Ron Paul's position on the 2nd Amendment resembles my own; unfortunately, I do not think that that position is shared by the majority of Americans, or even a majority of Republicans. In any case, that issue alone is certainly not enough to get him nominated, let alone elected. There are far too many of his other positions that I, and many other conservatives, find troubling and even dangerous.
The Iraq war and the War on Terror, for starters. Ron Paul believes that there was no good reason to go to war in Iraq, that a Congressional declaration of war was Constitutionally necessary, and that we ought to just unilaterally pull out completely and immediately. Further, Paul's position is that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, and that if we just cut and run--all over the world--that the Jihadists will leave us alone. That's an isolationist fantasy. It's also called "surrender" or "appeasement".
Aside from the fact that those positions could have come straight from MoveOn.org or Counterpunch, they ignore some pretty basic facts.
Briefly: we are at war with the most dangerous group of extremists in human history. They were being actively supported by Saddam, who was incidentally a brutal, sadistic dictator who was, even if he had no WMDs (and many, including I, think he did--as did every intelligence service in the Western world), was without question poised to resume their development and production the moment "inspections" ended.
If Paul wants to appeal to the Founders on the subject of formal declarations of war, he might recall that there was another President who sent American troops to war without a formal declaration, against foreign outlaws who presented zero threat of invasion: one Thomas Jefferson, who sent the Marines to Tripoli to subdue the Barbary Pirates.
"...indeed war was declared on the Barbary Pirates, it was declared by President Jefferson, just as President Bush has declared war on terrorism. However; the Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. The Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Jefferson to act much in the same way as the Terrorism Joint Resolution authorized President Bush to assume war footing as Commander In Chief."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/575174/posts
Jefferson and Hamilton, if memory serves, had some small role in writing some of the key documents that Paul holds sacred.
Even if you don't agree with the initial reasons we went in, it would be absolutely insane and suicidal to cut and run now. Leaving aside the inevitable bloodbath and mass murder of those who supported us and trusted us to help them build a free society (and ignoring the fact that no ally, no nation, no people on earth would ever trust us again, and the fact that our enemies would crow, as they did after Vietnam, that we are a weak country with no stomach for fighting and ripe for their victory and domination--and that they would be right), we would be leaving a dedicated and determined enemy an entire nation for a power base. Not a few villages and training camps as in Afghanistan, but a modern, well-equipped and armed nation with the resources and oil wealth to make them a danger to America for generations.
Paul, like leftists and Democrats, opposes the Patriot Act and declares that it sacrifices our civil liberties in the name of security. Sorry. There have been no, none, nada, zero abuses of the Patriot Act recorded or reported (except on "Law and Order"). If you think being able to make international phone calls to known terrorists without being recorded is an essential civil liberty--well, sorry, but I don't agree with you; and that's what the Act covers, not calls to your local gun shop or your Aunt Tillie.
Paul believes that ALL foreign aid to EVERY nation ought to be abolished. That's madness. Foreign aid perhaps ought to be managed more with an eye to who is our friend and who our enemy, but cutting it off entirely would be the act of a maniac.
We live in the 21st century, not the 18th, and a certain amount of "international entanglement" is beyond avoiding. We have allies that depend on us for economic and military aid--and we depend on them, too. It's an international marketplace and an international, interdependent web of commerce, science and communication, and there's no going back. We can't stand alone any more, and we don't need to make any more enemies than we already have.
Further, such an act would inevitably plunge us all into a catastrophic worldwide depression, and the US would suffer most of all. It's worth noting, for instance, that 90% of the aid we send to Israel is spent right here in the US, and that supports a LOT of American jobs.
Israel, in particular (aid to which Paul adamantly and especially opposes), is the best friend we have on Earth. They have the best intelligence service in the mideast, and maybe the world; in surveillance and counterterrorism, they are the world's leader, and regularly share information and lend us their experts in those fields. They are also among the world's leaders in military technology and armament development, including nuclear-weapons detection and security--not to mention trauma medicine (in fact, medical advancements of all kinds), dry-land agriculture (already assisting our own farmers in the Southwest), and electronic technology and communication (your cell phone was probably designed in Israel). Thousands of Americans travel to Israel every year, both Jews and Christians, and many Israelis commute between jobs in the US and Israel as military, high-tech, and other kinds of consultants and professionals. That's a start, I would think, on why we should continue to value and support Israel as a vital ally and friend.
And Ron Paul wants to stab them in the back and leave them at the mercy of the Arabs, who have collectively sworn to exterminate or expel every Jew in the Mideast and erase Israel from existence.
Yeah, that's what made America great; betray your friends and abandon them to their--and our--enemies.
Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO and pull ALL our troops back from ANYWHERE they're stationed, anywhere in the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. If an enemy doesn't present a direct threat of actual invasion of the US, according to Paul, they aren't a problem. It's as if he thinks armies and navies still use horse-drawn artillery and sailing ships.
