Every few election cycles, from the tintinnabulation that is America’s two party system there arises a maverick, a pariah, and a rebel. He promises a third way. He promises an end, simultaneously, to leftist bureaucracy and rightist hypocrisy. He makes puritan appeals about ridding the political landscape of all of its technocrats and courtiers and overlords. He looks into the cameras with, quite often, a doey-eyed avuncular expression and steals the hearts of all those millions of Americans who have ever hoped to turn the profanity that is politics into a beautiful Paradise.

Wherever purity might be found, a Paradise might be erected, and hypocrisy removed, there you will find Muslims. It is, therefore, no surprise, that any time American politics produce a rebellious candidate, Muslims flock to him.

In 2000, this man was Ralph Nader. Ultra-left-wing, anti-corporation, big-government Ralph Nader.

In 2008 this man is Ron Paul. Ultra-right-wing, pro-corporation, small-government Ron Paul.

	Why Muslims should support Ron Paul - I want a candidate who has no desire to go adventuring in other countries and who will actually follow the Constitution. Right now, the only one on that page is Ron Paul. (Read more...)

In the case of both, the draw for Muslims has been each man’s foreign policy pronouncements. Both men were critical of American support of Israel, opposed American intervention around the world, and proposed a check on American power (in Nader’s case via international law, in Paul’s case via isolationism). On a lesser level, they both took civil liberties positions that Muslims found heartening.

However, I have noticed that the amount of fervor that Ron Paul has inspired among Muslims has been far greater than the fervor Nader inspired. This has to do with the fact that in addition to his foreign policy positions, Paul is also religious, and socially conservative. I’m thinking that Muslims get way too worked up about conservative men who criticize Israel (thus Pat Buchanan’s popularity). This, probably, has something to do with the fact that according to surveys vast numbers of Muslims — not including me please — are actually more socially conservative than Evangelical Christians.

Paul, therefore, has been turned into the perfect candidate for a large number of Muslims. Challenges to prove that Ron Paul isn’t the best candidate “for the Muslimeen!” have deluged me. In fact, on the issue of Ron Paul I’ve had to take on my usually politically apathetic (and more conservative) brother as well. The fact that Ron Paul roused him from his World of Warcraft stupor is telling.

Yet, the simple fact is, Ron Paul is not the right candidate for Muslims. Both his foreign and domestic policy are devastating to Muslims.

Ron Paul takes money from Neo-Nazi groups and is near and dear to the notorious racist and former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan, David Duke. Mr. Duke publicly gives advice to Paul. While its true that Paul may or may not be listening, but the fact that Duke leans into Paul to make his whispers, is troubling to me.

I’m sure Mr. Paul is a kind and ethical human being, but the involvement and approval he gets from right-wing Neo-Nazi groups ought to put Muslim on alert that just like the Evangelical Christians were a part of George Bush’s base (and hijacked it), so too are Neo-Nazis a part of Mr. Paul’s (and could hijack it).

Followers of Ron Paul have written some very unsavory things about blacks. In one newsletter published for nearly a decade bearing Paul’s name, his supporters ridiculed some black activists who wanted to renamed NYC after MLK Jr by suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. Ron Paul didn’t put a stop to this. Why should he? He’s a libertarian. He is, by principle, not able to put a stop to others’ racism. For more background on the newsletter, go this investigative piece by Jamie Kirchik here.

How about worker’s rights like no hiring/firing on the basis of skin color? Ron Paul doesn’t care. Fired because you wear hijab? Ron Paul doesn’t care. Fired because you grew your Islamic beard? Ron Paul doesn’t care. In a Ron Paul world, get used to hearing the words: at-will-employment. It means pretty much what it sounds like: your career is at the mercy of the employer’s will. You can be fired just for being Muslim, and that’s OK: at-will-employment baby! If there is one single issue that Muslims need to be wary of when it comes to Ron Paul, its employment rights. For a constituency that likes working — a little too much — this should be a great problem, yet its not, since in utopia you can’t get fired. This probably explains why the biggest support for Paul is among Muslim college students: people who don’t hold real jobs.

Paulian opposition to nearly all government programs initiated in the New Deal and after is also troubling. Muslims get excited by the desire among Paulians to get rid of the IRS. However, in a Ron Paul America, there wouldn’t be an FDA (hello untested drugs), or an FAA (airlines thus making their own rules), or EEOC (goodbye employment discrimination complaints) or even the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. No Department of Homeland Security and no INS either: why bother when we won’t be allowing immigrants in? Good-luck trying to get your brother a green card.

