Sunday, February 13, 2011


Why do we keep giving ourselves dilemmas? Life doesn't have to be this complicated. If the citizens of America cannot even agree on the simplest thing, the definition of marriage, and stick with it, then how in the name of heaven can we agree on anything? But that is not the reason I started pounding my keyboard this time.

It's the Ron Paul thing. Sometimes I wonder if Ron Paul lives in an alternate universe. I've watched him in debates. I've read his views. I even like his son, Rand Paul, in some ways. I follow Ron Paul's prescriptions along just so far, thinking he is sane, and then, BAM, comes the hammer....his unfathomable disregard for U.S. military strength. If you view the left - right biases in a circle, Ron Paul is where the right meets the left, conjoining at the nexus of Neverland meeting Nod.

From Rick Moran at American Thinker:

"The more dangerous the world becomes, the more Ron Paul wants the US to disengage, cut its military beyond what any other presidential candidate (except perhaps Dennis Kucinich) would support, while blaming America - and Israel - for most of the evils in the world. It didn't fly in 2008 and it will be even less popular in 2012 if Ron Paul were to embarrass himself and run for president again."

While Ron Paul is out there talking about how we are the problem and how we need to reduce funding for and shrink our military, President Obama is setting up the next World War by creating a coalition of enemy states in the middle east on the ridiculous ruse of "democracy." Between Obama and Ron Paul, the citizens of the U.S. might as well just play twiddly winks in their living rooms while the world crashes in. Just exactly who does Ron Paul think is going to protect the United States when the Caliphate organizes itself against Israel and the U.S.? The Boy Scouts? Ron Paul is becoming old....or is old. He is certainly old enough to have some inkling of what WWII was and how we got here. But he continues on his anti-military ranting without recognizing our vulnerability against rising China, Russia, and now the Islamic Caliphate. He might have a slight inkling on the financial side of things. But he completely blows it every time when discussing what he would do with our military.

CPAC got it wrong again. Voting Ron Paul the winner of the straw poll at CPAC says more about who has decided to infiltrate the Republican Party than who would be a strong President. Ron Paul is a Libertarian wearing a Republican tag. Libertarianism is not Conservatism. But libertarians have no where to go. They don't have a big enough base to be viable in national elections, so they weasel their ways into the Republican Party...just in the same way that big government RINO's have weaseled their way into the Republican Party.

And there lies the dilemma. The Republican Party can't seem to define itself. The Democrat party has defined itself as the Socialist Party. The Dems have weeded out most of the Blue Dog conservatives and has become nearly, purely, Socialist. So we know who they are. They know who they are.

But what does the Republican Party represent? From Lindsay Graham to Ron Paul and anyone in between? How nebulous is the opposition to Obama and the Democrat / Socialist Party? One of the handicaps that will keep Republicans from winning the White House is the non-definition of values and policies. At this moment, it seems the Republicans are all over the map and falling apart. It is as if know one really knows what Republicans stand for, so the only reason to vote for them is knowing and despising what Democrats represent. Well, that is not going to get it.

We do finally have some seriously good conservatives in Congress, thanks to a lot of hard work to get them elected last fall. But as far as Presidential candidates are concerned we have no one....not one good, solid, electable, conservative. The straw poll vote at CPAC shows just how weak the Republican alternatives are at the moment. I am still hoping someone will show up to save the day...but Ron Paul? You have to be kidding. Time for a reality check, and a lot of prayer.


  1. I will dance carefully here.

    Ron Paul is a Libertarian forced to run under the Republican banner. That's a fact.

    Time and time again, people don't understand or seem to forget that Pauls' views are libertarian...and fighting other countries wars, if you will check the platform page is not on the Libertarian agenda.

    Having said that, if you think either one of the existing mongrel dog parties offers any chance to get our country back, history will prove you wrong. I am going to stick my neck wayyy out and say that our interventions in the Middle East, sans Israel, have been a waste of life, money, and time. Those people do not like us. They will never like us.

    Gosh, imagine a politician telling the truth/or his observations and getting beat up for it. No wonder politicians lie. We make it so.

  2. P.S. I snipped this from the platform.

    3.1 National Defense

    We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
    The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
    policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

  3. Hi Brian,
    I can tell you are trying to be very diplomatic here. Thanks.

    I would say that no one is "forcing" Ron Paul to run under any "banner." If he wanted to run as a Libertarian, he could. I have not forgotten that he is a Libertarian. He runs as a Republican out of opportunity to be elected with that tag...but isn't that just as ingenuous as the RINO's? My point in my article is that I believe unless the Republican clearly defines its policies as an alternative to the Socialists, we have no solid platform on which to run or to attract a better candidate slate.

    I think what I said in this article about the Republican Party is just what you said different words. I did not use the word "mongrel," however I did say it is nebulous and not clearly defined. I don't think you can say the Democrat Party is any longer a "mongrel." It is the Socialist Party for all intents and purposes.

    On the Middle East: I agree with what you say generally, that "those people do not and never will like us." And that being the case, our interventions at best were probably an attempt at some sort of stop gap to keep the lid on. That does not mean I agree with any or all of the interventionist policies..just that, post WWII, we have attempted some sort of relations to protect our interests and protect Israel. No doubt some of it was ill conceived or badly implemented. At this point, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback and say none of it has done any good. We probably slowed down the inevitable, i.e. since the outcome appears to be the rising Caliphate anyway, we may have slowed it down, but in the end could not stop it.

