Daily Archives: January 2, 2012

Anyone But Ron Paul

While Obama is a threat to our domestic liberties, Ron Paul’s non-interventionist views are beyond dangerous.  They are suicidal.

Perhaps it’s fitting to note what the Second President of the United States said about Democracies in view of Ron Paul’s standing in the polls:

“There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide”. – John Adams

Of course spending ourselves into oblivion with welfare programs that grow the tyrannical state was most likely the intent of the warning Adam’s gave, Ron Paul would make national suicide a literal application by prostrating us before our enemies and blaming ourselves for any acts of war waged on us by expanding militant Islam.

In a companion piece to what I wrote in yesterday’s blog, Gary Bauer nails what we true Conservatives understand about Ron Paul, and his insane and dangerous views in a very hostile world that he pretends does not exist unless provoked first by America. And as Gary Bauer notes, Ron Paul is far more radical than even Obama is on matters of security for this nation.  In fact, much of Paul’s lambasting of Conservatives is right out of the Obama playbook.  No wonder so many fringe Leftists support Ron Paul.

If it’s down to Obama and Ron Paul, national suicide would seem a certainty in our future.

Look for the Ronulan Mob Zombie Hordes to descend in vain attempts to justify their vaunted savior’s lunatic positions.  They will most likely start by declaring Bauer a “NeoCon” and dismiss everything out of hand.  Such as it has been since 2007.


Anyone But Ron Paul for President

Gary Bauer

Some of the most indelible images from September 11, 2001, are of video footage of cheering Muslim crowds in the streets of Ramallah and East Jerusalem as news of the attacks swept across the Middle East.

Is there any doubt that if Ron Paul is elected President, his inauguration will elicit similar jubilation in the cities of America’s worst enemies?

Words such as “noninterventionist” and “isolationist” have been used to describe Paul’s foreign policy views.  A more apt word is “dangerous.”

I like the Texas congressman’s opposition to Big Government.  But his foreign policy and national security views are so dangerous that they should disqualify him for the presidency.

It is tempted to compare Paul’s foreign policy views to those of President Obama.  Both seem to enjoy stressing America’s sins, real and imagined, and both naively believe a little diplomacy is all that’s needed to appease rogue regimes such as Iran.

Like Obama, Paul wants terrorists caught in the U.S. to be treated not as enemy combatants but as common criminals.  Also like Obama, Paul supported the building of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York City, insisting that opposition to its construction was “all about hate and Islamophobia.”

But Paul’s foreign policy views are much more radical than Obama’s.  Paul disapproves of Obama’s drone strikes on terrorists, and would shutter U.S. military bases abroad.  Paul says he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.  You’d be hard-pressed to find one in a million Americans who would agree with that.

Paul’s foreign policy views would stand out even in a field of the most liberal Democrats. In fact, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, perhaps the most left-wing presidential candidate ever, has said he and Paul “agree tremendously on international policy.”  Paul says he’d consider naming Kucinich to his Cabinet—perhaps as head of a newly formed “Department of Peace.”

But Paul’s views of America and its place in the world go beyond the liberal appeasement of Obama or Kucinich.  In fact, in their sheer conspiratorial lunacy, they align more closely with Obama’s former pastor and mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Consider both Wright’s and Paul’s reaction to 9/11.  Wright described the attacks as “America’s chickens coming home to roost,” and said of America’s government, “We’re the same as al-Qaeda.”

Paul has said that America’s foreign policy was a “major contributing factor” to the attacks, and he allegedly wanted to vote against authorizing war in Afghanistan.  Both Wright and Paul are conspiracy theorists.  According to a former longtime aide, Paul suggested that the attacks may have been coordinated by the CIA or that the Bush administration knew about the attacks ahead of time.  Paul has claimed that 9/11 caused “glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”  He has also suggested that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Wright has claimed that the U.S. government manufactured the AIDS virus to kill black people.  And Paul has allegedly written that the government is “lying” about the threat of AIDS.

Both Wright and Paul are radically anti-Israel.  Wright has called the state of Israel “illegal” and “genocidal.”  He gave a lifetime achievement award to radical Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, an anti-Semite who Wright said “truly epitomized greatness.”

According to his former aide, Paul “wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.”  The ex-adviser said Paul “sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.”

Paul has also said he would not have intervened in World War II if Japan hadn’t attacked the U.S., even against Hitler’s Germany to prevent the Holocaust.  This, he insists, somehow fits into a foreign policy based on the Golden Rule.

Paul rarely criticizes President Obama, but has a disturbing tendency to slander his country and fellow Republicans.  He has charged that America has declared “war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” and accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims and Rick Santorum of hating gays.  This extremist does the conservative cause an injustice by playing into the Left’s worst false stereotypes of Republicans.  No wonder Paul derives much of his support from the fringe Left.

Many Paulites say they support him for his economic policy views, while dismissing his foreign policy extremism.  But they should realize that in the highly improbable case that Paul becomes President, he would, as Commander-in-chief, have much power to enact his national security agenda and much less influence over economic policy.

By regularly casting America as the world’s villain and by advocating the abandonment of our alliances and the abdication of our duties around the world, a Ron Paul presidency would cheer our enemies, demoralize our friends and guarantee a decline in our national security.


Filed under Politics