Would the Beatles have Supported Ron Paul? (Just asked “Sir” Paul, and he says NO!)

September 26, 2011 by  
Filed under Music/Book/Film/Art

"Imagine" if the rEVOLution Pac sponsored a Billboard like this one Today! (tagged "Then vote Ron Paul 2012")


 

by James E. Miller

My local Starbucks has been on a Beatles craze lately. For the past two weeks, albums such as “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Heart Club Band” and “Magical Mystery Tour” have been on heavy rotation. This got me to thinking; if the Beatles were still together today, which candidate would they support to be the United States president? The answer is quite obvious: Congressman Ron Paul.

Time and time again, whenever there is a top 100 ranking for “greatest rock and roll band,” “greatest album,” or “most influential musical artist,” the Beatles consistently come out on top. As Eric Olson of MSNBC puts it, “The Beatles are unquestionably the best and most important band in rock history.” While you may agree or disagree on the musical talent of the Beatles, their influence on culture during their heyday was tremendous.

Barry Manilow, the famous soft rock crooner responsible for hits such as “Mandy,” recently endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy. Just a week ago, singing legend Tony Bennett had these particularly candid remarks on the Howard Stern show:

“To start a war in Iraq was a tremendous, tremendous mistake internationally.”

“But who are the terrorists? Are we the terrorists or are they the terrorists? Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

“They flew the plane in, but we caused it. Because we were bombing them and they told us to stop.”

Sound familiar?

“What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?”

There is even a Ron Paul punk rock anthem.

So would an incredibly influential band such as the Beatles jump on the anti-war and pro-market Ron Paul bandwagon? The first overtly political song by the Beatles was “Revolution” written by John Lennon in direct response to the Vietnam War.

Lyrics:

Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

The above lyrics represent a clear desire to “change the world” without violence. As Ron Paul wrote in his newest book Liberty Defined:

“People must understand that we can’t use violence to have our own way over others – nor should the agents of our government have that power. Even a majority vote should never be accepted as legitimatizing government’s use of violence against the people.”

Lennon’s criticism of Chairman Mao and communism in “Revolution,” is certainly in line with Ron Paul’s beliefs. Paul has always acted on the side of liberty and decentralizing power, not empowering the state for the sake of achieving his ends. In an interview with Reason magazine:

Paul: “Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that’s a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they’re willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws.”

Ron Paul’s position is one of peace and cooperation. The State, by definition, supersedes voluntary cooperation by establishing itself as a monopoly on coercion and violence. This has grown to include drug prohibition. Just in the federal prison system alone there are approximately 103,000 people locked up for drug offenses, that’s 50% of the whole federal prison population.

The influence of drugs on the composition of the Beatles’ music has been speculated for years. While it is widely known the Beatles used drugs during the recording of their most popular albums, they never endorsed their use. Ron Paul has never endorsed the use of drugs either but has held the strict belief that individuals have an absolute right to their body and therefore the government should abstain from prohibiting the use of narcotics. In a Republican presidential debate back in May, Paul outlined his position on drug prohibition brilliantly:

 

It’s not a stretch to think that John Lennon or the rest of the Fab Four would get behind such a position based on property rights, self-ownership, and social harmony.

With songs like “Revolution” and “All You Need is Love,” the Beatles catalog contains many songs promoting peace and non-violence. While “Revolution” is often characterized as the Beatles’ most political song, “Taxman,” written by the under rated George Harrison, is a scathing attack on the State’s parasitic need for more revenue:

“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.”

If the Beatles were still together and all with us today, it is not farfetched to assume they would support a presidential candidate such as Ron Paul who embraces the libertarian philosophy of non-aggression that detests coercion and violence. Though John Lennon may have drifted toward anarcho-communism (think “Imagine“) later in life, his message of peace and cooperation is completely in line with Ron Paul’s principles.

All America needs is not another slick talking politician ready to throw his grandmother under the bus for the sake of one vote. What the country needs is a principled intellectual who holds a record of not only speaking out against the impoverishing policies of the federal government, but one who consistently advocates for peace. Ron Paul is all we need.

