I’m going to comment on three things Ron Paul has written. As everyone knows, RP is far and away my favorite candidate. He’s the cinnamon on my bread, the Tabasco on my hot tamale.
Here’s the full text of what I’ll be quoting from:
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling.
Is RP seriously suggesting that espionage or military intelligence is not a necessary component of national defense? Does he imagine that we don’t need to obtain information on the hostile intentions or offensive capabilities of other countries that might mean to do us harm? Does he imagine that they will helpfully volunteer that information to give us the lead-time to take effective countermeasures?
It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.
So he supported unilateral disarmament? What would be the effect on our national security if hostile regimes had us outgunned? If they could wipe us off the map without fear of retaliation? What would happen if we brought knife to a gunfight?
The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance worldwide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy.
“Worldwide by force”? Have we used force on 200 countries around the world?
“By whatever means”? Given the means at our disposal, we’ve been pretty restrained.
Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations.
Does he think we should wait to be hit, then hit back with whatever survived the first strike?
My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.
This requires simply tolerance of others' cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources.
i) Other countries aren’t culturally monolithic. Countries often contain a variety of sometimes competing subcultures. What about countries where a Muslim majority persecutes a Christian minority. Which national subculture should we tolerate–the Christian or the Muslim?
ii) Likewise, what is RP’s fallback when other countries don’t share his mutuality?
Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace.
Now he sounds like he’s running, not for President of the United States, but President of the Parliament of World Religions.
Is he a religious pluralist? Does he really think the Golden rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace are basic principles shared in common by Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc?
Do Hindu polytheists honor the First Commandment of the Decalogue? Do Muslims practice the Golden Rule? Has he ever heard of dhimmitude? Do Muslims practice the cause of peace? Has he ever heard of jihad?
Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.
Does he think jihad is just a “distortion” of Islam? Isn’t Islam historically and inherently a militaristic religion? Wasn’t Muhammad himself a warlord?
Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
How is that a recipe of noninterventionism? If our foreign policy ought to mirror their foreign policy, and they are aggressor nations, then by parity of argument, we should be an aggressor nation.
Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.
Does RP think a credible threat is not a necessary component of national security? Doesn’t that have deterrent value?
Is the controversy over building a mosque near ground zero a grand distraction or a grand opportunity? Or is it, once again, grandiose demagoguery?
No doubt some politicians are grandstanding. Indeed, RP’s own article is a case in point.
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
For a “Constitutionalist,” RP has a strangely skewed view of the 1st Amendment.
i) To begin with, the 1st Amendment also protects the right of protestors to protest. Why is RP attacking the Constitutional right of American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest the mosque?
ii) Was the establishment clause designed to protect Islam? I thought it was designed to prevent the Federal gov’t from creating a national church.
The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?
In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.
They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars…This is all about hate and Islamaphobia.
But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam — the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Why is RP reciting the CAIR playbook? Why is RP attacking Americans and defending Muslims? Whose side is he only? Where do his loyalties lie?
There is no doubt that a small portion of radical, angry Islamists do want to kill us but the question remains, what exactly motivates this hatred?
What about Islamic theology? Ever consider that?
The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
Seriously? Mosques are used as front organizations to launder donations to terrorist networks abroad. Mosques are used to indoctrinate Muslim-American youth in jihadist ideology. Mosques are a natural recruiting center for terrorists. They hide behind religious protections. That’s equivalent to a soccer field? Seriously?
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish.
Suppose Planned Parenthood opened a clinic across the street from a high school. Suppose concerned parents picketed the clinic. Would RP attack the parents for protesting the location of the clinic?
What about the right to boycott a business?
What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City?
If Catholic churches were equivalent to mosques–yes. RP operates with the simpleminded principle that you should treat everyone the same way. He can only keep one idea in his head.
But the correct principle is to treat like things alike while you treat unlike things unalike.
The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators.
Conversely, a Muslim minority can (and will) game the system to oppress the majority. They collude with local authorities. If you oppose them you’re guilty of “hate speech.”
The outcry over the building of the mosque, near ground zero, implies that Islam alone was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to those who are condemning the building of the mosque, the nineteen suicide terrorists on 9/11 spoke for all Muslims. This is like blaming all Christians for the wars of aggression and occupation because some Christians supported the neo-conservative's aggressive wars.
On the one hand, RP opposes foreign wars. On the other hand, he supports the right of Muslims to infiltrate America. So it’s no longer a question of letting them do their thing over there while we do our thing over here.
No, he’s also defending their right to come over here and bring their social blueprint with them. After a while, there’s no escape. He rejects the American occupation of Muslim countries while he accepts the Muslim occupation of America.
Modern Muslims employ an incremental strategy. They begin to transplant Sharia law into the soil of the host country. Demand increasing concessions. Impose their twisted values on the rest of us. Eurabia. We’ve seen this process at work in the UK and the EU.
No one has a right to offend them. They are free to attack Christian expression with impunity, but Christians are denied the right to criticize Islamic faith and practice.
RP is so blinded by his myopic focus on “blowback” and “neocons” that he can’t see the enemy hiding in plain sight.