January 2012
« Dec   Feb »

Ron Paul: Sage Grandfather or Crazy Uncle?

I find myself intrigued with Ron Paul on a regular basis. The man can get up and say some of the most patriotic and sensible things in once sentence and then in the next sentence sound like he just came out of an insane asylum. Paul has great ideas when it comes to fiscal responsibility, spending, freedom, and the Federal Reserve. On the other side of the coin, though, his ideas on foreign policy leave me wondering where he left his brain, or if he has one that is properly balanced. When he speaks of fiscal issues he sounds like Ronald Reagan. When he speaks of foreign policy he sounds like Hugo Chavez and even to the left of Barack Obama.

When I hear him speak of auditing or eliminating the FED I stand up and cheer. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental entity that is destroying our economy by printing money that has essentially no value, thereby lowering the value of the dollar and guaranteeing severe inflation in the very near future. The FED also has virtually no oversight from anyone in Congress. Paul is also correct in his assessment of federal government spending. We cannot keep spending money borrowed from China for building IHOP restaurants, studying ants in New Zealand, teaching African men how to wash their genitals after sex, and certainly can’t keep borrowing to prop up European countries.

I also agree with much of his stand on Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and the other third world hell holes Obama is involving us in. Fighting a war against Islamic terrorists is one thing but this “nation building” farce is only a boon for the military industrial complex and is not helping any aspect of our national security interests. We are wasting money and lives in a venture that will fail because it isn’t about winning a war; it is about being politically correct and propping up a puppet government. As we are leaving Iraq we see the sectarian slaughter returning. Sunni and Shiite Muslims have been butchering each other for centuries and we are not going to stop it. Until these stone-age animals decide to live like human beings nothing we do is going to change anything. All we do is put our soldiers in the line of fire with a no-win policy that puts their lives in danger with rules of engagement that are insane.

While closing military bases all across the United States we build and expand bases throughout the world. While we are “helping Afghan police and military close their borders to invaders” we leave our own borders wide open to drug cartels and the very Islamic terrorists we are fighting in far off lands.

Ron Paul makes quite a stir when he talks about “legalizing drugs”. I don’t remember everything he has said about drugs but I do know he has some valid points here also. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 50 years and has cost taxpayers billions in wasted money. Not only have we not solved the problem of illegal drugs; this “war” has made it worse. Most of Paul’s position has more to do with leaving this issue to the states, not legalizing drugs wholesale as the story is reported. Ron Paul is a strong states’ rights advocate, as am I. It only took the politicians 14 years to see the problems caused by Prohibition and repeal the 18th Amendment. The war on drugs has been going on for 50 years with the same results we saw during Prohibition. I don’t condone legalizing all drugs but I see a colossal failure that could be handled better at the state level.

Paul has the same ideas on abortion; let the states decide how they want to handle this issue. I agree with him on this matter. If it isn’t in the Constitution the federal government has no business sticking their nose into it. Every time a person or group doesn’t get their way at the state level they run to the federal government to override the states, the place where these issues should be decided. I see abortion as murder, and see murder as a state issue not a federal one.

I hear all of the things Paul writes and says about these issues and I jump up and cheer him on. Then he begins to talk about foreign policy and I scream out in pain. Paul is just as bad as Barack Obama when it comes to blaming America for every ill in the world. I have a cousin who worked in the building demolition business years ago and I had several opportunities to see the activities involved in blowing a building up, or rather imploding them. When I hear Ron Paul talk about 9/11 being an inside job I want to choke his scrawny little neck.

The idea that the World Trade Center was taken down by internally placed explosives is ludicrous to anyone who has even a scant knowledge of building implosions. The amount of work necessary to drill into pillars, place the explosives, wire them together, and tie everything to a detonator cannot be accomplished in a building with thousands of people walking in and out all day every day. A building that size isn’t brought down on itself with a satchel charge tossed into an elevator. The idea that the Bush Administration was involved in setting up the hijackings is equally ludicrous and statements by Ron Paul and his supporters on this issue shows they are well outside the realm of sane or intelligent thought.
While Ron Paul has some very good ideas about what is needed to restore The Republic of the United States of America, he has more than enough crazy ideas to make him a danger to every person in this country. I would love to see Ron Paul be the next Treasury Secretary or Chairman of the Federal Reserve but to put this man in the White House would endanger our nation almost as much as re-electing Barack Obama.

We need a very strong leader with strong conservative values. We need someone who will articulate the conservative message and have the courage of his/her convictions. Now is not the time for waffling or being concerned about “diversity” or “inclusiveness”. The only answer to our nation’s problems is a conservative approach that relies on the Constitution that our founding fathers fought the Revolutionary War to make possible. Anything less will result in the demise of a once great nation and the rise of another Third World banana republic with a dictator such as Adolph Hitler or Hugo Chavez. Ron Paul is not the man for the job.

