The Case Against Ron Paul
Last week, Frank Fiamingo of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society made the case on these pages for Ron Paul. This site emphatically does not endorse Ron Paul - and the purpose of this article is to offer a contrary view on Ron Paul to the one presented by Frank Fiamingo. Ron Paul is not only no friend of Conservatives, he is no friend of America. Good conservatives understand the necessity of keeping guns out of the hands of felons, particularly violent felons. Theocratic regimes that enforce Sharia Law, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, are criminal regimes that must similarly be divested of dangerous weapons. Ron Paul’s willingness to allow - and encourage - Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is akin to a local government telling its people that violent felons should not just be allowed to possess firearms, but that they should be encouraged to own such weapons. No government truly dedicated to protecting and preserving the rights of its citizens would ever enact such policy - yet this is the policy Ron Paul advocates the US government adopt.
Ron Paul argues that American “militarism” in the Middle East has provoked attacks on Americans from the people who live in that region. That claim is false. It fails to take into account facts that directly contradict the assertion. But more fundamentally, it mis-states the ultimate cause of every single war in human history: the failure of a government to respect the rights of its own citizens. Any government that refuses to respect the rights of its own citizens will not respect the rights of citizens of other countries. Such a government is a criminal regime, with no more right to exist than a domestic criminal has a right to continue commiting crimes. Iran and all Sharia enforcing states are criminal regimes who should not be trusted with weapons of mass destruction, including but not limited to nuclear weapons.
Here is a partial list of the crimes regularly perpetrated against their own people by Sharia enforcing regimes such as the Islamic Republic of Iran:
- Women are subject to death by stoning for adultery, including “adultery” that results from rape;
- Pre-pubescent girls are forced into arranged marriages with middle aged men with multiple wives;
- Girls who reject their pre-arranged marriages or who otherwise “shame the family” are subject to honor killings;
- If the above are not sufficient to ensure that young girls are not taught that sexual enjoyment is not allowed to them, they are subjected to forced cliterectomies in order to further inhibit their ability to enjoy sexual pleasure;
- Homosexuals are subject to death by stoning;
- Anyone who wants to renounce Islam is treated as an apostate subject to immediate killing.
A regime that commits such barbaric crimes against its own people will not hesitate to commit similar - or worse - crimes against foreigners. In fact, this is the fundamental cause of war generally. Ron Paul’s evasion of these basic facts about Sharia law countries such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and his misunderstanding of the true cause of wars makes him completely unfit to be President of the United States.
Criminal regimes have no *right* to exist, not any more right than any other criminal gang has of continuing to exist. A free nation such as America has the moral right - but not the duty - to invade criminal regimes whenever the free nation deems it in its self-interest to do so. Whether it is in America’s self-interest in a particular case to depose a dictatorship depends on the facts of the particular case and whether it is America’s self-interest. But Ron Paul’s entire foreign policy is premised on denying that America ever has any moral right to invade any slave pen dictatorship, while couching that position in an American appeal to our own self-interest. Yet by denying our *moral* right to eliminate such criminal regimes, Ron Paul undercuts at the root America’s moral self-confidence to defend herself. Any person or country that lacks the moral self-confidence to defend itself from objective threats has resigned itself to certain death. This makes Ron Paul’s candidacy a direct threat to the continued survival of America.
But Ron Paul’s shortcomings do not end there. Ron Paul’s newsletters during the 1980s and 1990s were replete with racist and anti-Semitic comments, including the following comment following the LA riots following the verdict in the trial of the police officers who assaulted Rodney King: “order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” On the floor of the US House of Representatives, Ron Paul has said that Israel encouraged and started Hamas.” Ron Paul’s embrace of racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric is totally inconsistent with Conservative respect for the dignity of individuals.
Even Ron Paul’s fidelity to constitutionalism is a sham. As President Obama’s popularity has waned, he has openly stated that “we can’t wait” and that as a result, he will bypass Congress with Executive Orders to enact as much of his agenda as he can. It is hard to imagine a proclamation from the President that would do more violence to the Constitution than a president saying he will enact his legislative agenda without Congressional approval - yet Ron Paul has barely has said a word about that attack on the Constitution - certainly not in comparison to how much he has said about alleged “militarism” of the United States. Ron Paul has not hesitated to scream from the rooftops about how President Obama’s killing of an American citizen who had removed himself from the civil jurisdiction of the United States to consort with America’s enemies in Yemen - but he has said nary a word about Obama’s declaration that he will bypass Congress entirely to enact his proposed legislation unilaterally. No serious defender of the Constitution would have such inverted priorities in defending the Constitution.
Ron Paul’s lies about how dangerous his foreign policy proposals even fooled Frank Fiamingo. In his first article last week, Frank quoted Ron Paul’s website with the following:
“In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.”
But of course, Ron Paul claimed that it was wrong to kill Osama Bin Laden. Ron Paul also condemned Obama’s order to kill Anwar Al-Awlaki. But as Frank’s quote from Ron Paul’s website confirms, he voted as a member of Congress to authorize the President to have authority to order those killings. This kind of duplicity makes Ron Paul untrustworthy if you were goingto depend on his for a ride to work; but when the issue is your own life or death at the hands of terrorists determined to murder us, it is suicidal to trust this man on foreign policy issues.
It is true that Ron Paul has some positions on domestic economic policy that look good from a distance. But if you get into bed with someone solely on the basis of a few good looks, you are liable to wind up with a case of syphilis. Of course, Ron Paul probably believes that even syphilis has a right to life without being “murdered” by the intervention of antibiotics or other drugs that will kill the bacteria that causes it. Conservatives would be wise to avoid getting into bed with someone whose soul is as stained as Ron Paul’s soul is stained, lest they develop a case of political syphilis that will be very difficult - if not impossible - to cure.
Ron Paul does not encourage Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. He merely explains why they want one. Watch the video again. He is clearly against a preemptive invasion of Iran especially considering that there is no evidence that they have (or are close to having) a nuclear weapon.
I don’t even have to go past the first paragraph to discredit this ignorant article? But just for some fun let’s begin:
“Good conservatives understand the necessity of keeping guns out of the hands of felons, particularly violent felons. Theocratic regimes that enforce Sharia Law, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, are criminal regimes that must similarly be divested of dangerous weapons. Ron Paul’s willingness to allow - and encourage - Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is akin to a local government telling its people that violent felons should not just be allowed to possess firearms, but that they should be encouraged to own such weapons. No government truly dedicated to protecting and preserving the rights of its citizens would ever enact such policy - yet this is the policy Ron Paul advocates the US government adopt.”