Further, Mr. Paul opposes any restrictions or regulations on corporations. In other words, the few restraints that two hundred years of American activists have fought so hard to place upon American arms dealers, gun dealers, tobacco merchants, mortgage companies, liquor companies, pharmaceutical companies, will be gone.

Take the sub-prime mortgage crises that has hit many Muslim families. If your house is foreclosed because some banks in NY and Switzerland didn’t do proper due diligence before financing, in a Ron Paul world, the fault is yours. End of ballgame, move on folks. Say you lose your entire 401K and pension in an Enron-like fiasco; sorry, says Ron Paul, it was not the duty of the corporations to give those things to you anyway.

In Ron Paul’s world, the state cannot meddle with the affairs of the corporations. Muslims sophisticated in history might care to recall that the era of colonialism began with a corporation that operated free from the strictures of a nation-state: British East India Company.

This – corporations – is where we move to the area of foreign policy.

In a Ron Paul world, all the major American corporations will become freed from the hundreds of treaties, regulations, and laws that we pass every year to regulate their behavior. Under current international law, DC is accountable for the crimes carried out by its corporations. Not so in a Ron Paul world. Right-wing libertarianism hates international law; they consider it a communist conspiracy.

Oddly, Muslims who support Ron Paul go off a bridge at this point. They say: the neo-conservative years demonstrate that corporations run the show anyway so why bother with anything? Not only is this defeatist, its also sad (only among Muslims is revenge against neo-conservative corporatism carried out by running away). The solution to preventing corporate greed isn’t to give into corporate greed and leave it unfettered; it is to contain it. Exxon’s yearly profits exceed those of a vast majority of the countries of this world. Just a few years ago in Nigeria and Indonesia, major American oil corporations formed militias in order to intimidate and assassinate opponents. And this was during the Clinton years, way more stringent towards corporations than Ron Paul would ever be. (Victims of these crimes were able to bring a case against the corporations in California federal courts — which wouldn’t exist in a Ron Paul world).

Diplomatic blow-back and international shame are considered by most foreign policy experts to be significant in terms of deterring a country’s aggression and stupidity. In a Ron Paul world America would be less diplomatic and less ashamed than it was during the Bush administration. In the case of Bush this was due to his foolishness; in the case of Paul its due to principle. What’s the difference? We need accountability, not its opposite.

At the end of the day, Muslims should be agitating for America to adopt a multi-lateral foreign policy, to participate in the UN, and to follow the human rights and non-proliferation and anti-torture conventions to which it is a party. Another area where Muslims can do some good within the US is to track which human rights treaties the US signs but does not subsequently “execute.” There is a loophole in American treaty-law. We often sign treaties but have created an artificial constitutional barrier which allows us to forswear applying them. For example, Bill Clinton signed the US onto International Criminal Court, yet Bush has pretended that it doesn’t apply to us. This is the kind of stuff that Muslims who are unhappy with American foreign policy should be looking at. Instead, sigh…

Thankfully, not all Muslims have been duped. Anecdotally speaking, African-American and Latino-American Muslims do not go close to right-wing libertarianism. Together, these two groups compose at least 1/3rd of American Islam. Paul acquires most of his support among Muslims from first-generation Pakistani and Arab immigrants (or converts brainwashed by such immigrants). This split in our communities reveals, yet again, the sad reality of immigrant-domination of American-Muslim communities. Support for Ron Paul should be added to the entire litany of complaints that Black and Latino (and other convert) Muslims have towards immigrant Muslims.

There is, however, a more compelling reason to not support Ron Paul. It’s compelling because its pragmatic: Ron Paul is not viable.

Many Muslims are in the terrible habit of chasing mirages, especially when it comes to politics. Believing that they are eternally destined to remain victimized and marginalized by “the system” (all while they go to top schools and work at top hospitals) they concede pre-emptive defeat and never bother to engage the system at all.

Muslims should take heart from the progressive movement. Progressives – who have over and again demonstrated that many of the things they believe in benefit Muslims – are instructive in showing how a small group of dedicated individuals can change the discourse.

