Paging Dr. Paul

Posted: January 1, 2012 in Politics, Ron Paul
Tags: ,

Bachman: Up, attack, down. Perry: Up, attack, down. Palin: Up,drive around in bus, down. Cain: Up, attack, down. Newt: Up, attack, down. Paul: ignore, Up, attack, up, slander, up, accuse, up……..Romney: eh…

That is my brief summary of a not so brief process leading to the most obvious of conclusions. Neocons support Rick Santorum and Bachman for “values”. Party first republicans supporty Romney for “electability”. Gingrich supporters are obviously confused former supporters of Herman Cain, who were/are looking for someone outside of politics. Then there are Ron Pauls supporters (which include me). A dedicated group of enthusiastic, opinionated, and tireless people who are attempting to turn the Republican war complex on its head.

What is the big controversy with Dr. Paul? It seems that some people are quick to hate him, others just don’t give him a chance at all. I have seen a few trends relating to peoples reactions to Dr. Paul as a candidate and I am taking advantage of this outlet to offer my retort.

1. He is a kook.

On its face, a solid stance to take. Plenty of proof of kookiness. I mean the guy was saying for decades that poor fiscal and monetary policy coupled with endless war would bankrupt and endanger our country more than anything else. Sounds kooky to me. (Emphasis on the total sarcasm that the previous paragraph was written with)

2. His foreign policy is weak.

“Domestic policy can only defeat us. Foreign policy can kill us.”- JFK

Wasn’t it just a couple of years ago that all the news networks were saying “our military is stretched dangerously thin”. Now as the war in Iraq winds down we need to start a war with Iran? But isn’t the military stretched too thin? When most of our assets are overseas, when large quantities of our soldiers are in foreign conflicts or stationed at foreign bases isn’t the defense of our nation more difficult? Wouldn’t a candidate that suggests bringing our assets home and not endangering the lives of our soldiers needlessly be more respectful of national security and our military than a candidate who looks to war as the best foreign policy? The establishment Republican party sees war as necessary to the future of American Exceptionalism. Ron Paul sees the exceptionalism of America as being her ability to wage war and defend herself against any credible threat, but choosing not to lord over the world with her power and strength. The ability to act, but the restraint to act only when necessary to defend herself.

3. Ron Paul is naive, he doesn’t understand the threat of Muslims to America.

I find it hard to even understand the logic behind this argument. There are more than enough Muslims in our world to destroy America if all that they wanted to do was strap bombs to themselves and blow up buildings and such.

There are muslim extremists who do have the desire to destroy America and American citizens. Just as there are extremist Christian groups that feel America is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah and is doomed to be destroyed by God. The problem we face is that the “war on terror” does not have a clearly defined enemy, it seems that most of the “bad guys” have been Muslim extremists and it is easy to label all Muslims based on that fact. But when an invading force occupies a foreign land the population of that land is inclined to fight back. That doesn’t mean that all Iraqis or Afghani’s who fought us are Muslim extremists. There were many who joined forces to protect their homes, and country. This has been a hang up for Americans and it has led to a bias against all Muslims.

Ron respects the rights of the individual, regardless of their ethnicity, religious preference, etc. His voting record shows that he places no preference over one group or another. His writings show that he wants equality for all groups of people. The naivety is in the idea that an entire culture wants nothing more than to kill all of us for existing. Some say the Qur’an states that Muslims should kill all infidels, I have not read the Qur’an, I do not know. I can say that taking a closer look at other religious texts may show that there is inflammatory language in them as well. Does this mean all members of those faiths follow those words strictly?

4. He is a racist, antisemitic, bigot.

It is understandable that our political process drags up dirt on candidates and asks questions of them that are intended to clarify their stance on important issues. With that said, why are the media hacks continually trying to label Ron Paul as a racist? As antisemitic?

I will say that the newsletter published in Ron’s name seems a bit fishy. I wish he would name names and say who wrote them, until I see that person admitting that they did it, I will be skeptical of the “it wasn’t me” defense. To the credit of the Dr., racism doesn’t fit his long standing and unwavering view that all individuals deserve equal rights and should not be shown preference or be held back because of their race. He has taken that stance for decades and has voted to protect the equal treatment of all Americans from the influence of the federal government. Dr. Paul supports personal responsibility, individual accountability, and the right of all people to be treated equally under the law.

As for the antisemitic accusations, these seem to be based around the fact that he wants to cut foreign aid to Israel and that he has said that Iran having a nuclear weapon is not grounds to go to war with them.

Foreign aid: his plan is to cut all foreign aid, not just to Israel. Israel is becoming reliant on our money, this is what is commonly known as a “vassal state”, they are dependent on us as a source of income and for military protection. Is this situation not detrimental to their sovereignty? Would Israel not be stronger to stand independently as an ally of America? If we want to sell Israel weapons to arm their military, fine, as long as they are paying or trading equally.

War with Iran: If Israel engages in a conflict and asks for our assistance, a declaration of war should be provided by congress and our intervention should take the legal path set out for it. No promises should be given that just because war happens we will definitely be there in the middle of it. Just because Dr. Paul doesn’t support the idea of promising war that doesn’t mean he would not assist Israel in a conflict.

5. He is unelectable.

He has won many congressional elections hasn’t he?

Dr. Paul consistently polls very well in a head to head match up with President Obama.

Ron Paul pulls support not only from the Libertarian portion of the Republican party but from Independents, Democrats, and people not affiliated with a party. To win a general election you have to be able to pull voters from all sides, a guy like Rick Santorum is so far to the right he will never pull Democrats or Independents. Ron is a true constitutional conservative and that message resonates with a large portion of the population. If the GOP wants to nominate based on electability then Ron Paul is a great choice.

I doubt I did a great job defending Dr. Paul but I feel compelled to try. I see him as a great inspiration and the epitome of success in regards to standing by your ideals, having a principled and honest career, and defending the liberties of Americans.

To read more about Dr. Ron Paul I suggest visiting , you can find a lot of information there to get a better understanding of who he is and what he is all about.

  1. manmeetsblog says:

    I think you did a fantastic job of articulating some key points. I was called a “Paulbot” about 57 times last night by a moron on Facebook. My parents think I am crazy for supporting him. My brother does not care as he would probably vote for his beard.

    According to CNN, Paul picked up seven delegates last night, along with seven for Romney and seven for Santorum (why is this man obsessed with gay sex?).

    A good start and certainly worthy of being called a victory in Iowa. I’m holding out hope for Rand Paul in 2016 if things don’t work out this time around.

    • swburke21 says:

      Rick Santorum was on Hannity earlier today, he had the nerve to say that his administration would help “everyone”, but what about gay people and Muslims Rick do they get to be included?

      Rick Santorum was voted the 3rd MOST CORRUPT Senator in the U.S. Senate

      Rick Santorum’s own nephew publicly endorsed Ron Paul

      Rick Santorum endorsed Arlen Specter previously, what kind of true “pro lifer” would do such a thing?

      Rick Santorum promises to get rid of Obama’s prohibitive regulations on business…..and replace them with less prohibitive regulations. DOES ANYBODY GET THE POINT? GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s