1.How is giving 4-10x the foreign aid to Israel and our enemies not only allows the criminal regimes to arm themselves, but also pays for it?
2.How did GWB and the so called conservative foreign policy prevent Iran from getting nukes as we are told they are 2 months away by one of the war/fear mongering candidates?
3.How is RP encouraging them, other than saying as a sovereign nation and a signatory to the non proliferation treaty, Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology? The key words being “sovereign nation”
So, basically, this writer endorses a foreign policy that is doing exactly the opposite of what he allegedly endorses. Thanks for playing and that was just the first paragraph. I can’t stomach to read the rest of the stupidity.
Ron Paul didn’t write the offensive articles in the newsletters, but even if he had, many of the rioters in LA probably WERE welfare recipients, judging by their complete disregard for property rights.
Some other statements are also pretty accurate, despite their lack of political correctness, for example:
“The criminals who terrorize our cities… are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills…”
Well, at least he’s a liar either way…
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/19/is-ron-paul-a-liar-and-a-bigot-or-is-he-a-liar-and-a-fool/
So we have now gone from one side of the ditch to the other! I have said many times here I will not vote for Paul because of his foreign policy positions. with that said, think this article goes overboard in a few areas.
First, we DON’T just have the right to attack nations that are evil to their citizens. We DO have the right to defend against nations that are a threat to the US. The idea of our having the rights this author suggests lines up with George Soros ” Responsibility To Protect” doctrine which is the foundation principle liberals are using today to destroy national sovereignty. So I, for one, have no intention of throwing in my lot with the “Soros crowd”.
Second, fault Paul for what you will, but the man is consistent in his support of the constitution and I think it is a flawed argument to accuse him of being a hypocrite just because he didn’t say something you thought he should. Just because he didn’t say anything against Obama’s executive orders doesn’t mean you can say he is for it. Frankly, anyone who is going to respond to EVERY Obama assault on the constitution would never be able to anything else, because that alone would be a full time job.
If you want to know if Obama is assaulting the constitution at this very moment, the only question you have to ask is “Is he awake?” Obama spends every waking moment assaulting the constitution.
JimmyZ: the article says that we have the moral right to invade a dictatorship, but not any duty to do so and that each case should be guided by America’s self-interest. That is a far cry from any Soros inspired plan for world domination. It is also a far cry from Ron Paul’s moral condemnation of any US military action as immoral. He conflates my analysis and argues that because military action is always immoral (well, except when the confederates fires on Fort Sumpter in order to protect their slaveholdings) it is never in America’s interest.
Your hit-piece is so full of fallacies and misinformation, I really don’t know where to start.
You say:
He never encouraged Iran to obtain nukes. He stated that it would be logical that they would want to obtain nukes because they are surrounded by nukes. If they were to try to obtain nukes, it would be in self defense and for the other nations to take them more seriously.
Lets see what the “experts” say about it…
Former IAEA Inspector: Misleading Iran report proves nothing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PfuciW1us0
What does the IAEA report state?
The U.N. agency report does suggest that Iran conducted secret experiments whose sole purpose is the development of nuclear weapons but did not put a time frame on when Iran might succeed in building a bomb, and it made no final conclusion on Tehran’s intent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45694263#.Tu-qBVZ-cn1
What does the PENTAGON and the DoD think about Iran?
“To ensure regime survival, Iran’s security strategy is based first on deterring an attack.”
The document goes on to make this key statement, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, “At present Iran’s forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran’s weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran’s boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel.”
http://milwaukeestory.com/index.php/2011/12/19/pentagon-says-iran-concerned-primarily-with-deterring-an-attack-344/
In regards to your comment on foreign policy and terrorism… How do you think Americans would react if China had military bases on US soil?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY
Nice of you to play the “racism” and anti-semite game… This here shows how low you are willing to go to attempt to smear Ron Paul.
Racism?
Which other candidate wants to legalize drugs and pardon all non-violent drug offenders? Do you realize how many of them are black?
Only Ron Paul.
Anti-Semitism?
Which other candidate wants to allow Israel to be a sovereign nation?
Which other candidate wants to allow Israel to make it’s own decisions without having to get approval from the US first?
Which candidate wants to allow Israel to defend itself?
Does that sound crazy?
Well, Maybe you should listen to Netanyahu…. Thats EXACTLY what he wants..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lYaZ3C5e5g
As even a cursory reading of my posts will show, I never even hinted that CNJ as a site endorses Ron Paul. It *SHOULD* based on its own Mission Statement and its Statement of Principles, but in no way did I intimate that it DOES endorse Ron Paul. Anyone who has read any of my posts knows that I speak only for myself. So I reject out of hand Ed’s “emphatic” denial as totally self-serving and unnecessary.
*EVERYONE* but criminals understands the importance of keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, not just “Good Conservatives”. Again a typical misdirection. The problem here is that neither Ron Paul nor the U.S. Government has the ability to ALLOW or PREVENT Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (without a declaration of war) if they are inclined to obtain one.
War is a perfectly acceptable response to aggression when it is warranted. If the President and the Congress BELIEVE it is warranted and wish to go before the American people and gather support for yet another war that they don’t intend to win, they are welcome to try. I believe that they will be as disappointed with the response from the American people as the American people are disappointed with THEIR performance as representatives of our interests.
The quote above is taken DIRECTLY from from the LINK in Ed’s article. This is a complete and utter distortion. You don’t have to believe me. Click on the LINK yourself. It is RIGHT THERE!. Nowhere in the contents of that link (or anywhere else for that matter) does Dr. Paul “encourage” Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Understanding why they would want them and encouraging them are two ENTIRELY different things. So why is it necessary for Ed to outright distort the truth? I think that is an excellent question. And if he is willing to perpetuate *ONE* distortion, why should we believe that anything else he has to say is not equally as tainted.
Some may see this as a personal attack, (I am certain Ed will), but it really isn’t. I don’t think he even realizes the extent of his blind fear of and hatred toward Muslims. To him it doesn’t SEEM like a distortion - even though to any truly OBJECTIVE person, it clearly *IS*.
As has already been pointed out by several other commenters, Ed has mistakenly accepted second hand information as if they were legitimate sources. Since neither of us are professional journalists, I will overlook this. But I think it is fair to say that when you quote someone out of context who is quoting yet someone ELSE out of context, you are likely to wind up with this type of distortion.