It was a progressive Senator who cast the only vote against the Patriot Act (Senator Feingold); it was a progressive act on the part of Barack Obama that led him to oppose the War in Iraq; it was a Muslim running on a progressive platform that became the first Muslim in Congress (Keith Ellison — see my profile of his relationship to Muslims here); it was the progressive movement that has been a longstanding critic of Rudy Giuliani and police brutality; and it’s a Senator (Dodd) backed by progressive gusto who is trying to do away with FISA, the wiretapping law. If these progressives are having so much success, then clearly being a part of “the system” isn’t all that meaningless.

In fact, if the example of Barack Obama and John Edwards has shown anything, its that a dedicated participation in the American system is not misplaced. Poll after poll is showing that the two most important issues in this election are not Terror and War, but Healthcare and Economy. This is due, almost entirely, to the conviction among progressives that these issues mattered and their willingness to show why. Both of these candidates pledged not to take any lobbying money from DC lobbyists, and have had significant success without so doing. I provide the examples of progressives not to persuade Muslims to become members of the left, but to demonstrate that participating in the system is not hopeless, and that change comes from within (the system).

Ron Paul was not part of the system. Even he recognized that, crafting “revolution” based campaign strategy, which I admit was cute and romantic and all the references to the film V for Vendetta were omg so cool w00t. However, being an outsider to politics means that one has almost no influence on actual policy. Muslims have to break the habit of supporting candidates who willfully isolate themselves. Instead, they must start joining big-campaigns where their imprint may be smaller, but can be more permanent. It is possible that this will mean that Muslims join many campaigns instead of one. That’s fine, Muslims don’t all think alike and in fact, should be spread across the various campaigns.

One counter-argument I’m willing to concede is that supporting Ron Paul would have been a sort of symbolic protest. Yet, my concession is, at best, due to pity. On closer inspection this makes little sense. Why would you carry out your protest within the Republican Party? Fact is, since 9/11, the Republican Party – with some exceptions – has made it an art-form to demonize Islam. (I, in fact, declared that the GOP had a Muslim Problem). 40% of Republicans polled supported mapping Muslims and under a Republican attorney general major Muslim organizations like ISNA were ridiculously named “un-indicted co-conspirators” by US Attorneys. So if symbolic support was really the modus operandii, Muslims should have put their focus on the Democratic Party and getting behind people like Edwards. That would have been real protest for how a Republican President treated Muslims after the 2000 bloc vote Muslims gave him. Instead, by staying with Republicans, Muslims just showed that they have no dignity. Well done.

Anyway, I purposefully held off writing this article until Super Tuesday so Muslims could see how not-viable Ron Paul was from the get-go, despite all the hoopla. Hopefully a light bulb will go off.

Thankfully, it is not yet too late for Muslims to regroup. Primary season is still in full-swing and viable candidates are still pandering to constituents. Both the Republican and Democratic nomination efforts are still going. Muslim groups, mosques, activist communities and intellectual should get off their Ron Paul kick and enter the reality-based community.

one of the silliest and quite frankly, dumbest explanations for not voting Ron Paul.

His appeal amongst many Muslims obviously has to do with his foreign policy approach in that he goes beyond mere lip service to the War and actually states that going into Iraq was at its very foundation incorrect.

Your insinuations of white supremacism and apathy to bigotry/social programs through whispers and third party associations are a perfect illustration of your lack of understanding of his appeal in general beyond Muslims. Congressman Paul's appeal is to liberty. He doesn't support the federal government meddling in abortion, homosexuality, and many other issues that give Washington reason to think they hold the reins on our lives. Painting him as simply a social conservative is largely misleading considering his stance of states' rights (including the right to legalize abortion/gay marriage at the state level), starkly different than the so called 'moral police' of America. Whoever supports Paul (and candidates in general) are supporting his policies, not their own. If a convicted felon donated to Obama's campaign, does that make Obama a crime-lover? I'll also remind you that a brothel owner donated to Paul's campaign. Do you think Paul (or any candidate) has time to examine the personal traits of each and everyone of his/her contributors?

Economic liberty entails smaller government and less taxes as well. People seem to have no qualms in asserting it is perfectly fine to tax people who work harder and earn more money to help those who are poorer make a living. This welfare state not only encourages those without skills/education to become dependent on others and make disincentives to help you help yourself, but makes a mockery of what we are really doing: giving charity. Many of these welfare programs and EITC refunds amount to nothing more than the gov't telling people we can do with your money whatever we choose to, even buying votes among the less fortunate of society. Ron Paul's shrinking of government, while perhaps a bit extreme at times, is at least looking in the right direction. I am entitled to what I earn, not what the government decides I deserve to earn.