September 24, 2011

James E. Miller [send him mail] holds a BS in public administration with a minor in business from Shippensburg University, PA. He is a former staff columnist to the Shippensburg Slate and current contributor to his hometown newspaper, the Middletown Press and Journal. See his blog.

 

Also See:

John Lennon was a secret Republican, former assistant says

Johnny Rotten Loves Ron Paul

Sir “Paul” loves Obama

And “This” (there goes my Hero – hope you play that for O in 2012)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Current
  • email
  • Google Buzz
  • MySpace
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Tumblr
Silver Coins

Help Jack Blood make more shows. Please donate or become a sponsor!

Comments

13 Responses to “Would the Beatles have Supported Ron Paul? (Just asked “Sir” Paul, and he says NO!)”
  1. mr_bellows says:

    Sir Paul is a glorified backup singer anyway and the biggest sell out in the music industry; who really cares what this clone thinks anyway. What a mundane drone. Hey MSM…your propaganda…FAIL!

  2. Chris says:

    You asked SIR PAUL? Really? Gee what would have happened to the Crown had he said otherwise. Seriously? WOW!

  3. kingfish33919 says:

    Limey trash who cant read or write given a title by an old bag with a foul mouth who herself looks like a horse and is on an equal footing intellectually with one – who cares what he thinks

  4. paddy says:

    Ron Paul speaks about Liberty and the Constitution signed by those who broke from British traditional rule.
    Paul McCartney is SIR Paul and he is obviously on the side of British tradition or he would not accept such title. Why shouldn’t Sir Paul be on the side of Britain?

    Why would anyone expect Sir Paul, who is loyal to the British monarch, to support a man who holds up all that American freedom from monarchy has ever stood for?

    Both Ron Paul and Sir Paul are aware that the term ADMINISTRATION (as in Obama administration) has a meaning that most Americans do not know about.
    Administration means financial control as a result of an entity (dead) being petitioned into bankruptcy for debts owing. America has an administration because it is a bankrupt entity trying to re-organize and come out of bankruptcy by stealing resources from other countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. etc.

  5. David says:

    I’ve read the article twice, and can’t find where it quotes Paul McCartney saying he doesn’t support Ron Paul. I believe he would support Ron Paul, and that he does NOT support Obama anymore. When he played in the White House was towards the beginning, before Obamination proved he is a continuation of Bush. The politicians (except a few like Ron Paul) all work for the international bankers, who are behind the wars and terrorist attacks. The Arabs were patsies: http://www.911missinglinks.com

  6. The emperor says:

    I don’t listen to the Beatles or Paul McCartney for political opinions. I listen to their music occasionally because it is pleasant to the ears.

    I don’t listen to the MSM or the US govt. for political opinions. I listen to their nonsense to get an idea of which liberties I soon will be losing.

  7. Peter Marshall says:

    McCartney ain’t no John Lennon. If Lennon had lived he would have undoubtedly been a major anti-war activist against the Iraq war. McCartney is a conservative with a big C. McCartney is pro-war. He is pro – whatever UK or US leader happens to be in power at the time.

  8. scott says:

    Sir Paul is a fkng douchebag! What an overrated sack of shit. As someone said’ he was just a backup singer. Oh no, my mistake, later in his career he did “Ebony and Ivory”. Bwahahaha! Fkng loser! Even got used by a bitchy gimp!

  9. Xaviant Haze says:

    Of course ‘Faul’ wouldn’t support Ron Paul because he’s no John Lennon. He’s not even the real Mccartney since he died in a car accident anyways..

  10. Zellie says:

    stupid article, typical of what journalism has lowered itself to…2 opposing items that make no sense, no McCartney quote…just typical drivel brought down to spit. IT is obvious you don’t KNOW what McCartney thinks anymore than I do.

    • Jack Blood says:

      yeah – you gotta kind of get our sense of humor – or have one. Paul ? Faul whatever is a giant globalist ass kisser that still begs for crumbs from his master’s table. Good boy. Sit. Stay. play a song for cousin Barry.. Bark!
      Did you get any of that?
      Thanks

  11. Banderman says:

    So what, Paul? You used to make music, not policy. Your group was certainly not known for fiscal responsibility, social responsibility, or anything noteworthy that would earn you a spot on the ‘gee, we wonder what Paul thinks’ list.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!

*