Be that as it may, My main complaint and the reason that I believe that Ed has failed to meet *MY* challenge is, I originally challenged him to present something *POSITIVE* about a candidate of his choice. It is pretty obvious to *ME* that he does not have one, couldn’t find one or couldn’t find enough positive to say about one and instead decided to try his hand at character assassination. If you don’t have to back up your stories with first hand facts, that is easy enough to do. Somehow he believes that going on a tirade about Iran has something to do with Dr. Paul. The last time I checked, Ron Paul was not the leader of Iran, but I suppose it is possible that has changed since last night. I’ll check on that later on.
I will wait for Ed to offer us a positive choice of a candidate to replace Barrack Obama before I comment further. I think I have already made my point.
I’m shocked to see this post and it’s nonsense on ConservativeNJ!! We are sick of liberals and cannot afford any more RINO candidates, but it seems this post cannot recognize and support a true conservative over their own agenda of using American blood and treasure to defend other nations. Yes, it’s that transparent.
It seems to suggest we should attack every radical islamic tyranny with dangerous weapons, and after invading three countries, with lethal hit squads in a dozen others, let’s attack Iran too!
They may be “criminal regimes” but it is not our right to obligate American blood and treasure and honor to invade every banana republic!! Why should we fear Iran any more than any of our other nuclear enemies?
At the current time, our greatest threat is not Iran but domestic attack on our own soil!! We need a candidate dedicated to restoring a small government constitutional republic that will protect our liberties, restore our free market capitalist economy, and champion these causes with our allies.
@Sim, I agree with parts of what you say, but Iran is a special case because it’s leaders have threatened to nuke Israel and to inflict significant harm on the US. If you ONLY went by what their leaders have said, publicly, you would have enough of a case for the US to intervene and ensure they don’t get nukes.
We have no “moral right” to attack dictatorships, there are many such countries and it is the responsibility of their citizens to depose their leaders. The article quotes the cruel practices of sharia law under Muslims as justification of invasion? If so, then please list all the countries you think we should nuke?
@Jimmy - did Al Qaida use nukes?
And yet now we nearly have martial law; so which is the greater threat???
George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the political establishments of both parties say “Muslim Extremists” hate us because of our freedom and because of our prosperity. Well, Bush, Obama and the political establishments destroyed our freedom with the Patriot Act and the latest Defense Authorization Act and destroyed our prosperity with big government spending and borrowed money for illegal, endless wars. So, what do the the “Muslim Terrorists” hate us for now?
Moslems hate us because we are not Moslem, to them, we are infidel, subhuman dogs.
We need to teach them that this policy hurts them quite badly, and they should chose a different policy. This was quite successful in WWII Imperial Japan.
The beauty of the 1st amendment… even completely uninformed individuals such as the author are allowed share their ignorance with anyone who is willing to listen
The Constitution was pretty well thrown out the window in the first two paragraphs… seemed a bit backwards coming from a so-called conservative.
I thought Ron Paul was unelectable, so why bother writing an article? Scared, hey?
Here’s my case for NOT voting for Ron Paul:
If you want more wars, more assassinations, more torture, more drone attacks that kill innocent Muslims, more debt, more spending, more government bureaucracies, and more erosion of our civil liberties (just to mention a few of the wonderful alternatives the other candidates have to offer), then Ron Paul is not your man.
The case for him: it’s a no-brainer.
@Robert Fallin,
Exactly! They should be loving us by now!
If they hate us for our freedoms, they must really LOVE us now!
Criminal regimes have no *right* to exist? Where then is Americas *right* or responsibility to police them? Is that anywhere in our constitution? Must have missed that amendment.
Also, blowback. look it up.
And yet the author does not name himself. I was told this was a requirement of authors here.
Side note,it’s funny how scared neo cons are now that he is surging in the poles. They are so desperate they keep bringing up those freaking news letters. OLD NEWS, Dr.Paul had nothing to do with them and everyone knows that. Keep diggin…you got nothin.
It’s funny to hear the old line that Muslims hate us for our freedoms. Question: what freedoms? Government doesn’t exist to protect our freedoms or to give us any new freedoms. They only exist to take away our freedoms and to further interfere in our lives personally and economically. Only we can protect our own freedoms, not some leviathan called the state. Government is already doing the job of the terrorists anyways.
The reason I like Ron Paul is because he has not succumb to the corruption that is found in Washington like the others have. He is truly FOR THE PEOPLE! This is the man we have all been waiting for to set us free from our corrupt political system. He is not only intuitively correct but he is logically correct! Ron Paul 2012!
Almost every paragraph of the above article contains assertions so painfully stupid and/or dishonest it was an ordeal to read it; I will not expound on all the idiocies of this screed, but only advise that I have never heard such a deranged and dangerous philosophy of foreign relations as the idea that
To put the nations of the world on notice that the Holy Americans reserve the right to kick their asses whenever we determine that they are the “bad guys” - wow.
The list of crimes, apparently including anything the author has heard happens “over there - somewhere - where the Muslims live”, and of which he has unilaterally convicted the Iranian regime - it sounds like someone whose
@Andrea, Part I: The Constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes rights that exists in nature and creates a government to protect them. Theocratic, Sharia law enforcing regimes do not respect those natural rights, therefore they have no moral right to exist. As I write in the article, whether it is in America’s self-interest in a particular case to depose a particular theocracy is a separate question.
@ Andrea, Part II: Part II: The newsletters went out under Ron Paul’s name and were published by his comapny. As the link provided above by Keith illustrates, Ron Paul has alternatively taken credit for those newsletters and denied them. That makes him a liar for sure; it also makes him either a racist bigot, or a total fool.
@ SIm: II am the author of this piece. My name appears at the top. I don’t know why you think the author has not identified himself.
A) unless I am mistaken, Israel already has nuclear weapons and has the proven capability to defend herself.
B) unless I am mistaken, we are eligible to elect a US president who swears to defend OUR country, and not any other. It is very disappointing to see a 12 term conservative congressman so badly maligned because he is committed to OUR country first!!!
C) If this is the ‘case’ against Ron Paul, then I’m all in!!!
For shame!!!
Thanks Ed, chalk it up to technology, but the author isnt listed on the page served up to me.
Kudo’s for stating your position, but (ignoring the wars) I don’t think our current/recent policy has improved the middle east tensions. However, I conclude that our energy policy is to blame for distorting our support for the terrible regimes there.
