If RON PAUL Were President
January 27th, 2008

He’s right on, on immigration. Here’s what he says:

The overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. We rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants – certainly not all – receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home.

So far, so good, eh? NOW CHECK THIS OUT. Ron Paul: To me, if you overthrow a regime it’s an act of war, and it backfires on us. It has never served us well over the last 100 years. It’s sort of like what we did with 1953 by installing the Shah. We worked with the regime, we worked the British then, and we’re still suffering the consequences…

You’re saying overthrowing Mossadegh in 1953 and putting in the Shah led to the hostage-taking and 9/11?

Ron Paul: Absolutely.

In other words, the militant fundamentalist regime (the jihadists) took revenge on us for overthrowing the secular left-of-center regime in ’53?”

Whaaaat? Is he kidding? The jihadists must have been deliriously happy over it. Ron Paul is saying that 9/11 IS OUR FAULT. There’s more…

“Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.”

He rose as the only Republican in opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah for the violence and supporting Israel’s right to defend itself:

“I rise in opposition to this resolution, which I sincerely believe will do more harm than good.
I do agree with the resolution’s condemnation of violence. But I am convinced that when we get involved in foreign conflicts and send strong messages, such as this resolution will, it ends up expanding the war rather than diminishing the conflict, and that ultimately comes back to haunt us.” “It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. I find this unfair, particularly considering the significantly higher number of civilian casualties among Lebanese civilians. I would rather advocate neutrality rather than picking sides, which is what this resolution does.

This statement rather flatly equates Israel’s response to terrorist attacks with terrorism itself. This isn’t anti-Semitism, but it is moral blindness.

Another statement by either him or his staff is: “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” I could cite many more examples, but these should be adequate to demonstrate Ron Pauls obvious antipathy toward Israel.
# He’s AGAINST foreign aid, feels it’s often more harmful than helpful .
# He’s AGAINST homosexual marriage and adoption. Great! Wonderful.
# He’s AGAINST affirmative action and a host of other civil rights issues. Right on!
# He’s AGAINST abortion and stem cell research. Bad. Terrible. That’s a RELIGIOUS ISSUE.
However, he wants the federal government out of abortion decisions. Good. Sensible.

# He DOES NOT SEE Iraq as a threat to the United States. But what about our ally Israel and Irans threat to oil shipping? Iran threatens both, which threatens us.
# He’s FOR smaller government and supports a Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. Great. It’s about time!
# He OPPOSES “hate crimes” legislation. “Hate crimes” are nothing less than thought crime. Good!
# He would REPEAL most federal drug laws. Since most of them are based on 1920’s laws protecting alcohol, I’d call this Good. Providing sensible laws replace them.
# HE WANTS SCHOOLS TO present scientific facts that support creationism. BAD! BAD! Creationism is fantasy. There are no scientific facts to support it anyway, but, Wow!
# He’s AGAINST big oil subsidies and is FOR new refineries. He also wants to repeal the gas tax. Good on the first, NUTJOB on the second. Gas taxes build and maintain highways.
# PRO environment BUT VOTED NO on the Amber Alert system for missing kids. What the hell is that about? Doesn’t care about kids?
# On Foreign Policy:
# Empires usually end by spending too much to maintain empire. (Dec 2007)
# Stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. (Nov 2007)
# No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
# Don’t pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
# Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
# Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
# Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
# Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests (and should not be). (Jun 2007)

SUMMATION

Ron Paul is for reducing the size of government and its expenditures, which used to be the goal of Republicans. Part of doing so would be to eliminate nearly all foreign aid, drastically reduce welfare, prevent welfare of any kind to illegals, and untangle us from foreign wars. He would pull America out of global involvement, do away with a lot of government and its spending and reduce that spending to the point where he could eliminate the income tax, which he wants to do.

He’s a religionist and would enforce his beliefs as president. He’s against the death penalty, sees homosexuality as a sin, is a pacifist and would very likely be an appeaser like Jimmy Carter. He would get us out of Iraq, but at what cost in terms of world opinion? He would not be a staunch defender of Israel, which is our best ally on the planet, and openly paints the Palestinians as victims instead of the terrorists they are. He’s closely associated with neo-Nazi groups and preaches a lot of what they preach.

Bottom line, I don’t think Ron Paul would stand firm in the face of Islamic aggression. Nothing he’s ever said indicates anything other than an appeasing attitude. If they come here and attack I think he would act to defend our shores, but if they attack us “over there” such as Iran just nearly did, he would do another Jimmy Carter on us.

So much of his stand of the various issues is so good. It’s too bad that he’s only half-way there, and it’s the most important half that he lacks. I can’t help wondering, though, if he would do more good than harm. We need a lot of what he would at least try to do.

It has to be said that we have the most outstanding group of presidential candidates this time around, in terms of undesirability or peculiarness, in our history as a nation.

Always open trackbacks, just click on the title for the URL.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.