By Tomas Rome, January 15, 2012
Ron Paul
Let me start out by saying, the order of these opinion pieces is basically the same as the order of the candidates rankings in recent polls, not my own preferences.
That now said, let me discuss Ron Paul, starting with the good…
Paul is a medical doctor and a veteran, which are fine qualities, the former being a refreshing divergence from the stream of lawyers, businessmen, and celebrities (btw, isn’t it odd that leftist Hollywood’s only contribution to the Presidency is a Republican icon?), and more lawyers, that dominate politics in general.
Paul’s general ideas of limited government and limiting intervention abroad should be common sense, not an ideological POV. Government is the tool that the private sector creates to do together in a given region that which can’t be done separately, such as common defense, road and port construction, and regulation of limited resources, etc. But “Frankenstein government” is what occurs when those who choose to “serve” in government decide they will be the providers of all other things as well, not businesses. Beyond its horrible record of manufacturing products like shoes and toothpaste, government also has a very spotty record in foreign affairs. Just to take recent history, the last two administrations, despite themselves, have managed to stand up two Islamic fascist states, welcomed millions of unreformed Muslim immigrants from said states, and empowered Islamic fascists to eliminate Christians from Iraq, Pakistan, and other Muslim states, by the combined use of terrorism, Sharia law and political undermining of secular forces in the Middle East via so-called free elections and “Arab Springs”.
Paul also apparently believes in ending the war on drugs, yet he is not so libertarian to support abortion, even in limited circumstances. I suppose if one truly thinks abortion is murder, then his stance would be logically consistent with libertarianism. In that case, I call on Paul to support a trillion dollar program to stop “spontaneous abortions”, which are the end of up to 50% of pregnancies. After all, a zygotal person has as much right to government services as a post-partum person with cancer or AIDS, right?
Okay, I showed my hand. Paul’s good points are overshadowed by his nutty side. For instance, he has a problem with Santorum and Bachmann for having a problem with Islam. After 9/11 and the thousands of jihad attacks since, in disparate places, throughout the world, without any consistent theme except the Islamic precepts that the jihadists say is behind their attacks, the default position for every American, non-Muslim, and cultural Muslim should be to have a problem with Islam. But Paul calls such people bigots and Islamophobes, thereby echoing those who called critics of Hitler, Germanophobes. Indeed, Paul digs deeper by repeatedly saying that the United States foreign policy is to blame for 9/11, not radical Islam. This is proof positive that Paul knows nothing about Islam. Radical Islam is a zombie that attacks resistance, and colonizes the submissive methodically. The United States historically has been guilty of nothing more than not being a docile host for Islamic parasites, but even that is at risk now.
Paul’s foreign policy stance may in fact protect the United States despite himself, if his primary concern is protecting our perimeter and increasing freedom, rather than appeasing the haters of this world. I’m with Paul on demanding that Congress step up to the plate and vote if this country is to go to war, at least in all but the most imminent circumstances, which are apocalyptic and too dire to consider here.
The correct position with regard to radical Islam is to denounce all Islamic fascism directly, not merely “terrorism”, support true freedom—e.g., freedom of religion, speech, dress, privacy, etc., quarantine Islamic economics, take vital natural resources by force if necessary and share them among non-fascist states, and halt Muslim travel and immigration to free states. This applies to foreign affairs in general as well, simply by replacing Islamic words with other totalitarian ones.
Last but not least, Paul is 76, and will be 77 when elected. Reagan is the oldest person to be elected President, and he was “only” 69. Reagan was leaving office when Paul would be going in! Simply put, Paul is too old to be President! He should know better. He was in the Air Force, where the maximum entry age is only 27, even if it was for a desk job. The Presidency isn’t for someone who has a statistically high chance of being infirm, senile, or dead. Sorry to be blunt, but the truth sometimes ain’t pretty!
NOTE: While I’m developing a theory that none of today’s candidates has any business being President, as well neither did nearly all past Presidents (exceptions: The Founder Presidents, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover(!?!) ), until the unlikely day comes when Presidents must have rigorous qualifications like other jobs, I must discuss this bunch.
Reader Comments