And thank you for the piece, it is important that we discuss this issue thouroughly.
I hope you can appreciate that America cannot be a strong ally to anyone if we are destroyed internally, and have ‘un-holy alliances’ with the enemies of Israel.
And you think you argued for Conservatives? Looks like you are arguing for Obama with his unconstitutional interference in other countries. You are just another hack playing the propaganda Wurlitzer.
Omg. This article is so false and full of lies. Thank good others have put this author in their place. You are no journalist and no conservative. Ou are more comparable with the jihadists who wish to take more American liberties to make everyone act and think alike
1. Using this author’s logic, we should have bombed Saudi Arabia years ago and Iran wouldn’t be so bad if it stopped stoning homosexuals to death and started killing them with predator drones.
2.The newsletter hoax was debunked years ago but has recently been regurgitated by the foundations that Newt Gingrich illegally uses to conduct his political activities.
3. I was going to point out the writer’s obvious connections to the George Soros crowd, but someone beat me to it.
4. Why is a Soros supporter who defends Obama’s wars, Obama’s killing of American citizens without Due Process, Obama’s position that the government decides who gets to own a gun, and Obama’s phony propaganda about Iran writing on a “conservative” website?
Say what you like, but Ron Paul supporters are well-inform and astute. They don’t take any form of misinformation from the media lying down. They will rise up and throw the book at you.
Anybody following the Ron Paul’s campaign (Daily Paul is a good place to start), would realize that this is not something we have ever experienced in the annals of presidential campaigns. These are indeed the best days of our life. Thanks to everyone who has put up such a sterling defense on behalf of the good doctor. It is goes on all the time all over the internet. It is never lacking and unending. We are the relentless ones cured of our apathy by Dr. Paul.
Ed Mazlish is no Soros supporter. He is a rock-ribbed Conservative and the bane of statist liberals.
YOU, however, are a Paulbot - one among a humming (if miniscule) hive whose buzz is far worse than its sting.
So flail away and continue drooling as you fantasize about a Ron Paul presidency. It will never happen and when the gut-wrenching truth hits home after the primaries, you and your ilk can slink back to the basements and resume toking away on your bongs as you render fealty to Alex Jones.
OH JOY - the peanut gallery is finally heard from. *YAY*!
And they are wrong. Muslims hate us because we are not Muslim and do not wish to be. It really is as simple as that.
Paulbot Paulbot nah nah nah nah NAH nah! OH SNAP! Gene.
A rather harsh characterization of the Paulbots, Frank. Have you taken your meds today?
Anyway folks - it is time to write something about the TRAITORS who voted to pass H.R.1540. No more time to play games. See ya on the other side.
@Barrett,
If Muslims hate “us” because “we” are not Muslims, then why are the terrorists not attacking Sweden or Switzerland?
Because America is the leader of the free (Non-Muslim) world, not Sweden or Switzerland.
And they attack Israel because of their anti-Semitic hate for the Jewish state and because Israel is America’s biggest ally in the region, if not the world.
You beat me to it, Ed. Nicely done.
For those of you not keeping tabs on Frank Fiamingo’s descent into madness, H.R. 1540 is titled “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”
It “traitorously” appropriates funds for the Department of Defense for procurement for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and defense-wide activities.
Pat Buchanan warned us 16 years ago about the neocon warmongers and chickenhawks who place American lives and treasure in the service of special interest groups both foreign and domestic. When Pat won the New Hampshire primary the RINO elitist propaganda machine when into overdrive and beat up on Pat like a swarm of piranha fish. They’ll do the same to Ron Paul if he wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Ron Paul has the guts to put America First ahead of foreign influence and special interests, and he’ll pay the political price just like Pat Buchanan.
@Ed Mazlish,
Where does the title “leader of the free (Non-Muslim) world” come from? Who gave that title to the US government? Where does the authority come from?
I’m ready to support Rand Paul based on what I have seen of him, but I agree with the main thrust of the article that Ron Paul’s foreign policy makes him a poor choice in this election. In my book Paul is infinitely better than Obama, and I would certainly vote for him if he’s the nominee, because whereas I really do think Obama is ANTI-American, I think Ron Paul is wrong factually on the dangers of ignoring radical Islam. Perhaps here his libertarianism colors his thinking too strongly, but I’ll pay RP the credit of saying that I bet if he lived in Detroit, or parts of New Jersey, he would feel differently about the threat of radical Islam. But that’s just speculation. The threat is real, and for whatever reason Ron Paul refuses to recognize it. Hate it though I do, I’ll take the Federal Reserve any day of the week over dropping our guard against radical Islam.
@Barrett,
I suggest you have a look at the following article. It may shed some light on Frank’s concerns.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/desensitizing_the_tyranny_detector.html
@Larry,
Ron Paul will strengthen national defense, not weaken it. How can the troops protect the country if they are spread out all over the globe? The US military presence in these country is the best recruitment tool for terrorists.
The military industrial spending will destroy the country. These never-ending wars will bankrupt the country. That is the biggest threat.
Ron Paul wants to bring the troops back home. He wants them to protect the border and protect our freedoms, which have been taken from us under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Robert Fernandes writes:
Thanks for the link. I checked it out and, alas for Frank, the light it sheds is not favorable to his argument:
Only a paranoid Paulbot would have a problem with the wording of this bill.
Why should the United States support and arm a theocratic dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and then feel obligated to overthrow a theocratic dictatorship in Iran? The reason we are engaged in the so-called “war on terror” is because of our incessant meddling in the Middle East, for the most part without the knowledge of the American people. Ron Paul could restore some sanity to our foreign policy.
Ed Mazlish is no Soros supporter. He is a rock-ribbed Conservative and the bane of statist liberals.
I am glad that your view of our friend Ed has matured. Not so long ago, you were calling him quite a few nasty names. Not long ago at all.
Welcome aboard and thanks for joining those of us who appreciate Ed.
Military members support Ron Paul.
He receives more campaign contributions from members of the military than all of the other candidates combined. They must know something.
Sick of chickenhawks who never served in the military advocating endless war. Why don’t we just declare war on the entire world, Ed?
We have no right to invade other countries. When did this become moral?
Any country come close to invading the US in the last 100 years? Seal the border and take advantage of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.
It comes from reality: the U.S. defeated the Axis Powers in WW2, thereby establishing itself - for better or worse - as a global superpower and bastion of republican liberty.
