My response to Ann Coulter's vicious attack on Ron Paul

    In this article Ann Coulter attacks libertarianism in general and Ron Paul specifically. Her arguments (which I will challenge here) range from desperate over reach to hypocritical non sense. At one point she even suggest the country would succumb to incest if not for the wise and steady hand of government. Libertarians who disagree “are cowering frauds.”

    Her Hypocrisy is evident from the very beginning:

They lure you in with talk of small government and then immediately start babbling about drug legalization or gay marriage.   

    She makes it sound like a bait and switch. As if we promise small government and then somehow break that promise by asking the government to stay out of our lives. It is actually the neoconservatives such as Coulter who use small Government as a soundbite when they really want a large statist government. She goes on to prove my point:

"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions. It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.
But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.

    In other words Ann believes it is proper for the government to intervene only in area’s that fit her view of morality. The government should not be allowed to touch my money but they must legislate my view of morality. One can imagine that if Ann Coulter has any support left it comes from the stereo-typical cat ladies of the world so the fact that she would try to demean anyone’s base makes me feel embarrassed for her. The fact that she would say Ron Paul of all people gave a disingenuous answer to a debate question out of fear of backlash from his base shows that either Coulter is clueless on her subject or she is willfully ignoring the evidence. In either case it is obvious that she deserves no credibility and cannot be taken seriously.

She goes on to quote Dr. Paul:

"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."

And then inexplicably writes this:

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover?

    Did she not even read her own words? She quoted Ron Paul as saying that the Federal Gov’t shouldn’t be involved and then went on to make a bunch of straw man arguments about what might happen if the STATES were not involved. Dr. Paul’s statement was not convenient for the point she was trying to make so she conveniently twisted his words in order to form a question she felt would be easier to answer. Her answer however was complete hogwash.

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt?

I have a novel Idea: we could let the adoption agencies decide who is fit to adopt based on their own standards. This question takes idiocy to a whole new level. If Ann Coulter understands that government cannot effectively run a dmv, if she understands they are unqualified to deliver healthcare, then why in the world would she want them deciding who is fit to adopt? Not to mention that gay and lesbian couples are already allowed to adopt in many cases!

    The irony is Ann Coulter promotes a system at odds with her stated goal. In the current system many agencies feel pressured to cater to clientele it may feel unsuitable for adoption. In a free society adoption providers would be able to turn down individuals they deem immoral without the risk of being sued for discrimination.

How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? 

Is this really a question? Many people are parents who are not married. Child support and custody issues would ideally be settled by the family and if need be one party would sue the other...Which is how it is today!

How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover?

Do I really need to convince Ann Coulter that a private company should be able to decide for itself how to do business? The insurance company would be able to decide what type of coverage plans it offers.

    At this point the article takes a strange twist. I really have to give her credit here; without a hint of irony or an inkling of shame she is able to portray Ron Paul as a Statist for not supporting Government intervention!
   
    This Lunatic actually twist Ron Paul’s words to make it appear as if he is in favor of medicare and Social Security:

Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course, those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.) Rep. Paul is a swashbuckling individualist when it comes to civilization's most crucial building block for raising children, but willing to be a run-of-the-mill government statist when it comes to the Ponzi-scheme entitlements bankrupting the country. He's like a vegetarian who says, "I'm not a fanatic -- I still eat meat."

    Anyone with Half a brain (which Coulter does not have) understands that Ron Paul believes in ending these unsustainable and unconstitutional liabilities but it would be sick and immoral to throw the elderly (who have paid into the system all of their working lives) out of a program they have become dependent on. She is correct that SSI and Medicare are giant Ponzi schemes. I imagine she learned that from Ron Paul.

    The rest of the article is pretty much the same. Her arguments are overtly unrealistic and frankly shameful. The overall gist is that individuals and private companies need government to keep us on the straight and narrow or else we fall into an incestuous pit of hellish anarchism.
   
    Coulter sums her article ups by saying “Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time.”

    Libertarians believe in freedom. We are the only one’s who are standing up. Ron Paul has been a media punching bag for over 30 years because he refuses to submit to tyranny. People like Ron Paul, Tom Woods, Lew Rockwell and others believe in and fight for the principals of liberty every day. It is a fight they are now winning. The most famous image of Ann Coulter is of her being chased off stage by a bunch of college students. I believe cowering fraud is the appropriate term.
  


Related articles:

Ron Paul dominates debate

Simply voting out Obama is not the solution

President Obama Confused about the role of Congress

Also visit the Ron Paul Page

Please leave a comment, subscribe to the blog, and share it with a friend. Follow me on twitter @ csawordsmith, I'll be on Facebook here, and Linkedin here. Together we can take back our community, take back our state, and take back our Republic. Let the Revolution begin!