He's not viable? The man set the record (TWICE) for most amount of money raised for campaign in 24 hours. His average donation was miniscule compared to the other mainstream candidate, proof that this is a genuine grassroots campaign and that he has mass appeal across the nation. Why this financial success hasn't translated into votes is anyone's guess (fact that he's in the Republican party, excitement in Democratic Party luring independents, he didn't really have a national name beforehand). How many people wrote off Obama when he first entered the race against Hillary? People were excited he was running maybe, but no one thought he had a sliver of a chance on the national arena next to Hillary. And now look where we are.

"Instead, by staying with Republicans, Muslims just showed that they have no dignity." How old are we again? Do you really think if a Democrat was president it would necessarily be different? Shouldn't Muslims be especially sensitive to painting people with a broad brush? Bush has been a failure as a President in many (if not most respects), but is that simply b/c he's a Republican? Let's be fair as well. After 9/11, he visited a mosque to downplay bigoted and hateful responses. He has appointed a Muslim (Zalmay Khalilzad) as Ambassador to the UN. He's invited imams to the WHite House for Eid celebrations, consultation, and made a point of order of including Islamic elements (mosques, imams, Quran) in speeches about American life alongside allusions to Christianity and Judaism. We can be critical for his shortcomings, but Muslims somehow make it some sort of personal vendetta against Bush.

(On a side note, I was told you (Ali Eteraz) had many insightful things to say. Perhaps on other subjects you display much more intelligence, but let me suggest you at least educate yourself on politics for the future)

There's a lot of different issues to address, but Muslims should be very cautious of "federalism." While the federal government can be oppressive, in recent American history, the federal government intervened to prevent state governments from violating the U.S. constitution. If people with Ron Paul's point of view had been in power since the 1950s, black people in Georgia and Alabama and Mississippi might still not be able to vote. Not because Ron Paul is racist, but because he'd "leave it to the states." Of course I like Ron Paul better than "stay offensive" Guiliani or Tom Tancredo or other Republican demagogues, but this issue of federal protections of civil rights is something where I can't agree with the federalist/libertarian view.

Well, here's a nugget from today's frontpage of CNN.

====================================================!
!Quickvote !
! !
!Would a limited application of Islamic law in !
!non-Muslim states improve tolerance between faiths?!
! > Yes < !
! > No < !
! !
! > VOTE < or > CLICK < to see results !
====================================================!

Not sure where and why this topic popped up. Odd.

Why did Ali Eteraz leave out the fact that Barack Obama belongs to a church that gave the Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan an award for being a great leader?

Why does he leave out the fact that all the presidential candidates (Republicans and Democrats) support the racist policies of Israel?

Why does he leave out the fact that none of the candidates condemn how while the United States preaches human rights and democracy, it goes around killing millions and supporting brutal dictators and kings who do its bidding?

Barack Obama is a genocide denier. Read about here.
http://gettingtruth.blogspot.com/2007/07/barack-obama-is-clueless-democratic.html
Actually, all the presidential candidates, Republican and Democratic, are genocide deniers

Moot point. Ron Paul is going nowhere and will have no say in these elections.

maybe the contributors here arent old enough, or simply dont know- but the term 'states rghts' has been a dog whistle term to appeal to the souths exclusion of african americans from the political process-

decentralizing the federal government is not a new idea-

as for yousefm- perhaps hes forgotten that one of the very first acts of bush was to fire the sole arabic white house employee.

to attempt to paint bush as pro-muslim is counterintuitive- and to attempt to bring the GOP along for that ride is beyond all reason.

at least this author bakcs his opinions up with examples and knows a bit about the politics behind the candidates

maybe Mrs. A isn't familiar with legal history or jurisprudence, but states rights and federalism were a critical check envisioned by the Founders of this country against untamed national power and have been fundamental to ensuring the national government's power is also kept in check against unwanted interference. The South's mistreatment of African Americans was something the federal government wholeheartedly supported (Dred Scott anyone?), not something a bunch of isolated states decided was true and the North just sat by with its chin held high. Don't get me wrong, unchecked states rights (i.e. Jim Crow laws) are dangerous as well, but it would quite juvenile to write off states rights as simply a 'dog whistle'.

