Washington DC - 2/12/11) The National Board of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)-America's oldest conservative-libertarian activist group-has, per curium, voted to purge Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) from YAF's National Advisory Board.
YAF's concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.
"It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America's needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration," said YAF's Senior National Director Jordan Marks.
Paul, who had served on the YAF Advisory Board for more than two decades, was awarded with YAF's highest honor, the Guardian of Freedom award, an honor Rep. Paul has touted on his biography for many years. Only a decade ago, Dr. Paul praised YAF's work on the House floor. Paul called YAF's founding document, the Sharon Statement "a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom."
The Sharon Statement, clearly states: "American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"
"History has shown that periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies."
"Freedom and prosperity cannot peacefully exist alongside radical Islam. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul--a member of the U.S. Congress-- does not understand this. Surely, our enemies do."
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/yaf-expels-ron-paul-board#ixzz1Dx4h8bio
____________________________________________________
Ron Paul has never changed his foreign policy position. And so it really speaks volumes about YAF and who they really have become.
I see Neo-Cons
9 comments:
Neocons..good at warfare,
even the internecine kind..
Where are the neo-cons in the parent post?
The Neo-Cons are the folks at YAF who, for 20 years, supported a politician who not once in those 20years changed his foreign policy position of non-intervention. They parted ways because Ron Paul doesn't tow the party line on pre-emptive war and American style authoritarianism.
Speaking more to the point of Neo-Cons and their tactics DMarks, the actual press release from YAF doesn't simply break with Ron Paul in a professional manner on the subject of foreign policy but instead resorts to the Neo-Con tactic of outright name calling going so far as to say:
"Rep. Paul is clearly off his meds and must be purged from public office... YAF is starting the process from our National Advisory Board. Good riddance and he won't be missed." Marks Concluded."
Mind you this coming from the same organization that awarded Representative Paul with their highest honor the Guardian of Freedom award.
Remember all the Neo-Cons that told us if we didn't support the Patriot Act and all the rest that we were un-American.
These people are fascists. They are bullies. And, I want no association with any of them.
It was that juvenile commentary from YAF that resulted in Adam Wood's resignation as YAF Intern Coordinator shortly thereafter.
Are they actual neoc-ons(i.e. former liberals, ala Krauthammer and Kristol), or is the term being used as it often is to mean "the type of conservative I really really dislike" ?
In foreign policy it [Neo-Conservatism] defines national interests to include ideological interests e.g. the defense of other nations with similar ideologies for geopolitical purposes, proposing to use American economic and military power to bring democracy and capitalism to other countries.
That is Neo-conservative foreign policy. That is now the foreign policy position of YAF and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. A is A. It's got nothing to do with my personal like or dislike of them.
"but instead resorts to the Neo-Con tactic of outright name calling"
You only add more evidence to the case that the term "neo-con" here is being used in the meaningless insult sense of "any conservative you don't like".
Name-calling is universal in political discourse, unfortunately, certianly not just among the few "neo-cons".
And you completely ignored my post defining the context of which I am using the term Neo-Con as it pertains to foreign policy. See the February 15, 2011 9:08pm post.
Post a Comment