January 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 am
For his take on domestic issues, I EVOL Ron Paul. The man understands that a limited government is not only constitutionally intended but necessary for a prospering and innovating country. Abolish the IRS, reverse Roe v. Wade, drastically cut government spending, stop government from making promises it can’t keep and taking on problems it can’t fix, I am right there with him. It is a message none of the other Republicans come close to, this following the original intent of the Constitution idea.
His non-interventionist foreign policy is of high concern though, and this is really a sin of omission, not commission. Like it or not, non-intervention has been regarded as code for leaving the other guys alone and hope that they will show some gratitude and leave us alone. That doesn’t look as nice as “fight them over there rather than fighting them here.”
Not helping Ron Paul are CAIR members and white supremacist group Stormfront supporting him.
I actually support Paul’s taking of their money, for two reasons. One, because free speech does indeed mean free speech for all. Two, because any money they give to him they aren’t using to purchase munitions or support terrorists.
Where the support gets him in trouble is that we assume, usually rightly, that there is a quid pro quo in campaign donations and politics. People give contributions in the hopes that the politician will act the way they want. Paul makes no such promises. In fact, should the situation arise where these groups would be able to legislate their discriminatory agendas, the pseudo-Libertarian would not be their friend at all.
Rather than let everyone paint him as anti-war, he should specify that war without declaration from Congress is unconstitutional, and Congress needs to declare it under Article I, Section 8. Congress has been at fault in giving President Bush the resolution to do whatever he wants with our enemies but not declaring war.
I would like to see a speech from him on how he would protect the Constitution from foreign enemies. Is his idea to ask Congress to declare war on countries that support terrorism against us? Do we send the military to destroy their military capabilities and take out their leaders, then leave? How does he feel about gathering intelligence? If as he has stated he wants to pull out of Iraq now, does he plan on knocking them back down should they become Iran’s stooge? Would he, and how would he, support other countries that work against the establishment of an Islamic caliphate? These are issues that are ignored on penalty of looking like the crazy uncle of the Republican party.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Ron Paul also is getting a lot of support from the 9/11 Troofer crowd. He’s appeared several times on Alex Jones’ radio show; Jones is apparently full of wacky conspiracy theories. Ron Paul’s repeated use of the word “neo-con” (often used as codeword for “the Jooooos”) and refusal to ally with Israel, plus his support by groups such as Stormfront, make him appear to be an anti-Semite.
Not to mention, a lot of the suggestions he has are things better done by Congress and not the President. Why hasn’t he proposed any of these things in his many years in Congress, even if just to get the message out? Has he done anything in Congress besides pulling in pork for his district?
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
People should definitely vote for who they want on platforms and policies, because if we play the “racist” game, we also have to look at all the other Republicans who got support from groups like Stormfront, David Duke, the KKK, and even Pat Buchanan appearing on a white supremacist show in the 80’s. And changing policies with Israel is not hating Jews, not at all in my opinion.
I just hope people vote for who they want, and not get suckered into the “Evangelical Vote” stuff again.
January 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I have heard Ron Paul say that if Congress declared war on his watch he would fight it with the intention of winning and getting back home ASAP. Congress would have influence as to what “winning” means in how they lay out the objectives in the declaration of war.
If congress declared war on the military capabilities and leaders of a country, Ron Paul would work to crush them and get back home in a timely manner.
Take, for example, the first 9/11 war authorization (which Ron Paul voted for).
So that is what Ron Paul would have done, gone after those responsible for 9/11, get them, and come home. That means he would NOT:
1) Nation build Afghanistan
2) Forget about Bin Laden
If as he has stated he wants to pull out of Iraq now, does he plan on knocking them back down should they become Iran’s stooge?
No. Why?
Would he, and how would he, support other countries that work against the establishment of an Islamic caliphate?
Do you anticipate that a third world caliphate would be any kind of a serious threat to the United States of America? Taking sides would just irritate them with no improvement to our security. He would promptly work to open trade with them.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Ron Paul is like most Libertarians in that they have it exactly half right.
If we could remove the “Troofer”ness, as Bard notes above, (conspiracy nuttiness, as I call it) I’d be all for him.
The real conservative candidate that best supports the GOP platform, and the constitution, is Duncan Hunter. But the GOP isn’t giving him a second thought.