I submit this in the name of the most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell Claremore, Oklahoma January 23, 2012

3 Responses to Ron Paul: Sage Grandfather or Crazy Uncle?

  • For this reason Ron Paul is when deciding to take powers away from the particular corporate-capitalism system. I know everyone here is scared if we reduce in size the size and scope of government but these laws giving police powers to corporate America are method to scary. Big business will have big money but removing the power they have to influence law making can be KEY.

  • Ron Paul is a student of the history of the Middle East, where the U.S./British/Allied record is very poor. The “countries” in the Middle East are not defined by the citizens or by their governments. They were defined by a “British Cartographer” after the end of WWII, and make little sense to anyone now familiar with the Tribes inhabiting that region. If you don’t understand ancient tribal law as they see it, you probably can’t understand the lack of logic in those lines, or why they necessarily create friction and conflict among those “politically lumped together” by Western actions.

    “Mecca” is holy ground to Muslims. Under their system of religious law it is FORBIDDEN for any infidel (that would be all of us) to set foot on that holy ground. We did, first building consulates, then later, military bases in the area. Any of the above is reason enough for them to declare war on the U.S., considering their theological system of government.

    At the end of WWII “Iran” installed a democratically elected government. The U.S. and Britain had trouble dealing with that government, so we (the CIA) overthrew it and installed the “Shah of Iran” to rule over the people. We supported him and kept him in power until 1979, when the Iranian people ran him completely out of the Middle East. That’s why “Iran” does not trust the U.S., even though they wound up with a worse government than they had under the Shah. This one, at least, is of their own choosing, and not imposed on them by some foreign power.

    You won’t learn much of this by reading western history of that period, but it’s all true just the same. Ron Paul (like myself) lived through all of this and remembers. That’s why he says “we brought this upon ourselves” (not that Americans deserve it) by our own actions, years ago and continuing through the first Gulf War. We have protected and propped up the “Saud Family” in Arabia, even naming the country “Saudi Arabia” when that particular “TRIBE” is not and never was well liked by most of the people they now rule over and control. Do you start to get the idea of what Ron Paul is talking about?

    None of this is to say the Islamic Terrorists are righteous, or that their cause is just. All it says is that WE HAVE PROVOKED THEM and we’ve been doing it since the end of WWII…

  • As a teen, growing up with the background of “Navy brat”, I was well aware of the deliberate artificial nature of western powers, i.e. Bristish cartographers establishing borders, and having served as a Marine in several of those nations resultant, know the angst of the people in the streets, the vendors, the patrons of stores, the average “Joe” one can stop and speak to as a citizen, out shopping for the day’s meals and needs, and the anger is well buried, because of actual personal respect which is the most common thing I experienced, even in uniform, because I was asking, with an obvious desire for personal feelings, and not as anything but an American Citizen, wishing for answers.
    The anger which exists throughout most of non-Europe non-Americas, is, by the words of people of every walk of life, built upon the colonization, and the imposed lines drawn when the Empires chose to withdraw, but leave behind their mark and choice for their own, trade purposes. Little has ever been considered for “The People” of occupied Nations, when the Empires left, and we, America, alone, got it our way, because we drove them out. As such, we have a moral obligation, in my own view, to see things through the eyes of our forefathers, facing the British Empire, violating its own laws, and causing us to sever our ties against their will, by rebellion, war, and winning, accepting surrender, and then writing our own government into existence, something they did not do.
    I also consider it important when addressing this, we remember they too, could have rebelled, and could have won, had they made the right choices. This does not negate the fact a leaving Empire should establish the government left behind, except with the acceptance of The People’s left behind, and particularly heeding their historical divisiions. That this was not done is beyond repair. That it is foundation for the hatred and anger, there can be no doubt.
    People can heal wounds left between nations, if honest, well intentioned care is taken in dealing with truth, and responsibility for problems is accepted but acknowledging water under bridges.
    Honorable people with good intent, work to do such things. It is not honorable to simply set it in the past, suggest it is done, and all must go forward without at the least, confronting what has been done, and accepting responsibility, and being truly willing to do what is reasonable to make amends.
    Honor has been used to mean many things, but when put in its most ancient context, it has a common meaning, and we of many differing cultures can choose to meet in “Honor” with an understanding of People of Good Character, meeting for the purpose of speaking truth, considering each other as we do ourselves, and choose to make a future which is not directly dependent on the past, but dependent on a studied, intended and carefully enacted meeting of People, Endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and responsibilities parallel to and equal in power and force, to those rights.
    Such understandings can be had, when they are the principles for the entry into such meetings. Enemies have long history of finding compelling reason to meet face to face, and learn of the other, how coexistence can be brought about for the best interests of all.
    John McClain
    GySgt, USMC, ret.
    Vanceboro, NC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *