Gawker: Ron Paulites Are Batshit Conspiracy Theorists

By Robert Wenzel

Adam Weinstein over at Gawker informs the world, in a post titled, Ron Paulies Are Batshit Conspiracy Theorists, Chapter 794:

[Ron Paul] parroted Russian talking points, praising Crimea's "right to secede" from Ukraine in favor of the big kid on the block.

Note 1 to Weinstein: Ron Paul is not parroting Russian talking points. He has recognized the right to secede long before the Ukranian crisis.

Politico reported in November 2012:

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Monday that secession was a “deeply American principle,” amid a growing number of people petitioning the White House to let their states secede from the U.S.

“Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those ‘traitors’ became our country’s greatest patriots,” the former presidential candidate wrote in a post on his House website. “There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents.”

Weinstein writes:

Some libertarians think Paul's argument elides a basic truth: Russia invaded Crimea on the thinnest of pretexts, then gamed the entire "self-determination" vote in Crimea—with troops, with organizers, with propaganda—to tip it absurdly in the Russian bear's favor.

That's all true. You don't have to want a U.S. war with Russia to recognize that Vladimir Putin pulled a greedy despotic land-grab

Note 2 to Weinstein: It was the U.S. that initially meddled in the affairs of Ukraine and caused the overthrow of a democratically elected government (SEE:  An Important Second Listen to the “F–k the EU” Ukraine Recording). Putin simply reacted to the U.S. instigated overthrow.

Without the U.S. meddling in the backyard of Russia, Russia would have never entered Crimea. It did so after the overthrow only to protect the overwhelming number of Russian people in the area and to protect its warm water naval port. A port the Russians have legitimate use of based on an agreement ratified in 1999 by the Russian and Ukrainian parliaments, which included a payment to the Ukrainian government  of US$526.5 million.

Weinstein marches on to enter the insane world of "humanitarian" libertarianism that goes beyond the non-aggression principle and, apparently, thinks that white men are some kind of problem:

This insane blather speaks to a larger problem with white-guy-dominated libertarianism: It assumes that coercive power only comes from the barrel of a gun, and not from cultural and extra-institutional pressures.

Note 3 to Weinstein: I get it. You can't say anything negative about women, blacks or gays, in your "humanitarian" world, but you can piss on straight principled white men all day.

Weinstein then goes on to imply that Paulites are ignoring facts:

I don't think anybody who's not high on Kristol Meth wants a U.S. intervention in Crimea or Western Ukraine or anywhere else over there. But neither does that mean we should ignore facts...

Note 4 to Weinstein: When you admit to the fact that Assistant US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt  were caught red-handed plotting the overthrow of Yanukovych.

When you admit to the fact that Ron Paul was not simply "parroting the Russian line on secession," and when you admit to the fact that there is nothing more to the non-agression principle then, well, non-aggression, then maybe we can talk about who has been ignoring facts.

Until then, you appear batshit crazy to me.