In the mean time we have to watch Giuliani, McCain, and Romney, et al, try to straddle the fence as “progressive” conservatives in order to woo the “progressive” swing voters. (As in progressives who refuse to identify as liberals.)
As a strict constitutinalist, it all makes my stomach churn.
As a confessional Christian, it all seems par for the course.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
“Jeffrey g Says: Do you anticipate that a third world caliphate would be any kind of a serious threat to the United States of America? Taking sides would just irritate them with no improvement to our security. He would promptly work to open trade with them.”
The problem is not the caliphate, but letting middle eastern political and social agendas drive United States politics. If we do not take sides then by default we effectively condone their insane ideology of global domination. We either fight them now when they are weak, or we fight them later when they are stronger and more dangerous.
The initial Muslim conquest of Europe and resultant Crusades to push them back out of Europe should give us some idea of what is in store if we give them any ground. It was, quite litterally, a world war for that time period. Only this time it is global rather than confined to one continent.
January 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
We either fight them now when they are weak, or we fight them later when they are stronger and more dangerous.
That is a remarkable statement. I am trying to think of a way to express the sheer cowardice of that remark. Is that a direct quote from Darth Vader?
If you fight “them” now when they’re weak, you better be sure to you are prepared to utterly annihilate “them.” Destroy them so completly and salt the earth so they can’t ever pick themselves off the ground. Otherwise you will be fighting them while they’re weak until the end of time.
At any rate, the US simply can’t keep up the pace. It is bankrupting the government and bankrupting the dollar. The people are paying for it.
Ever wonder why there is need for a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security? Because the DoD is distracted from its function of “defense.” Bring the troops home and let them defend the country.
If the government would just let Americans be Americans, America would be prosperous and strong. Strong enough to defend ourselves and deter anyone from taking on the challenge. Have a little faith, that if we, as Americans, are prepared to defend ourselves, but otherwise treat other nations how we would like to be treated, God will take care of the rest of the world.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Jay D Says: “If you fight “them” now when they’re weak, you better be sure to you are prepared to utterly annihilate “them.” Destroy them so completly and salt the earth so they can’t ever pick themselves off the ground. Otherwise you will be fighting them while they’re weak until the end of time.”
Okay, throwing out the word “cowardice” ad hominem is the reaction of a coward, but the core point of your response is astute.
If we don’t annihilate them now we will be fighiting them until the end of time.
If we don’t fight them now, we will be fighting them later, until the end of time.
I think we would agree that we probably do not have the internal fortitude to annihilate them now, so what’s the point to fighting? We should just stop now and leave the conflict for future generations to deal with?
January 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The problem is not that we are fighting them, but that they are fighting us.
Quiting the fight does not mean they must also quit. It just means we lose.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Jay D wuz me, sorry. Logged on a different computer.
The problem is not that we are fighting them, but that they are fighting us.
Who are “they”? Ron Paul voted to go after “them”, that is, those who were fighting us, that is, those responsible for 9/11.
Who would be fighting us if we withdrew from the Middle East?
Quiting the fight does not mean they must also quit. It just means we lose.
Do you believe that? We would lose? To whom? What would a loss look like? Would my kids be speaking Arabic?
We would not lose. America is still strong enough to turn “them” back at the boarders. If we were not in the Middle East, America would be a big, powerful trading partner. Sure there might be a handful of extremists who would want to take that on, but they would have very low success at convincing any of the regular Muslims going about their daily routine that they should take up arms against us. I don’t think that it is inevidible that we would fight them in the future.
Sorry about the cowardice crack.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“Who are “they”? Ron Paul voted to go after “them”, that is, those who were fighting us, that is, those responsible for 9/11.”
According to Ron Paul “they” is “us”, in that we are somehow responsible for the 9/11 bombings instead of the people who actually perpetrated them. So, is Ron Paul saying that if he is president he will fight himself?
“Who would be fighting us if we withdrew from the Middle East?”
Islamofascists are fighting us. By their declaration, not ours. Our declaration is one of defense.
We chose the Middle East as our battle field to defend ourselves. Leaving the battle field of our choosing does nothing to stop the Islamofasict movement from seeking to dominate the planet, and they are still going to fight us anyway. All this does is allow them to fight on the battle field they choose, giving them yet one more advantage.