Bush fired the sole arabic white house employee --- So does that mean he hates arabs? do you even know if that has anything to do with the employee being arab/muslim? Seems quite unlikely given he has no problem appointing a Muslim as US ambassador to the United Nations or hosting Ramadan dinners. I'm not painting him as pro-Muslim so don't put words in my mouth. I'm also not trying to defend Bush's policies b/c I, in fact, don't believe in many of them. But I don't hate him on a personal level b/c I don't know him personally. And some policies he has pushed for (such as amnesty rights for many Mexican migratory workers that are vital to our economy), policies he has received a lot of flack for from fellow Republicans, are things I do support and will not just write off b/c I disagree with 90% of everything else he says. You can't make politics personal. Unlike some hysterical Muslims who believe we 'have no dignity' if voting Republican or that Muslims of immigrant backgrounds are somehow 'brainwashed' in thinking for themselves instead of submitting to a groupthink mentality, I examine ideas on their merits first regardless of where it's coming from. (By the way, when an author bases their analysis of Asian vs. Afro-American Muslims on "anecdotally speaking", that is a BS euphemism for "Well from what I've been told" and means they really don't have any statistics/facts to back up anything they're about to say and are pretty much basing it on their own assumptions/stereotypes).

I took issue with this author's assessment of Paul's policies and his overall approach to Muslims being politically active. He seems to think Ron Paul's appeal amongst Muslims (beyond foreign policy) is rooted in social conservatism, quite simplistic considering Paul also believes in the legalization of marijuana and even certain forms of prostitution (Ultra-right wing and supported by brothel owners?). His approach to 'hot button' issues such as gay marriage and abortion is fundamentally different than his more conservative rivals Huckabee and Romney in that he does NOT support any federal legislation interfering in these matters. As I stated, these silly and shallow generalizations are indicative of the author's failure to understand Paul's appeal in general rooted in economic liberty, not "ulta-right wing Neo-nazism". I find it quite ironic how someone like this author, who I would think would be more sensitive to irresponsibly generalizing others, tries to paint all Republicans (comprised of varying and often conflicting interest groups such as Evangelicals, gun-rights, libertarians, social conservatives) as overwhelmingly anti-Muslim based on a poll where 40% of self-identified Republicans believed Muslims should be required to register their location (even though same poll found 44 percent of all respondents and 24% of self-identified Democrats believe that some curtailment of civil liberties such as registration is necessary for Muslim Americans).

And just to be clear, I wholeheartedly support disagreeing with Ron Paul's policies (in fact, I disagree with him on a bunch of stuff like gun ownership). But what I do not subscribe to is treating the Presidential election like you're in high school, where superficial considerations such as 'likability', associating with certain people, and gossip through the grapevine are acceptable criteria to find someone 'good' or 'bad'.

WHY IM A PROUD REPUBLICAN*


hello yousef- no i dont think it means bush hates all arabs- the point is- it was his intiial reaction to an arab presence in the white house, which he perceived as a threat, and, yes- it was based soley upon his arabness.

but when one balances the war against terror/ iraqi liberation, pro-israeli, afghanistan invasion- threats for WWIII to iran- against throwing a few public relations bones to muslims (oo- were so excited he mentioned we exist! and were all very reassured that he, mentioned that muslims are in america so now we know for SURE he coudn't possibly have any personal vendettas against muslims)- o wait- there was that disastrous little emotional speech about saddam trying to assassinate "his daddy" and how he was going to finish the job {daddy, did i do good? are you proud of me now?} one or two clumsy crusader references- of course in 2003 when the INS rounded up all men between 16-40 from muslim countries in varying stages of pending immigration status'- detaining all and deporting 1,000's- over 3,000 detained indefinitely without due process under 'secret evidence'
well, when one pits this against a visit to a mosque-
and a political appointment-

there seems to be some disharmony there-

now, as for this characterization of yours in reference to the states right being a dog whistle-

"but it would quite juvenile to write off states rights as simply a 'dog whistle'."

its not my idiom-

"states rights" is a dog whistle because george wallace (remember him? no?) and others used imposition of federal jurisdiction in the 60s to ensure de-segregation as a violation of their 'states rights'.

