pun intended), and really the Horowitz guys just can't handle that.

's picture

and besides everyhting else ...

(Quick note to Calvin:  Dude -- publishing lists on multiple pages is the most annoying publishing habit on the Internet ever.)

yyyyyyyup

's picture

Great response.

's picture