While it would have been nice to retreat behind the walls of Ron Paul’s mythical Fortress America, the rise of a nuclear-armed Soviet Union made that dream an impossibility, just as the rise of Jihadic Islam at about the time the Soviet Union fell made that dream evaporate in a puff of explosive smoke.
Here’s the bottom line: while the new Soviet Union is Jihadic Islam, the parameters have radically changed: for all their Marxist bravado, the Soviets were rational and could be dealt with in the framework of logic and reason.
The Jihadic Mohammedans, on the other hand, are quite insane and willing to immolate themselves in the name of Allah and his mad, pedophilic prophet Mohammed.
Will someone PLEASE brief Hernandez on the advances that have been made in long-distance weaponry since the early 20th century?
My appreciation for Ed as a stalwart conservative never wavered, you silly asswipe, and I still have differences with him.
Unlike you, however, I can give credit where it’s due. Now crawl back under the rock, Wee One.
@Barrett,
You cite “reality” as your source of authority?
Can you please point to me exactly where in the US Constitution does it give the US Government the authority to nation build and police the world?
Nope. I cite it as the answer to your question: “Where does the title “leader of the free (Non-Muslim) world” come from? Who gave that title to the US government?”
The authority about which you inquire may be found in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, which empowers Congress to declare war or simply authorize the Commander in Chief to direct the military to engage in whatever actions it deems appropriate - including nation-building and world-policing.
I realize this will come as an unpleasant surprise to you and your fellow Paulbots, but there is nothing in the Constitution per se that prohibits the federal government from entangling itself in foreign affairs.
Barrett:
The Constitution says Congress shall have the power “To declare war.” That is it. Where is the part about authorizing the Prez to do whatever he wants? Get your facts straight, Bartlett.;)
Hernandez is correct. The War Powers Clause clearly states that Congress shall have the power…
The last declared war was WW2 I believe.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the President power as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This power is plenary.
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to *declare* war. The Framers explicitly debated giving Congress the power to *make* war but decided that would unduly restrict the president as commander in chief. Instead, the Framers gave Congress the power of the purse - to cut off funding for any war of which Congress did not approve.
If Ron Paul honestly wanted to champion the constitution, he would stop saying that any of the wars in which America has engaged, whether with or without Congressional declarations of war, are or were unconstitutional. If he wanted to follow the constitution, he would demand that Congress de-fund any war of which it did not approve.
But honesty from Ron Paul or his supporters is too much to ask.
Barrett states, “The Jihadic Mohammedans, on the other hand, are quite insane and willing to immolate themselves in the name of Allah and his mad, pedophilic prophet Mohammed.”
If all Muslims are “crazy” as you suggest, then we should just leave them alone. Why do you make our boys in the military try to settle these folks. It will never work, because, as you said, they are all “crazy.”
Just declare the region a “dead zone” and leave it alone.
It is funny how you can so easily label one billion human beings as crazy and madmen. It was the same rationale and mindset used by Hitler. Dehumanize folks and anything goes.
The neocon elitists who put foreign interests first and America last are scared of Ron Paul because he has the power and influence to wake up Americans and make them realize how their blood and treasure is being spent in the service of foreign and domestic special interest groups. History proves Pat Buchanan was right about the dangers of neocon imperialism and military adventurism. Thousands of Americans paid with their lives, and American taxpayers lost trillions of dollars, because we failed to heed Pat’s message. Hopefully, the American voters have learned their lesson and won’t be as easily manipulated as they were in 1996.
@ Ed,
You only have to look at the Federals Papers if you want to find the original intent of the founding fathers…
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;.
Federalist Papers #41 and #69 provide the rationale for the vesting of this power in the hands of Congress.
Federalist #69 argues that such power is equal to that of a king. All constitutional constructs and separations of powers are intended to insure that no one seat in government accumulates the power of a king.
The Founding Fathers were very clear in the Federalist Papers that the people and not the president should have the power to declare war.
“Whatever he wants” is ultimately subject to Congressional authorization, which can be found in the part referring to the granting of letters of marque and reprisal.
If Congress has the authority to grant this to private entities, it has the authority to grant it to the U.S. military - of whom the President is the Commander in Chief. Thus the Barbary and Tripolitan Wars.
#1: Re-read what I wrote, dummy. There is a difference between “Jihadic Muslims” and “all Muslims.”
#2: Leaving “crazy people” alone with nuclear weaponry is not a good idea. It’s sort of like leaving Adolph Hitler alone with a massive arms build-up.
We all know how THAT turned out.
Bartlett:
Has Iran always been crazy or just recently? Name one country they have attacked in last 100 years? And don’t say Iraq because Iraq started that one.
Why don’t you just admit that you want to sell out the US to foreign interests? America first and only for me, Bartlett.
My appreciation for Ed as a stalwart conservative never wavered, you silly asswipe, and I still have differences with him.
Unlike you, however, I can give credit where it’s due. Now crawl back under the rock, Wee One.
That’s not what you said just a short while ago. Do you forget what you called him?
Note how quick to anger the B.S. Artist formerly known as Manly Rash is. Feel the hatred. See the lack of humor in him. Yes, I do believe he would kill if given half the chance - provided the object of his malice was sufficiently disarmed and supine. Mustn’t take chances. No soldier he. No, that isn’t a real uniform. Ignore the prancing theatrics.
“Wee One”? Is that from Nicole? Cha-cha-cha.
This article is wrong on so many levels.I mean how distorted a view can a person have?The ideas presented in this article are nothing more than the neocon idiocy that is bankrupting our nation both finacialy and moraly.Just a few points to be brief,RP`s support of the 2nd amendment does not mean he wants to give guns to felons?where did that come from?As far as how wars are started only civil wars are caused by how a government treats its own people,except for the unconstitutional wars the USA has waged over the last 60 years.As for how muslims treat women,and all other aspects of their life it is none of our buisness!If that is how they want to live who am I,you,or the USA to force them to live to our laws?If the people of these countries want a different government then they should rise up against their leaders and fight for one.Ron Paul is correct when he says that our foriegn policy should begin with the consideration of how America would like it if another country did the same to us.
Your article is so devoid of of thought,facts,and truth that I wonder how it is even posted here.Are you that afraid of Ron Paul that you have to make up this stuff to justify not supporting him?Any of the other republican candidates would be as bad as W was,and America can not afford it.