in other words- it was the justification for the continuation of segregating children in school based upon race-

dog whistle is a pundit term for an issue to a targeted group with a hidden message for only their understanding ears-
only a dog can hear a dog whistle- it isnt discernible to the range of human hearing-

so, although you imagined at first my unfamiliarity with the most basic tenets of the intentions of our founding fathers-
and perceieved the term as 'juvenile'
about 4 decades of pundits have used the term, so- subtle- maybe- simplistic? not exactly-

and bush's position on amnesty for immigrants who entered america illegally-
well- that is just short-sighted in the extreme and here is why-

IT has been ALREADY DONE BY REAGAN

reagan's brilliant reasoning was that all of the illegally working mexicans would be so grateful to come inot the sunlight of legitimacy that they would run to the IRS and start paying taxes with vigor-

in 1987- full amnesty was granted to mexicans (wouldn it be reverse discrimination to single out a group for such beneficial treatment?)

and heres some ancedotal (punctuated with factual) info-

i lived in southern calif at the time-
heres the anecdotal part- i worked with a woman who'd been here illegally for 20 years working in santa barbara as a housekeeper.
she'd set aside 40,000 dollars- and when the borders were opened, she took her 40k, went to her town, left the money there, and returned with a boatload of relatives.

10,000 people poured into L.A. and overnight. a tent city was constructed, and of course since there was no sanitation, dysentery reared its smelly head-
the homeless people who regularly 'lived ' there floated over to venice beach but thats another story for another time.

so- the immigrant population exploded exponentially, those who HAD been here and worked took their money back across the border-

and of course no one went any were NEAR the IRS and proffered grateful fistfuls of dollars into the american tax coffers.

its simply awe-inspiring to see such genius at work-
so awed was george w- that apparently he decided(h IS the decider, after all) to follow suit.

and, yes- illegals have been a great boon for unethical business owners-
no employment or health insurance to pay-
no pesky taxes to deal with-
those uppity unions are really getting put in their places back to 1890-

and of course the wages get kept down to a nice pre-1970 subsistence level ofor all of us!
who needs a middle class?

o-wait-SOMEBODY somewhere needs to be paying taxes-
well, ron paul will fix that too by simply eliminating the IRS-

who needs health care, decent wages, strong unions, an infrastructure that isnt deteriorating?

when we can hire illegally entering immigrants to fix it at 5 dollars an hour!

yes, george has been a friend to not only muslims, but all americans!

*not

nothing personal MR.M- its just politics

lol, mrs. A, people like you live for pundit shows (you seem to have their vocabulary down pat). Hosts on Hardball and the now defunct Crossfire frame all these issues in this polarized view of Democrat vs. Republican and live for partisan conflict and listening to themselves talk. (I suggest you take a look at Jon Stewart's appearance on Crossfire to understand what I'm talking about. Although I'm sure you've probably seen it, it's probably better if you actually listen this time).

I don't really care what you believe about Bush or Republicans (or even if you think I am somehow 'allied' with them). Your rambling rant, hollow and contrived though it may be, at least TRIES to talk about a substantive direction you believe this country should embrace. And that's great. Granted you have your obvious biases (don't we all?) and I probably disagree with you on a bunch of stuff, that's more than what the author has done in discussing Ron Paul's 'brainwashing' of Arab/Indo-Pak Muslims (which he really doesn't have any proof of to begin with) and the apparently 'undignified' Republicans whose sole job in life is apparently to lock us up. If we want to look to the future of Muslim political activism, it can't simply be a Democratic OR Republican vision b/c at the end of the day, we have to put aside our petty differences and work together. And that was my whole point in commenting to begin with: Not to profess why I think Ron Paul is right, but why Eteraz's article doesn't really bring anything to the table and serves only to make Muslims look at things in terms of political parties, not issues in themselves.

P.S. On a side note, I used to think like you once upon a time. I'm not saying this to sound rude, but I would venture to guess you're a college student or someone who hasn't really lived a financially independent life. (At least I was when I used to think that way). When you start filling out federal and state tax refunds for yourself (or volunteering for those below the poverty line) and understand how the government (Democrats & Republicans alike) misappropriate this money for their own gain while throwing crumbs on the tables of our society's marginalized to entice them into thinking things are getting better for them, I think you may find your views slightly alter on how to truly bring about change in this country. Nothing personal, as you said, just a suggestion on seeing things from another perspective that you may not have considered. (I'm always open to new things as well)

>> but I would venture to guess you're a college student or someone who hasn't really lived a financially independent life <<

Holy Molly!!!!!