I think he and his followers might have noticed at some point--say, 9/11/01--that we can suffer some slight damage and loss of life by actions short of an invasion by foreign troops. Further, if he doesn't think an American presence is necessary in, say, South Korea, the Balkans, and the Mideast, you have to wonder if he ever studied any history after 1800.
Membership in the UN is essential to our international relations, which we MUST have, and membership in NATO is essential to the defense of the US and the Western world. We can't move back to 1913; we can't even move back to 1938. The world is different now, like it or not.
Paul wants to abolish the personal income tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and most of the departments represented on the Cabinet. It appears that he wants to abolish about 90% of the Federal bureaucracy.
Gee, what a great idea! Unfortunately, it just isn't within the power of an American President to do any of that. There's a little thing called Congress in the way, and they're going to laugh those ideas off the floor before they're even proposed. Senators and Congressmen draw much of their power and support from their (Constitutionally-mandated) ability to shape and manipulate the tax code and the bureaucracy, and they're about as likely to give that up as their pensions.
You'l notice I haven't mentioned Paul's apparent flirtations with racism and antisemitism, nor with the "9/11 Truther" moonbats: he disavows those peculiar misstatements, and I take him at his word. Compared to all the above, they're hardly relevant, anyway.
Ron Paul is a dreamer, with magnificent dreams; unfortunately, it isn't 1789 any more, and he appears to have a fourth-grader's understanding of international history and politics and the worldwide economy, not to mention a dangerously naïve view of the nature and intentions of our current enemy, which is militant fundamentalist Islam.
He has about as much chance of winning a major nomination, much less the general election, as Moe Howard, and would probably do about as good a job if he were, by some hellish miracle, elected.
One more note: If Paul is "principled" (read "arrogant" and "self-righteous") enough to mount a 3rd-party campaign, and if enough of his followers are "principled" (read "stupid") enough to vote for him, a Democrat--probably Hillary--will inevitably and certainly go to the White House, will nominate at least two Justices to the Supreme Court, and we will finally be forced to find out if we really mean it when we bravely say we'll fight to the death to keep our guns. It might be noble and courageous and all that, but I'd frankly rather be a little less "principled" and just elect a Republican. It would be a lot less trouble and makes a lot more sense.
The 300 of Thermopylae are our ideal; but I don't think Leonidas would have led his men there if they could have easily won the war without getting killed. He was noble and brave, but he wasn't stupid. I hope we aren't either.
The Iraq war and the War on Terror, for starters. Ron Paul believes that there was no good reason to go to war in Iraq, that a Congressional declaration of war was Constitutionally necessary, and that we ought to just unilaterally pull out completely and immediately. Further, Paul's position is that we brought 9/11 on ourselves, and that if we just cut and run--all over the world--that the Jihadists will leave us alone. That's an isolationist fantasy. It's also called "surrender" or "appeasement".
Aside from the fact that those positions could have come straight from MoveOn.org or Counterpunch, they ignore some pretty basic facts.
Briefly: we are at war with the most dangerous group of extremists in human history. They were being actively supported by Saddam, who was incidentally a brutal, sadistic dictator who was, even if he had no WMDs (and many, including I, think he did--as did every intelligence service in the Western world), was without question poised to resume their development and production the moment "inspections" ended.
If Paul wants to appeal to the Founders on the subject of formal declarations of war, he might recall that there was another President who sent American troops to war without a formal declaration, against foreign outlaws who presented zero threat of invasion: one Thomas Jefferson, who sent the Marines to Tripoli to subdue the Barbary Pirates.
"...indeed war was declared on the Barbary Pirates, it was declared by President Jefferson, just as President Bush has declared war on terrorism. However; the Congress never formally declared war on the BP, in fact no lesser person than Alexander Hamilton stated outright that a formal declaration of war was NOT required when the nation was attacked by a foreign enemy and it was that interpretation that Congress embraced at the time. The Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing Jefferson to act much in the same way as the Terrorism Joint Resolution authorized President Bush to assume war footing as Commander In Chief."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/575174/posts
Jefferson and Hamilton, if memory serves, had some small role in writing some of the key documents that Paul holds sacred.
Even if you don't agree with the initial reasons we went in, it would be absolutely insane and suicidal to cut and run now. Leaving aside the inevitable bloodbath and mass murder of those who supported us and trusted us to help them build a free society (and ignoring the fact that no ally, no nation, no people on earth would ever trust us again, and the fact that our enemies would crow, as they did after Vietnam, that we are a weak country with no stomach for fighting and ripe for their victory and domination--and that they would be right), we would be leaving a dedicated and determined enemy an entire nation for a power base. Not a few villages and training camps as in Afghanistan, but a modern, well-equipped and armed nation with the resources and oil wealth to make them a danger to America for generations.