First they ignore you,then they ridicule you,then they attack you ,then you win. Gandhi
Letters or Marque and Reprisal are war commissions granted by Congress to a private individual to make war on another country. The fact that the Constitution specifically grants this power to Congress but does NOT grant Congress the power to give such grants to the Army or Navy is strong evidence that the Constitution does not grant Congress the direct power to command our Armed Forces into war.
The fact that the President is specifically given the power in Article II, Section 2 as Commander in Chief is for all intents and purposes conclusive evidence that the silence in Article I, Section 8 of Congressional power to “make” war rather than merely “declare” war was not because Congressional warmaking power was subsumed under the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.
Congress does have ultimate oversight of wars - through its power to de-fund them and through its power to impeach the president, if necessary.
Ron Paul’s allegations that wars have been “unconstitutional” amounts to a false charge by someone who either does not know how to understand the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution - or a false charge by someone willing to willfully misrepresent what the Constitution says. As Keith wrote much earlier in this thread, either way that makes Ron Paul a liar.
ALK: Iran is a criminal, felonious regime. As such it has no right to exist, and it certainly does not have the right to own further weapons - just as felons have no right to obtain weapons, either.
Whether it is in America’s self-interest in a particular case to disarm a particular felon is subject to legitimate debate. The moral rightness of America choosing to do so though, is not similarly subject to debate. But it is precisely this moral self-confidence that Ron Paul seeks to undercut.
That is why Ron Paul is not just wrong, he is evil. No country can survive with its moral self-confidence to oppose evil undercut.
@Ed, Since you keep making the point that:
I personally know “felons” who have committed crimes many years ago, but have completely turned their lives around. They made a mistake and have changed their ways. They now adhere to the laws and are outstanding people. I believe that they have every right to defend themselves and their families.
You also need to take into consideration that the US has more people in prison than any country in the world, including China.
The US has only 5% of the world’s population, but also has 25% of the worlds prison population. There are so many unjust, immoral laws on the books that in essence turn peaceful, non-violent individuals into criminals.
Do you realize that not all “felons” are the same. This collective thinking is a big part of the problem. We are not “groups”. We are not “collectives”. We are all individuals. Each person is different. Every person has his or her own story.
So… You want there to be laws to prevent them from defending themselves? How do you suggest this be accomplished?
What is the goal?
All individuals have a right to defend themselves. You can write a bunch of words on a piece of paper, then sign it, and put a fancy seal on it, and then call it a law. But, laws will not change human behavior. They never have. The bad guys do not care what the “law” says. If a “felon”, or anyone else for that matter wants to use a weapon to commit acts of aggression against other individuals, then they really don’t care what the law says. They will obtain a gun anyway. The only people that are hurt by these laws are the people who abide by the laws. Including “felons” who have made mistakes in the past.
Gun laws accomplish one thing and one thing only. They prevent law abiding individuals from obtaining guns. The people who want guns to commit crimes will get them anyway.
Iran and other Sharia law enforcing countries are most emphatically NOT non-violent felons. They are among the most violent of felonious regimes. And they certainly have not “changed their ways.” That is a gross dropping of context and twisting of all meaning from the words I used.
I did not even mention the drug laws are other non-violent felonies. You bringing that in here is a complete distraction.
After Ron Paul put out this disgusting video with Adolf Hitler in his bunker with made up and bogus subtitles against conservatives, he lost any right to continue in this race
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ScPXDRcIfc
Iran has to be dealt with. Radical Islam starts at the individual level with someone who is willing to strap on a suicide belt and take out a handful (sometimes dozens) of “infidels” along with themselves. Like the Japanese Kamakazi pilots of WWII, we shake our heads in disbelief that someone could actually do that.
The sad and terrifying reality is that Iran is a country level equivelent to a suicide bomber. Their president Achmedinijab (pronounced I-am-a-nut-job) has REPEATEDLY - and I mean REPEATEDLY said that his role is to usher in the 12th Imam (the Madhi) and the way to do it is to start Armageddon. So he has repeatedly said they have NO PROBLEM with committing suicide - because in his mind once that happens, the 12th Imam will swoop in like Mighty Mouse to save the day.
You can wax poetic ALL DAY LONG about how the Muslims only act this way because we did them wrong, and that if we only stop doing “X” they will forget all about us and focus exclusively on killing people in the middle east.
This is clearly a case where we cannot afford to do that. Why? Because we are paranoid? NO - because WITH HIS OWN WORDS, the Iranian president has promised to inflict a world of hurt on us.
@Ed,
My response was pretty clear Ed. I was responding specifically to the following statement that you made. You said:
Your comparison between “felons” and Iran and/or muslim countries is strange to say the least.
Robert Fernandes: I’m sorry that you don’t follow the analogy. Dictatorships, particularly theocracies that enforce Sharia Law, are criminal regimes. They have no more “right” to sovereignty for the purpose of continuing to commit crimes within their jurisdiction than a criminal has a “right” to continue to commit crimes within the confines of his own home - particularly when those crimes are violent crimes against other persons.
A criminal regime such as Iran has no right to exist. America does not have the *duty* to eradicate such a regime - but it absolutely has the *moral right* to do so if it so chooses. Ron Paul opposes America’s moral right to so act - and that is why I oppose him.
@Ed, If that is the way that you look at it then it is up to the people of that country to remove the regimes. It is not the responsibility, nor is there any moral obligation of the US government to remove these “dictators”. These are sovereign nations that you are referring to. The US government has no “right” and no authority to interfere in their nation just the very same way that Iran has no right or authority to interfere in the US government.
This is no comparison to American citizens. Your attempt at making a comparison is a leap.
You say:
First of all, there is no such thing as a *right* to exist. How is one nation given the “right” to exist while another is not?
It is a simple matter of non-aggression. You are trying to argue the moral grounds for going after a sovereign nation like Iran. But how are you attempting to accomplish this? By using US military force. You want to use force and violence to force everyone to believe what you do.
You have every right to go to Iran and fight if this is what you believe. You have every right to donate your money to a military force to go and attack Iran if you want to. But you do not have any right to call for the use of force against people like me who do not agree with you. You are ok with this theft to support your cause, and you are trying to play a moral high-ground?
If you respect individual rights, and if you respect property rights, then you should stop calling on the government for the use of force to steal money from individuals who are not willing to give their money voluntarily to support your causes.
The “law” of the US government is very overreaching. The government abuses it’s authority all the time. It infringes on the freedoms of the individual all the time.
