October 23, 2007

Dare I say it? Ron Paul is an attractive candidate (not that way)

I'm intrigued by GOP prez contender Ron Paul. More than intrigued. So, I journeyed over to his website to invest a bit of time reading about his stances on issues ...

WAR & FOREIGN POLICY: (My comments in italics.)

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. (Paul needs to be careful here in that he sounds like an angry moonbat if he means Bush KNEW the info was false and went ahead with it anyway. He also needs to realize that there were quite a few other reasons laid out by Bush for going into Iraq than just WMDs. However, if he means that the info by which we went to war TURNED OUT to be false -- meaning WMDs, obviously -- then he's correct.) The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again. (The first sentence is technically correct, but that always applies in the short-term in similar situations. Nevertheless, the rest of Paul's position is well taken. In my opinion, it's not worth a SINGLE American life to "establish" democracy in Iraq or ANY country for that matter. George Bush himself, in the 2000 pres. campaign, stated that he does not believe in nation-building. What made him change his mind so?)

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. (Perfectly said about Jefferson and Washington. And while I think the Dr. lays it on a bit thick about having "too few troops" to defend America, why do we need troops in 130 countries today? The Cold War is over. But sorry, Ron -- the "draft" part is just more hyperbole. Unnecessary.)

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution. (Absolutely! Why has Congress abdicated its precious right of declaring war? How many times have we heard, regarding Iraq, that Congress "essentially did just that" by AUTHORIZING military action? Sorry, legislative branch. You need to get some cojones and do what the Constitution specifically states: DECLARE WAR if we're to be in it for the long haul. And this includes the War on Terror, too.)

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. (Absolutely! Regarding Iraq, if the UN felt that it was unnecessary to enforce its OWN resolutions against Saddam Hussein, why does this mean the United States has to do it for them -- alone?)

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price. (Too simplistic here, although I concur with the Dr.'s overall assessment. We aided the jihadis in Afghanistan back during the Cold War when the Soviets [illegally] occupied Afghanistan. We also provide billions in aid to countries like Egypt -- home to many Islamic radicals and a government that is not very hospitable to our own. Does Dr. Paul believe we should not provide this aid? What would it "say" to Egypt, and hence Muslims, then? We also aid the Saudis? If we did not, would there be a danger of Islamic militants taking over that regime? Etc.)

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.


The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. (AMEN!) This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. (Indeed it is. People I know -- including my wife -- played by the rules, followed the law, and waited to become legal residents and some, later citizens. How do you think THEY feel about those who blatantly break these laws and are essentially REWARDED for it? Tell this to the moronic "sanctuary cities" and to cretinous politicians who give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.)

* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. (Isn't this just common sense, people?)

* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. (Many Americans are fond of saying "Look at how Europe does it!" In this case they're right -- many European countries do not have birthright citizenship, and neither should we. It's one MAJOR item that's helping fuel the illegal immigration problem.)

* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

More to come ....

Posted by Hube at October 23, 2007 06:47 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I don't thiink I could ever vote for Ron Paul, for exactly the opposite reasons you find him attractive, apparently.

Right or wrong when it began, this war is too important to the future of the US to allow it to be lost or given up. The arguments he makes are reasons not to start the war, but not reasons not to fight it or to win it.

If Paul is the Republican candidate, I will not be voting Republican in the election, nor will many Republicans like me.

Posted by: JR at October 23, 2007 11:14 PM

If Ron Paul turns out to be a real contender in the next year or so I will vote for him...the first time I will ever have voted Republican and certainly the first I've wanted to do anything but abstain (and did so) over the last several elections. Ron Paul may be a Texas Congressman under the Republican banner but seems more Libertarian than anything. Unfortunately he's seldom given an opportunity in the public debates but, fortunately, more and more are not depending on the media...namely tv...for candidate information. I may not agree with him 100% but anyone so interested in us, as a country, having less govt. and minding our own business...then tending to it, deserves more than a passing thought.

Posted by: Nancy Cleveland at October 24, 2007 12:10 PM

Ron Paul has no hope of winning the nomination. However, he can be a lodestone in that he may drag the party away from it's current Big Government Conservatism (a term which makes zero sense) back to fiscal sanity and less government intrusion in our lives.

Posted by: Duffy at October 24, 2007 01:13 PM

You posted about Ron Paul. Nice Google bait. Influx coming.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at October 25, 2007 02:14 AM

Duffy-- good point. That would not be a bad thing at all.

Posted by: JR at October 25, 2007 03:55 AM

Duffy is right on. Dr. Paul is not an attractive candidate and will likely not be elected. His ideas are brilliant though. We the people need to push the parties towards a more serious tone on liberty and spending restraint.

Posted by: Alan Coffey at October 25, 2007 07:31 PM