Paul, like leftists and Democrats, opposes the Patriot Act and declares that it sacrifices our civil liberties in the name of security. Sorry. There have been no, none, nada, zero abuses of the Patriot Act recorded or reported (except on "Law and Order"). If you think being able to make international phone calls to known terrorists without being recorded is an essential civil liberty--well, sorry, but I don't agree with you; and that's what the Act covers, not calls to your local gun shop or your Aunt Tillie.
Paul believes that ALL foreign aid to EVERY nation ought to be abolished. That's madness. Foreign aid perhaps ought to be managed more with an eye to who is our friend and who our enemy, but cutting it off entirely would be the act of a maniac.
We live in the 21st century, not the 18th, and a certain amount of "international entanglement" is beyond avoiding. We have allies that depend on us for economic and military aid--and we depend on them, too. It's an international marketplace and an international, interdependent web of commerce, science and communication, and there's no going back. We can't stand alone any more, and we don't need to make any more enemies than we already have.
Further, such an act would inevitably plunge us all into a catastrophic worldwide depression, and the US would suffer most of all. It's worth noting, for instance, that 90% of the aid we send to Israel is spent right here in the US, and that supports a LOT of American jobs.
Israel, in particular (aid to which Paul adamantly and especially opposes), is the best friend we have on Earth. They have the best intelligence service in the mideast, and maybe the world; in surveillance and counterterrorism, they are the world's leader, and regularly share information and lend us their experts in those fields. They are also among the world's leaders in military technology and armament development, including nuclear-weapons detection and security--not to mention trauma medicine (in fact, medical advancements of all kinds), dry-land agriculture (already assisting our own farmers in the Southwest), and electronic technology and communication (your cell phone was probably designed in Israel). Thousands of Americans travel to Israel every year, both Jews and Christians, and many Israelis commute between jobs in the US and Israel as military, high-tech, and other kinds of consultants and professionals. That's a start, I would think, on why we should continue to value and support Israel as a vital ally and friend.
And Ron Paul wants to stab them in the back and leave them at the mercy of the Arabs, who have collectively sworn to exterminate or expel every Jew in the Mideast and erase Israel from existence.
Yeah, that's what made America great; betray your friends and abandon them to their--and our--enemies.
Paul wants the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO and pull ALL our troops back from ANYWHERE they're stationed, anywhere in the world, not just Iraq and Afghanistan. If an enemy doesn't present a direct threat of actual invasion of the US, according to Paul, they aren't a problem. It's as if he thinks armies and navies still use horse-drawn artillery and sailing ships.
I think he and his followers might have noticed at some point--say, 9/11/01--that we can suffer some slight damage and loss of life by actions short of an invasion by foreign troops. Further, if he doesn't think an American presence is necessary in, say, South Korea, the Balkans, and the Mideast, you have to wonder if he ever studied any history after 1800.
Membership in the UN is essential to our international relations, which we MUST have, and membership in NATO is essential to the defense of the US and the Western world. We can't move back to 1913; we can't even move back to 1938. The world is different now, like it or not.
Paul wants to abolish the personal income tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, the Federal Reserve, and most of the departments represented on the Cabinet. It appears that he wants to abolish about 90% of the Federal bureaucracy.
Gee, what a great idea! Unfortunately, it just isn't within the power of an American President to do any of that. There's a little thing called Congress in the way, and they're going to laugh those ideas off the floor before they're even proposed. Senators and Congressmen draw much of their power and support from their (Constitutionally-mandated) ability to shape and manipulate the tax code and the bureaucracy, and they're about as likely to give that up as their pensions.
You'l notice I haven't mentioned Paul's apparent flirtations with racism and antisemitism, nor with the "9/11 Truther" moonbats: he disavows those peculiar misstatements, and I take him at his word. Compared to all the above, they're hardly relevant, anyway.
Ron Paul is a dreamer, with magnificent dreams; unfortunately, it isn't 1789 any more, and he appears to have a fourth-grader's understanding of international history and politics and the worldwide economy, not to mention a dangerously naïve view of the nature and intentions of our current enemy, which is militant fundamentalist Islam.
He has about as much chance of winning a major nomination, much less the general election, as Moe Howard, and would probably do about as good a job if he were, by some hellish miracle, elected.
One more note: If Paul is "principled" (read "arrogant" and "self-righteous") enough to mount a 3rd-party campaign, and if enough of his followers are "principled" (read "stupid") enough to vote for him, a Democrat--probably Hillary--will inevitably and certainly go to the White House, will nominate at least two Justices to the Supreme Court, and we will finally be forced to find out if we really mean it when we bravely say we'll fight to the death to keep our guns. It might be noble and courageous and all that, but I'd frankly rather be a little less "principled" and just elect a Republican. It would be a lot less trouble and makes a lot more sense.
The 300 of Thermopylae are our ideal; but I don't think Leonidas would have led his men there if they could have easily won the war without getting killed. He was noble and brave, but he wasn't stupid. I hope we aren't either.
)
Heh.
.