Boy, you ve just asked for it this time. Mama mia, Mrs.A. is just going to go nutto after reading this bit. She is already pretty self-conciuos about being white and non-college e-educated, and now you really stick the needle in.

Let me guess, this response is going to be, ummmm, atleast 65 one line sentences long. *snickers*

well, i wouldn't say rude mr m- just a bit bemusedly condescending in a oneupmanship sort of style-
possibly you missed my comment on the contributors here not being old enough to remember segregation in the south (which is what the states right term refers to- i had assumed you knew that)

since i made reference to another story for another time-(when the 10,000 displaced the original homeless population in LA) i'll tell it- but only the one-

i was in venice beach at that time and we became flooded with a new population of homeless peoples chased out of LA- so, with 2 hare krishnas- (who had disassociated themsleves from iskcon for their own reasons) we fed 100 people a day for about a year.

i was on the town council, advocated for families with the housing department of CA- and collected food and supplies, (an essene gentleman gave us the use of room in the cadillac hotel) and cooked for and fed the people.

i only wore one dress for that year- which didnt have pockets-
(it was a heavy duty denim that got progressively whiter with washing- full length with long sleeves and turtleneck-which was quite the spectacle next to my countrywomen in bikinis wiggling up and down the boardwalk on rollerblades!)
and i literally did not physically touch money for a year.
(now THAT is an interesting spiritual exercise to attmept, try it sometime for just one day, let alone a full year!)

well, that was 20 years ago- and i wasnt exactly inactive before that nor since-

if youre interested i can give a synopsis of my volunteer resume- and also my activism resume- but it would be self glorifying- and indelicate to do so.

suffice to say i am comfortable in my own soul-

see, volunteer wok, for me- has always come about from seeing a deep need- having compassion for those in need- and sacrificing everything including my own prosperity and comfort to accomplish change effectively.

actually- ihave a bit too much pride on the subject - am a bit bursting to tell about it- but its not necessary.

now- the REAL question is why you would associate enthusiasm and idealism with lost youth?

if you 'used to think like me', what made you lose it?
ive had a lifetime of supporting other people, many not relatives and some strangers- filling out tax forms- but never lost that inner push to fight for justice- and do whatever is necessary, make whatever personal sacrifice- to help people in a life changing way.

and, as hajibabaran so ungraciously noted- without the auspices of "college degrees"- just a full heart, determination, energy and love for the god.

so why do you assume it is something for the young or those without personal responsibilites?
is it so hard to imagine there are people who didnt become jaded with time, and live in the very very guts and blood world without becoming disillusioned or changed?

actually- your comment on throwing crumbs to the marginalized reminds me of another story- but i guess- another story for another time-
i have a full lifetime of them to share-

hajibabaran- how goofy are you to actually WRITE OUT the word 'snickers'?


im 46 years old, had my first job at 14- have been working ever since- helped support my family and send my little brother to college- AND spen a lifetime of volunteer and socially conscious activism.

so, how old are you, and what have you done?

peace kids

listen, Mrs. A., I don't know what issues you're still working out in life or why you feel inclined to talk at me, rather than with me. I suggested my point of view based on what I've experienced/learned and acknowledged you had your own opinions, which is more than the author elaborated on regarding why he doesn't like Ron Paul. You seem to take whatever I've said a bit personally (so much so we're getting into each other's life stories and personal backgrounds now), which was not my intention. If it came across that way, then you have my apologies. I've pretty much said all I've wanted to say about why I didn't like this article. I have no interest in validating your resume or anything of that sort. (If you feel proud of your accomplishments, that's all that matters anyways regardless of anything I say) So unless we meet again, salaam/peace.