    On the Libertarian stance on National Defense that you cite here: I don't ever hear Ron Paul suggest that we maintain a strong and ready, superior military. As for entangling alliances, well...that's a nice idea if you wish to have no allies and you can just play turtle with your head pulled in. The only thing I agree with there is the reference to the draft, but even then...should we face another world war and find ourselves in dire jeopardy, would you stick to that or conscript every available citizen for help to save the nation? It's a question. It isn't so easy as it seems.

    Thanks for your is a good discussion to have!

  4. Ok. I laid my defense out. At the site;

    Thanks, Brian

  5. laid out your defense here. I'm not sure what exactly it is that makes Ron Paul supporters so intense, but you are intensely loyal to him, that is obvious. As I said in my article, Brian, I don't disagree with everything Ron Paul says or stands for...but I do disagree with him on the very critical issue of our military. The issue of our military policies is not inconsequential...but vital, so it isn't as if this is a small side issue. Since the President of the U.S. is the Commander in Chief of our military, the job requires a serious understanding of how complicated the world has become. I think Ron Paul has a simplistic idea of a small defensive force that, I believe, is too simplistic and too small to protect our nation and our interests, not to mention protecting our allies. I do not disagree with you that the U.S. has made some mistakes in foreign relations with regard to the middle east..but we have, at great expense, held off the Muslim Caliphate for 60 or 70 yrs. post WWII. It appears we are not ultimately successful in that effort, but we tried. It was exactly our efforts to maintain peace and or stability that you are now griping about? What would you have done differently? Sometimes you work with the hand you are given...

    I don't believe I ridiculed Ron Paul in my article. I merely stated my differences of opinion with him and why I think as I do. I also lamented the idea that the Republican Party seems so fractured with groups and candidates on both of ends of the spectrum and...if the Republican Party cannot define itself clearly we are not likely to get candidates who can promote a clear definable platform. I grant you that Ron Paul is clear...he states unequivocally what Libertarian policies he promotes. The Party, however, is not 100% behind him, any more than the Party is behind the what we have is a mishmash of candidates with diametrically opposed ideas....
    this in the face of fierce opposition from a Democrat Party that is 99% Socialist.
    I have no knowledge of the YAF at all, so I cannot address that of which you speak here.

    There are two subjects I have discussed in the history of my blog that seem to bring out the most incensed reactions. One is the fair tax and the other is Ron Paul. For some reason these two subjects are highly combustible and inflammatory for those who promote them. Makes me wonder...

    Thanks for the discussion, Brian.

  6. Hey! Can anybody get into this fray? LOL

    "If the citizens of America cannot even agree on the simplest thing, the definition of marriage, and stick with it, then how in the name of heaven can we agree on anything?"

    That has to become a classic line. I love it!

    I wrote a piece for a Libertarian blog several months ago in which I said that their idealized world was just as much a fantasy as the idealized world of the communist. Both concepts go against human nature. However, if I had but two choices, communism or libertarianism, you can bet that I would go with the libertarians.

    Maintaining a military for defense only may sound nice. But sometimes the best defense is a preemptive strike. If we had listened to our intelligence in 1945 and had we made a preemptive strike against Japan, then Pearl Harbor would not have happened and the war with Japan would have cost far fewer American lives.

    So, yes, I have my differences with the Libertarians but I still welcome them to the Republican/Conservative Party for at least two reasons: first they are die hard fiscal conservatives, which means a lot to me and, secondly, they are some of the smartest people I have ever come across and that includes Brian. Maybe the reason that their idealized world is a fantasy is because the rest of us have yet to evolve to their level.

    Cheryl, you sure sparked a good discussion with this topic. Thank you.


  7. Yes, are more than welcome to get into this fray.
    My opinion ..... libertarians are on the opposite side of the political ideological spectrum from communism / totalitarianism. Neither extreme provides a workable solution. If we are discussing the Overton Window (a theory of left and right extremes), I believe the Founders devised the best formula. The Libertarians want to interpret that formula as practically no government OR they pick whatever issues they wish to allow / control, such as the fair tax or legalizing this or that specific behaviors. The Communists / Socialists want to interpret that formula as carte blanche to top down control everything through the "common good" or the commerce clause.

    You are right when you say, "Both concepts go against human nature." You would give neither of them the keys to the car, the treasury, the courts, etc. I wish the argument would end there. But wishes aren't horses so this beggar won't be riding yet. I am really tired of Libertarians going berserk every time someone criticizes Ron Paul or the Fair Tax.

    Meanwhile back at the home front...I hope the situation in Venezuela is getting resolved for the best for you. It must be awful to be in such limbo. I fear the same mindset of redistribution is coming our way if we cannot stop the "Chavistas" in our midst here. Take care!!!

  8. Read Madison, Jefferson. Ask yourself what party of today they would line up with...I will stand pat there.


  9. I admire Madison and Jefferson and have waded through the Federalist papers to my best ability. I hear there is a new version coming out in contemporary English which will help us all understand it with more clarity, without the awkward old English syntax...I will be grateful for that.

    On your point, I don't believe Madison and Jefferson recommended writing laws legalizing prostitution, drug use, and gay marriage, nor did they pursue consumption taxes. I also believe they understood we needed a strong military to protect our borders and the interests of our country..that is my opinion. At the time, we had "entanglements" with the French and the Dutch who came to the aid of the revolution.

    What party would they line up with today? I don't think they would pick any of them, but I could not presume to speak for either of them. I would not be that arrogant to project such a thing. I do, however, think they would be utterly disgusted with the lack of common sense, education, and moral decay we are living in today. But they were not naive. Jefferson spent enough time in France to see what moral corruption was going on there.

    I look forward to that book coming out soon...I think Beck's publisher is bring it along. I'm sure we'll all be the wiser for it!

    Thanks, Brian...
    As I said before, it's a good discussion to have.