Friday, May 27, 2011

Why Ron Paul is Unacceptable

It’s time to take to task an oft-repeated point from Ron Paul supporters and those leaning to Ron Paul. I constantly hear how one’s disagreement with Paul’s foreign policy shouldn’t keep conservatives back from voting for him because of his conservative stance on domestic policy. They then go on to explain that it’s impossible to find a candidate with which you agree with 100% of the times, so this will be the one issue you have an opposing view. This reasoning is utter absolute nonsense. Here’s why. True, it’s probably impossible to find someone that you agree with on every topic; however one has to have the ability to recognize which issues will have a greater effect on the future of this country. Domestic policy has always been pretty high on the list, but so has foreign policy. Specifically in such tumultuous times we need a leader that will reaffirm America’s image in the world as the outstanding country it is.

A vote for or against Ron Paul is essentially the difference between lifting the blame off the terrorists’ shoulders and claiming that we’re the ones to have provoked them, or blaming Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda who’ve actually taken credit for the attacks and hate us for who we are no matter what we do. By supporting Ron Paul, one aligns themselves with the truthers, and with Paul’s warped ideology that if we keep to ourselves then no one will seek to harm us, which happens to be exactly what we were doing when we suddenly got hit with 9/11. If you stand with Ron Paul, that defines you as one who’s for the shrinking of our defense system, the shutting down of many federal agencies including the F.B.I., C.I.A., Homeland Security, and FEMA.

Ron Paul’s refrain that America simply doesn’t have the money to fight the war on terror which is bankrupting the nation, can be clarified with the following; a multi-millionaire is hurrying to a business meeting with a briefcase full of cash late one night in a deserted neighborhood when a shadow jumps out, waves a handgun and barks, “Money or life!” Would anyone in their right mind in such a situation begin bargaining to keep a portion of the money so that he won’t remain completely penniless? Or would one give up his entire fortune and be thankful to come out of such an ordeal with their life intact?

Osama Bin Laden has clearly expressed his hatred towards all Americans and infidels and his desire to wipe us out unless we accept the Koran. Although he’s now dead, Al Qaeda is not, and his followers and admirers still believe in and practice jihad. Paul’s argument that we can’t afford this fight is pretty pathetic, for when it comes to one’s survival no price is too high. Come to think of it, the U.S. is actually more like a parent whose child is being held for ransom but has no money. Every parent would borrow and beg until he had enough money to save his child. So too, the U.S. is deeply in debt and is borrowing from China and others. However, when it comes to the safety of its citizens, money is not what should be the deciding factor. Additionally, our debt is in existence way before we have retaliated against the Islamic terrorists, and is mainly because of several domestic programs that the Democrats have implemented and are spiraling out of control. So if it’s the economy and the debt one truly worries about, the proper place to start is at the core of the problem.

Ron Paul believes that our support of Israel is detrimental to Isael and America, because it infuriates and the terrorists and gives them to attack. We see how much Obama’s apology to the Muslim world has accomplished on that end! Ignoring terrorists or attempting to appease them hasn’t worked and won’t work. We must confront evil head-on. Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to treat good and evil equally. Sound like a giving the same medication to a healthy individual, a kid with an ear infection, and a patient battling cancer.

Conservatives are not against government, they are against BIG government. No government = lawlessness. Big government = oppression. Small government=individual freedom and safety for citizens. Ron Paul supports no government. Barack Obama supports big government. We need someone who will fight for small government.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Follow me on Twitter