Robert Fernandes: You are mixing apples and oranges. The fact that taxation is not voluntary is a separate issue. I am all for moving toward a voluntary way of financing government.
No person in any country has the right to initiate force against another person. Period. I don’t care if they cloak their actions in the name of “sovereignty,” or religious belief - they have no such right. Whether a government respects such natural law is part of the evaluation of whether such government itself has a right to exist.
Sharia enforcing theocracies such as Iran do not respect such natural law. Such governments have no *right* to exist. Period.
Whether the US should be the one to eliminate such illegitimate governments is, again, an entirely separate issue. There are many cases where the US government should not remove such governments. Whether Iran has sufficiently threatened the US is a separate question - one which I would answer in the affirmative, but one which is still a separate question.
You and Ron Paul do not recognize it as a separate question. Your comment above says that such dictatorships have a moral right to exist. I do not believe in such cultural relativism.
Finally, I find it more than a little interesting how Ron Paul and his supporters believe that the US Constitution only applies within the territorial borders of the United States - but then they seek to invoke that same Constitution as a limitation on the US government when it is acting outside of that territorial jurisdiction in dealing with foreign governments that explicitly reject the US Constitution. It’s either/or: either the Constitution’s authority ends at the US border, or it doesn’t.
I would say that Ron Paul and his supporters are not entitled to a contradiction - but his entire candidacy is based on fantasy anyhow, so I know that my observation means nothing to him/them.
at ED,you are wrong,no nation has the right to decide if another nation is crimanal or felonius,and no one country has the right to decide another countries right to exist.We (Americans)are not the gods of the world,it is hubris to think so.There are many countries who think our regime is criminal and felonius,and what about our right to have WMD?Who will decide for us?And the big question ED,how will we pay for it all?Where will the money come from?I don`t know about you but i am at my limit,I can`t pay anymore taxes or i`ll have to either stop eating or paying the rent.Where is the money Ed?
ALK: We could probably cut $2 trillion of wholly illegitimate spending from the non-defense budget before cutting money from the essential function of defense.
As to who gets to decide - you are wrong. Every person must decide. The proper approach is: judge, and be prepared to be judged yourself.
Moral relativism is part of the liberal lexicon. It should not be a part of the conservative lexicon. Which is why Ron Paul is a liberal, not a conservative.
Herein lies the flaw in Ed’s argument: neither the US, nor Ed have the right to initiate force on Iran, but then Ed insists that Iran is a criminal enterprise without rights. Which is it?
While insisting they be ‘dealt with’ for their public and hostile statements, he is astonished they would arm themselves and defend themselves from HIS hostile statements, or those of our candidates and representatives.
Third, Ed calls on one country to attack a second country to protect 3rd country, Israel, and anybody who objects is an anti-Semite???
Fourth, while conservatives demand our government act morally and legally both internally and externally, Ed demands we act illegally on behalf of this third country, and betray our citizens lest we be inconsistent???
Sim: Because Iran is a force initiator, force used against it is retaliatory not intiated - in the same way that when a policeman points his gun at a bad guy the policeman is retaliating against the force initiated by the criminal.
Now it is a valid criticism to say that the US is not and should not be the policeman of the world. And if that were all Ron Paul were saying, I would agree with it. But he goes much further. He (as well as the rest of the anarcho-libertarian crowd) says that US, like the policeman, is itself initating force and therefore is acting immorally, thereby granting moral sanction to the criminal (both domestic and criminal regimes such as Iran). I totally disagree with that moral evaluation.
Yup. No sooner had she read your idiocy than she was able to determine the, um, full measure of who and what you are.
“Wee One” works on so many levels and I can’t begin to tell you how much laughter we and others have shared at your expense.
There’s that obsession of yours again. Do you ever ask yourself why?
So are you saying that I’ve met the lady in question? I’m sorry, but she mustn’t have been all that memorable. I’m glad she found someone.
It is good that you are so easily entertained. You should try to stay entertained with your toilet humor and keep out of serious discussions. When you do try to play with the big boys you do yourself no end of harm.
For example, there’s your recent call to genocide:
“Mohammedans are, for the most part, suicidally fanatical. At some point in time they must be confronted and a sufficient number of them slaughtered to convince the remainder that jihad is NOT the way.”
Is it that you don’t think before you write or do you believe that you are too clever to have to think about what you write?
Ru paul is a communist
[...] Ron Paul Still Wont Rule Out Third Party RunPhil Donahue on Ron Paul & Foreign PolicyThe Case Against Ron Paul (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) [...]
What a ***** sentence
Alex:
We don’t tolerate profanity on this site. Keep that in mind in future comments or you will be banned.
Sim. unless I am mistaken, Israel already has nuclear weapons and has the proven capability to defend herself.
It may be true to a point, Israel is the size of New Jersey. Think of it this way if all the states and Canada decided to attack New Jersey, would it survive?
We do send our servicemen to Israel for training also, just this past august 2011. also they share technology.
The case against Ron Paul is 15%. Case closed
Good conservatives understand the necessity of keeping guns out of the hands of felons, particularly violent felons. my mom failed to pay child support one time because she lost her job. in lake county michigan that is considered contempt of court which makes it a felony. she still cant own a gun even though it had nothing to do with violence of any sort. explain that to me please.
I find this article amusing.Stating how we should keep the guns out of the hands of the felons….im sorry to say that criminals are now the ones with the guns due to the law abiding citizens not having any due to the law (depending on state and federal laws area and regions you live in).Criminals don’t follow the rules and that leaves rest in harms way.This is why the second amendment is important.Another thing about getting out of other countries…we can’t afford to be in other countries.Maybe if we had a stable system we could be but we can’t.Dr. Paul usually talks about direct and immediate threats.Not something that could happen 10 years from now or more.He talks about NOW.He talks about defense instead of offense.If we were better protected and had a smoother running system we could protect ourselves better against outside attacks and save money and for the people who think ‘we need to keep that from happening so we should attack now’ I have two things to say …one …how would you like it if we were occupied? and two…can you predict the future?
I could barely get into your article before I decided not to waste my time reading another paragraph, and instead use it to leave a comment for you psychos.
Here’s the deal with the Middle East. That place has been in s**t for hundreds if not thousands of years, and you people think you’re going to solve it all of a sudden. Well if you wanted it solved, pick up a rifle and hike your ass over there and start handling it because right now you’re just a bitch that wants more kids to get sent to that shithole and protect what? More profits? Everyone knows war is the greatest racket.
Today’s GOP leaders are opposed to Ron Paul because he is every bit the Conservative you big government liberal neo-cons wish you were. He attracts people from every single direction of the political spectrum.
And he’s galvanized young voters more than we seen in Barack Obama’s primary. They are the ones making noise. They know what they are inheriting and it’s making them sick. The way people like the writers of this blog promote war and and government force over free trade and diplomacy is sickening. You’re fighting wars on a credit card and handing the bills to your kids after you die. It’s so disturbing.
Active reader, first time commenter. You totally lost me here. I find it utterly amazing that you would vote for someone who supports more government involvement in our lives, more crony capitalism, and more debt over the one person with a proven track record of fiscal conservatism. I don’t see how you could refer to yourself as a “conservative” website if you would opt for a big government limousine liberal like Mitt Romney over someone who will cut trillions of dollars in wasteful federal spending like Ron Paul. With some of your comments, you are guilty of a lot of the same fearmongering that you often correctly accuse liberals of. Paul is not going to be able to get everything he wants without a compliant Congress, but at least he understands how dire our economic situation is and how much worse things will get without significant changes to the way this country is run. He is the only major party candidate who understands this, and will guide us in the right direction.
Funny how the people on here call themselves conservative. The wars in the Middle East are illegal: Yes illegal. One, we never declared war as per the Constitution. Second, those countries are not an imminent threat to us. Iran doesnt have an Air Force, they cant come over here. And what about those WMD’s? Did they take a magic pill, and just mysteriously disappear in thin air, like the Federal Reserve magically creates money out of thin air? And I thought Saddam Hussein was the boogieman? Yet we stayed over there for how many years - oh wait were still there (via private contractors on our dime). How many trillions more are we going to spend? How much lower can we lessen the morale of our armed forces? Or as Henry Kissinger once said, our troops are just “pawns used in foreign policy”.
And what about the wars here - the War on Terror, the War on Drugs, the War on Sex (prositution and gay marraige), the War on Poverty and so on. How many billions are those costing us? billions we dont have, unless of course you want to beg the Federal Reserve to wave its magic wand to print up some more funds….which of course drives up the price of everything else even if you dont pay taxes you pay for it in inflation. But go ahead keep supporting neocons like Runyan, whose scared of an Independent candidate whipping him in a debate.
Thanks to Jim, Liberty NJ and Rob Witterschein for your comments. It’s been a while since I reviewed this article, and I’m glad you restarted a conversation about it. A couple of quick rejoinders:
1. The cause of MIddle Eastern Wars is that Sharia countries like Iran initiate force against their own citizens - so of course they will initiate worse force against foreigners. That’s just what they have done. The fact that America is in the Middle East is no more a cause of war than is the sight of a policeman the cause of crime. Not that the US should act as the world policeman, that is a separate point.
2. American wars in the Middle East are not illegal, even without a declaration of war by Congress. The President is Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces, not Congress. If Congress disapproves of what the president does, it can cut funding or impeach. That is Congress’ power. If Ron Paul wanted to use the Constitution to stop wars, he would introduce bills to cut of funding or to impeach.
3. It is amusing to read the older comments with the benefit of hindsight now. Every single GOP candidate other than Paul was given a full look as the front runner. Only Paul was not. His views on economics are plenty mainstream in the GOP, so the obvious reason why he was considered totally unacceptable, even while people like Cain and Santorum were given a thorough look as the frontrunner before being disqualified. Ron Paul was disqualified because of his views on foreign policy. Period. And as I have written here, I believe with good reason. But even now, his supporters come here and try to ram his totally unacceptable foreign policy down our throats, instead of focusing on his economic policies. This tells me that those economic policies are mere window dressing, and that his fundamental is to attack America’s military and foreign policy as much if not more than Obama does. Good riddance to him for choosing that.
This article is bull. If you want to know about Ron Paul, you have to educate yourelf. The media won’t do that, and neither will liars.
Check out this article for a more accurate review of Ron Paul’s positions, as well as many researched sites:
http://scripturalscrutiny.com/2012/05/13/christians-and-conservatives-rally-now-dr-paul-out-polls-obama-and-scores-major-multi-state-wins-over-romney/
Lynn:
The author of this piece has always researched his subject before he writes about it. That is more than I can say for Ron Paul supporters. In most cases they have flocked to Paul like a bunch of cult members or like moths to a light.
Agree with it or not, Ron Paul’s foreign policy makes good fiscal sense. The main reason that we’re embroiled in such a severe financial crisis is because of the conflicts we’ve been involved in several foreign conflicts over the past decade. Supposedly we have helped to “liberate” Iraq & Afghanistan, but at a cost of trillions of dollars and thousands of lives (both ours and natives of the aforementioned countries). What good has it done for us? Has anyone assisted us with the massive costs that we have incurred? As we contemplate all of this information and ask ourselves these questions, it should bring us to the most important one: Why do we have to be the world’s policeman? Many nations do not appreciate our intervention, and our foreign affairs are largely responsible for the massive inflation and debt that we have accrued from the first George W. Bush term to the present day. So we’re essentially digging a huge hole for ourselves while making numerous enemies in the process. There are a lot of arguments that can be made against our involvement in overseas conflicts, but the most effective one is the economic dire straits that we’re currently facing. Our national debt currently stands at over $15 trillion. I can think of nothing more disconcerting than the simple fact that the only major party presidential candidate who has expressed any real concern about this number is Ron Paul. A future with Barack Obama or Mitt Romney (neither of whom have announced plans to make any significant reductions to the federal budget) is a lot more frightening than a Paul administration could ever be.
Liberty NJ: I agree with the economic argument you are making. Unfortunately, Ron Paul focuses on the moral argument that these wars are immoral. His fantasies about “blowback” as the source of war are as (idiotically) analogous to and as offensive as blaming a procvacatively dressed woman of she gets raped. The barbarians in that corner of the world initiate force as a matter of course - and for Ron Paul to not see that shows him to be completely unfit to be president of the Unites States.
Moreover, the economic argument is much stronger when focused on the Fed’s destructionof the value of the dollar, and the wealth redistribution that Obama defends so forthrightly. If Ron Paul wants to make an economic argument, that’s were he should focus his energies. But I course, he only mentions those items in passing - his fundamental issuing a moral attack on the legitimacy I te United States - just as Obama is committed to America’s immorality.
Thank Zeus the GOP electorate was smart enough to keep Paul as far away from the presidency as an ordinary citizen.