“We would not lose. America is still strong enough to turn “them” back at the boarders.”
If we believe that giving up our current battlefield is not losing, then yes, we would not lose.
As far as turning them back at the borders, our culture isn’t ready or willing to do seal our borders. We can’t put a dent in drug smuggling or illegal immigration, so why would it even be consider realistic that we could keep out trained and dedicated Islamic terrorist bombers?
Don’t get me wrong, I understand your position and I can’t really argue against your overall ideology. I just do not view your position as realistic under the circumstances.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
“Sure there might be a handful of extremists who would want to take that on, but they would have very low success at convincing any of the regular Muslims going about their daily routine that they should take up arms against us.”
It is absolutely not a handfull of extremists. This is what I believe is called a canard. Yes, I know what it means, and I’m not saying that you are purposely confusing the debate. You are, however, using this argument which I claim is false.
The thig is that ALL “regular Muslims” embrace Sharia Law by which the extremists claim as their law. If they do not embrace Sharia Law then they are not Muslims. The fact that many Muslims live under other laws does not mean they reject Sharia Law.
Just because someone isn’t actively engaged in combat against the enemy does not mean they are against the enemy.
Ask any true Muslim if the world should be run under the thumb of Sharia Law, and they will answer yes.
Ask them if they support global warfare to do accomplish this and most either agree or refuse to answer. The number of people who claim to be Muslim but do not support global domination under Sharia Law is quite small.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I appologize for my spelling challenged writing today.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Some facts about our so-called “border security”.
From 1996 to 2006 the Mexican Military has crossed our borders 105 times, and Mexican Police have crossed 148 times, that we know of.
If we can’t keep out obvious and blatant Mexican military and police incursions how in the heck do weexpect to keep out trained terrorist sneaking across?
January 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
So, yeah, missed this post.
Dan, I think you need to understand and read Imperial Hubris by Michael Schuerer. It goes into alot of detail as to why the Islamo-nutjobs are pissed at us. One thing he points out is that radical Islam largely ignored the atheist, communist Soviet Empire until then invaded Afghanistan.
The whole “fight them over there instead of over here” is a straw man.
Ron Paul had a perfect Constitutional response to non-state actors and terrorism. Letters of Marque and Reprisal. It’s how we dealt with the Barbary Pirates. Authorize the President to grant LMRs to specific special forces units or Blackwater, et al to go after specific terrorist organizations.
The problem conservatives have with a non-interventionist foreign policy is they start from a supposition that the United States SHOULD be “leading the world”.
Ah, so much topic, so little time to type.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
After reading the responses here, Lawrence serves as a good example of how people have the hangup with non-interventionism. It also denotes some ignorance of how Muslim culture works. Most Muslims actually do not support worldwide jihad to establish a Muslim empire and kill the infidels.
In Muslim religion and culture, there are actually two types of jihad. Defensive and offensive. An offensive jihad, used to expand the reach of a Muslim empire by the sword can only be called by a Caliph. And given the last Caliphate was effectively eliminated for good with the fall of the Ottomon Empire, there is little chance of this happening.
What we are witnessing now is a defensive jihad which can be called for by any learned Muslim. Many Muslims, even moderate Muslims, see our POLICY towards the Middle East as an attack upon Muslim lands, culture, and religion. If you deny this, you are simply blind to how the Muslim world operates.
According to Ron Paul “they” is “us”, in that we are somehow responsible for the 9/11 bombings instead of the people who actually perpetrated them. So, is Ron Paul saying that if he is president he will fight himself?
This is just a stupid statement. You’ve been watching too much Fox News. Ron Paul is saying that our policies towards the Middle East enraged and provoked many Muslims to such a degree that they carried out the 9/11 attacks. Ron Paul has unequivocably stated multiple times that the terrorists who hijacked the planes were RESPONSIBLE for the attacks. But he also says that our policies played a role in those people being angry enough to do such a thing. If you can’t understand the difference between those two statements, then you are incapable of understanding motivation.
When things are said like “They want to kill us because we’re not Islamic” or “They want to institute Sharia Law” or “They hate us because we’re free”, it just denotes a sheer ignorance of the motivation and world view of those people we are “fighting”.