I have an extreme distaste for trial lawyers. It was trial lawyers who robbed me of a very good career in electronics and the retirement benefits that went with it, for something that happened sixty years ago at the bequest of the government, and for which nobody who worked for that company, or administered it at the time I worked there, had any blame or responsibility. Trial lawyers are all about greed, and personal gain, often taking up to 60% of the jury awards for themselves. They have no conscious when it comes to taking jobs away from people and causing them to suffer as much as their clients.
John Edwards is one of these trial lawyers, who made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the victims of his lawsuits. He has made it clear that, if he would become President, he would continue to rob people of his jobs by attacking "Corporate America" with more taxes and regulations. He has made a personal precedent to put corporations out of business, and to help make the middle class as dependent on the Federal government as are many of the poor.
As a Libertarian, I think it is laudable that Ron Paul has exposed the public to Libertarian answers to social and economic issues, and has received an overwhelming positive reaction to such. However as far as foreign policy is concerned, Dr.Paul is either naive or totally ignorant. For one thing, he has said that it is "ridiculous that America would be attacked because we are too rich or too free." I agree with that statement, such a thought isn't only ridiculous, but is outright propaganda promulgated by the extreme left to make their "hate America first" point. What Paul is missing, when he addresses the war on terror this way, is that the fanatics who would attack America are not attacking us because we are too rich or too free, but because the majority of Americans and Europeans worship God on Saturdays and Sundays. These religious fanatics, such as Ayman Al Zawahiri and Osama Bin Ladin, have convinced their followers that in order for the Seventh Imam, the Islamic Messiah, to come to earth, that the earth must be cleansed of infidels, that is those who do not follow Sharia Law the way it is interpreted by the Wahadi school of thought. Ignoring this threat, or pulling out of the Middle East, as Dr. Paul suggests we do, will allow these extremists to gain power, possibly taking control of an entire nation in which they can expand their resources. Isolationism, Ron Paul's foreign policy, will not make them or their jihad go away.
A question I would like to ask Dr. Paul, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama, is based on the following scenario, which is a legitimate projection considering the situation in the Middle East:
If the United States leaves a weakened government in Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, and other foreign powers will find it in their interest to support and step up insurgency in that country. Eventually, Iran will invade Iraq with Iraq's oil resources as its goal, and Saudi Arabia will join in battle against Iran. The Straits of Hormuz will undoubtably be closed, and there will be no Middle Eastern oil exported anywhere. To the above mentioned candidates, I ask:
"With practical energy alternatives twenty or thirty years down the road, with restrictions on domestic oil exploration and drilling, how do you propose to get groceries on the shelves of the markets with the severe oil shortage caused by the inevitable world war in the Middle East, and how will you respond to the wrath of the rest of the world putting the blame on America for creating the situation."
I will bet that they would not even be able to answer the question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Re Ron Paul:
Have you heard (by way of the likes of Daily Kos) where Mr. Paul has a rather infamous history of promoting racist/white-supremacist viewpoints?
Or that two of his campaign staff members have anti-Semitic associations?
The Daily Kos does not have much credibility in my view, but I will agree that Dr Paul's isolationist policy attracts extremists from both the left and the right. And, he has made some remarks concerning the American Civil War that would be considered racist by many. I have mentioned in another post that I can't consider someone who is against universal freedom, as Ron Paul is, a Libertarian. He reminds me of Lindon LaRouche, who claimed to be a Libertarian, but was actually a National Socialist/Supremicist. The Libertarian Party got a court injunction against him so that he was legally banned from associating with the Libertarian Party. Likewise, Paul, after his candidacy for President as a Libertarian, was strongly criticized for not properly representing Libertarian values and philosophy. He recieved the lowest number of votes, nationally, than any other Libertarian presidential candidate.
Yeah, I have the same problem you do with Ron Paul. I guess I'm more of a neolibertarian, since my foreign policy is decidedly a bit more hawkish than most other libertarains'. Still, I'm voting for Paul in the Texas primary. I have a long tradition of protest-voting (and occasionally getting people to go along with me). I would like for his other ideas to get adopted, and that is more likely the more votes he gets. I don't think we are in any danger of his foreign policy being adopted by the GOP
By all means, the protest vote is important, and can be made more effective in numbers. It has worked in the past, we have seen some GOP policies which are definitely adaptations of Libertarian policy. I have long been a believer in the protest vote myself.
I have to make a correction in my previous comment--It was 1992 when Dr Paul was the Libertarian Presidential candidate, not 1980. I have a problem with the years all running together in my memory.
Sometimes I wish you people would just stop and listen. Don't Blog just about your views of what you "Think" someone means, or what you "Think" would happen. Listen to some facts. If you want to know why 9-11 happened, why don't you ask the purported criminals? Osama Bin Laden released a letter, which wasn't even published in a major American paper. In it he specifically sites as his reason for attacking us as, WE WERE OVER THERE. Our presence in the middle east is why they are attacking us. Why has Al Qaeda grown a reported 95x larger since we invaded Iraq? Because we are over there.
But we should stay there, and head into some more countries. That will solve the problem right?
"You people" is a sure trademark of a racist, a fascist, or both. Either way, it shows that some people will read and quote only what is pertenent to their own beliefs, and ignore the fact that the extreme beliefs Bin Ladin and al Zawahiri purport to have instruct them to destroy "we people" wherever we are. They have said so much in their videos and messages. If we were to leave the Middle East, they would follow us to Europe. The attacks that forced the cancellation of the Dakar Rally-attacks against the French, not Americans-may have been because the French are there, but they also show the scope of what the extremists wish to accomplish.
Post a Comment