One thing I have always believed in is self reliance and personal accountability. In writing a political opinion column, I try to focus on what, I think, we as individuals need to work on to set our country on the right path, instead of waiting for a politician to do it. I normally would not bother writing a rebuttal piece because I believe that we should all be critical thinkers and have the ability to see things for how they really are. But after reading the following article from Newsweek dot com.
In this article republished from Fact-check dot org, Joe Miller makes an issue of three things the Paul campaign claims. I will list the summery of each claim, highlight some of the analysis and provide my own to demonstrate how poorly constructed this hit and run journalism is, and how we should be ever vigilant of those who would try to help us form our opinions.
* Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.
He cites an article written by Stephen Braun, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer.
November 30, 2007:
[link edited for length]
I read it three times, I invite you to read it, while it is yet another hit piece, it doesn't say that Ron Paul "claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union."
The closest the author comes to this is in this paragraph
"During the Wednesday debate, Paul also linked the purported NAFTA highway to his concerns about the Trilateral Commission -- an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists -- and the World Trade Organization's 'control [of ] our drug industry, our nutritional products." Paul added: 'I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government.'"
Mr. Braun did not offer any transcripts as source material for where he received these quotes, and the quotes he uses and attributes to Dr. Paul do not mention anything about the proposed NAFTA highway. So Mr Miller is using a poorly written article as a basis for something that Dr. Paul supposedly says then disproves it by saying the people behind the highway say it doesn't exist.
Imagine a police detective asking a murder suspect if he was guilty. Most likely that suspect will say no, and the detective says ok, and lets him go. Would you think the detective had done his job? I wouldn't.
While investigating whether a statement is true or false you should do a little research, and a little critical thinking.
Mr Miller, here are a few things for you to look up about the NAU conspiracy theory.
The Mexican Truck pilot program that was being blocked by congress, but implemented anyway;
The Kansas City Smart Port http://www.kcsmartport.com/ a Mexican customs port in Kansas City; and finally;
The Merida Initiative. (the Administration is asking for over $500 million to beef up Mexico's southern border, yes, While our borders are open, they want to spend billions in Mexico.[link edited for length]
Do any of these things mean there is a conspiracy? no. But just because someone is concerned and asking questions doesn't make them a kook or a conspiracy theorist.
My analysis of fact-check dor org. They did not even show that Dr Paul had said what they are disputing to be untrue, and it would take a lot more research then is apparent in this article to truly understand the issues at hand, much less comment on them intelligently.
Next, Miller suggest Dr. Paul is misleading us in how much money we can save by calling off our global empire with the following statement.
"Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt."
Here Miller cites a quote from Dr. Paul answering a question about Governor Huckabee's Highway plan as discussed in the presidential debates on January 30th.
"Well, you know, the governor says that you have to borrow for a handout of a check from the Chinese. Where are you going to get the money to build the highway?
Same old thing. We have a foreign policy where we blow up bridges overseas and then we tax the people to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas and our bridges are falling down and our infrastructure is falling down.
So, yes, this money should be spent back here at home. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire. That's where the money is. You can't keep borrowing from China. You can't keep printing the money.
We have to cut some spending. That's what nobody here talks about. Where do you cut spending if you want to spend some money? We need lower taxes, less regulations, and we need to free up the market.
We can't expect the government to do everything. We have to faith and confidence that the market works, but you can't do any of that unless you look at the monetary system ."
Note that Paul doesn't say or even imply that we could save $1 trillion by cutting back our Empire in that quote, just that the money should be spent here, not overseas. As for other point of contention in that answer that we spend $1 trillion on our foreign empire. He says that the Paul administration cites the following article for where they got that $1 trillion figure.
[link edited for length]
The articles point was about spending $1 Trillion on Defense. Defense spending may not be analogous with our global empire, but that seems to really be splitting hairs, and Miller should do a much better job of being factual then he is in this article, before he can score points on something like that.
As far as how much Paul claims we can save, I looked at his website, and listened to some of his speeches, and he never lists a savings figure. He talks about ending our global presence, and using the money to fund programs like Social Security for people who have become dependent upon the Government. I did find something else worth noting while looking for someplace where Paul claims to be able to save $1 trillion, here is an analysis by the NTU on each of the candidates:
[link edited for length]
According to their research Dr. Paul's proposed spending would cut the budget by $150.1 Billion! While it may not be $1 Trillion, it is a good start, and much better then what the remaining candidates in the race are proposing.
My analysis, once again fact-check dot org makes a claim that Ron Paul said something and doesn't show where he said it. If the context of his answer in the debates was how much we spend maintaining our empire, then you could make the argument that defense spending is not the same thing as a foreign operation and he was misleading us, but it is a weak point to challenge since he was really talking about how our economic and domestic troubles were tied to our foreign spending. IE printing and borrowing money to spend overseas instead of putting it into our economy here, and $550 billion is still too much.
The last point of contention is this:
* Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.
What fact are they disputing here? While Miller may think it is poor form for Ron Paul's ads to mention how a Republican icon like Reagan once helped campaign for you 30 years ago, even though Dr. Paul criticized the Reagan administration 20 years ago. But it doesn't make it untrue. Here is what he writes on this subject.
Paul's disaffection started early in Reagan's presidency. "Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats," Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. "It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes."
While the author tried but could not confirm or deny that Reagan had in fact endorsed Paul like ad claims, he did include this.
Reagan's former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas "to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements."
Which seems to imply that there had been a Reagan endorsement at one time. Personally I would have rather seen the Paul campaign run adds talking about why we are paying $5 for a gallon of milk while the Government tells us that inflation is at 2%. That is much closer to his message then Reagan's quote, but I am an observer and not running the campaign.
My analysis of fact-check dot org; Since Ron Paul's ads didn't claim that Reagan endorsed me and I support everything that Reagan ever did. Which would have been misleading, the only issue of fact is did Reagan ever actually endorse Ron Paul as he claims. By their own research the answer seems to be yes.
Finally we come to the last page and find out why Newsweek dot com, fact-check dot org, and Joe Miller would spend the time to publish as sloppy a hit piece as this, on a candidate they say doesn't have much of a chance of winning the Republican nomination.
"We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we've received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?"...
This seems to imply this horribly written and factually inaccurate thing was written so that Paul supporters couldn't claim fact-check dot org had not written anything about Paul's claims so Dr Paul must be telling the truth. If that was their intention, sorry all they proved was that fact-check dot org is another unreliable source of information.
Thanks Newsweek dot com, thanks Fact-check dot org, and thanks Joe Miller. You are proof that we should question everything we read, and do our own research. Once again, it is up to us to make a difference, we cannot count on others to tell us what to do or think. I invite you all to get involved, and do some critical thinking for yourself.
2008 Alexander Jefferson, all rights reserved.