P.S. To answer your question, I don't associate enthusiasm and idealism with lost youth, but rather with inexperience.

mr m- your analysis that i'm a youngster, never supported myself, filled out tax forms- or volunteered, or had no experience or knowledge about how to effect social change in my country couldnt have possibly been more off base.

next time think twice before making personal assumptions as a substitute for an intelligent critique of a political opinion-

im sorry your experience has diminished your own enthusiasm, but i didnt ask that question.

my own experience, just as valid, has not dimmed my passion.

i agree- there is no place for veiled personla observations of a condescending or any nature-

lets keep it out of the conversations, shall we?

good lord! i'm no libertarian/republican and i disagree w/ yousuf on a bunch o his points (bush's pissing my money away on wars, why shouldn't i take it personally?), but MRS.A, you really need to grow up. i just had to say somethin after readin this thread. hell, i thought you were a teenager by your tone. at least yousuf graciously exited b/c he didn't want to make it personal (he just made a side note comment about people who usually had those ideas in his experience -- something you pointed out was incorrect so MOVE ON. stop being so infantile about it. YOU brought in the whole life story to try to sidestep the issue) most of his arguments were talkin about Ali's article and you could have come up with plenty of stuff to talk about as well, but instead you resort to bashing republicans as if you're talking to their dark lord or something. it's not your lack of a college education that holds you back, its your lack of tact and intelligent responses in general.

share your points with us hardy har-

as you can see, i follow up on specific points-
i agree- personal sniping is distracting and counter-productive-
so i wont go down that road-

since i watched muslims flock like lemmings to the republicans witout a clue as to why- only that someone, somewhere, who seemed to know what they were talking about advised them to do so- (and anyone who knows a little more about any subject than another person seems knowledgeable to that person, don't they?) i cannot say that partisan politics have no real impact on the muslim community- clearly it does.

but expereince should have taught us that we backed the wrong horse, and to explore other options.

i also agree with the authors points on the defeatist attitude of deregulating corporations-

what happens to anti-trust laws?

that, in itself is a frightening prospect as we approach the hands off philosophy of the FCC in the current bid to basically take over all media in america so that it can be owned by 2 or 3 corporations.

personally- i happen to LIKE free press-

did you know that the only iinstances of faine in the world were not caused by natural causes, but occurred in countries that did NOT have a free press?
theres an accountability necessary for a free soicety-
humans are opportunistic creatures, and easily corrupted when given too much power-

i think dems and GOPs can pretty well agree on that concept.

by all means- opine away!
personal sniping is so distasteful and distracting from the issues and really drags the conversation down.

oops- famine, not faine

It is a shame that it has been so long since the Constitution was followed that people don't know what it means.

In a Ron Paul government, which is a true Republican government, the inalienable rights of each individual would be protected by the Constitution. As a part of the United States of America, the states ratified the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights and agreed to this.

A Ron Paul Presidency does not mean that Ron Paul's personal views on abortion on abortion, prostitution, drugs, employment, or anything else would become law. Quite to the contrary, it means that, as President of the Federal government, his personal views would not be relevant.

Ron's Presidency also does not mean that department's of education, labor, etc, would seize to exist. It means that they would exist at the state level and not at the federal level. As President, under the Constitution, Ron would have no way to prevent this.

As members of the United States of America, the states have agreed to protect your individual rights. This means that they have to protect you from religious, political, gender, or racial persecution. If they do not, the federal government would have the authority to step in. The Constitution does not say that only white Christian men have rights. It says that all human beings are born with inalienable rights and it gives those rights to everyone.

What would happen is that the federal government would be tasked to protect your rights and the country's borders and sovereignty. The country, having been built by immigrants, has never had the mindset to exclude immigrants. The country should be expected to control the number of immigrants allowed in over a period of time to protect the country's and its citizens' economic well being.

No one's individual rights would be lessened. They would, in fact, be returned. What would happen is that the federal government would stop taking your hard earned wealth and giving it to others. You would no longer be paying to prop up dictatorships or giving money to countries that don't need it. You would no longer be fighting wars for oil or to make money for the industrial military complex. Your property would be better protected from the government. Your wealth would not be taken to support an enormous, out of control and unmanageable federal government. Any state, in its right mind, realizes that an educated population is key to its success. Any state in its right mind realizes that it is to its benefit to have everyone working. Any state in its right mind knows that it has to protect its environment and its citizens from harmful products. The states that are economically dependent upon the port of New Orleans would have already chipped in and cleaned the mess up. The power industry, not suffering under federal regulation and control, would already be well on its way to alternative clean fuel usage. Do you think that your state does not want you to have power, communications, education, or transportation? The states will be competing against each other for your skills.

You think that a strong federal government is going to protect you when it has been oppressing and limiting you. Without it, you will have more and you will be more free.

Bush, by the way, has had all of his failed oil enterprises financed by Arabians. It's hard to understand why anyone would assume that they are not his buddies.