He rocked the New Hampshire GOP debate by puncturing and draining America’s festering moral boil: The Neocon doctrine of “preemptive war.”
In doing so, he singlehandedly opened up a subject that until now has received frighteningly little press attention: It is the power of preemptive war that we have all tacitly granted our government by failing to scream and holler and fight when it really counted.
Ron did object, even before he knew we were lied to. He objected on principle. It turns out he was right.
And that brings us to the subject of the moral high ground.
You heard the GOP contenders repeatedly tell you how “good” we are as a nation. Does “goodness” justify attacking a country under false pretenses? Are we so morally superior that we can justifiably attack a country that has not attacked us yet under the pretense that it “probably will” - so it’s okay? No. Goodness strongly counsels against such action.
In fact, from a Christian standpoint, there is no such thing as “moral superiority.” There is only morality. And what does morality become when it is used as justification for an immoral act?
It becomes immorality.
We allowed ourselves to be bamboozled into attacking Iraq based on falsified information. That’s bad enough, but it may still be excusable. After all, we were lied to and didn’t have the means to know about it at the time the lies were told.
But now we know.
If we now elect any man to the country’s highest office who continues to tell us that we are “good” while at the same time preparing us for a preemptive nuclear attack on Iran, a country which admittedly has ben nothing short of noxious but which has not yet attacked us, then what are we?
By default, Ron Paul has become America’s conscience.
It’s time to show ourselves that America can still listen, that she is still able to do the right thing - instead of just claiming that she is right.
Is it acceptable for our government to imprison a private citizen who has done no wrong yet, but who the authorities believe might commit a wrong in the future?
We all are capable of committing crimes. Is that reason enough to arrest us?
If we grant our leaders the power to “punish” other nations for as yet uncommitted crimes, we grant our government the same power over us.
Alex Wallenwein, J.D., is a former attorney in Houston, Texas, and a grass-roots activist for the rule of law and American liberty. He organizes the Houston 4 Ron Paul 2008 Meetup.
I know that Ron Paul's stance on Iraq was refreshing to hear from a republican candidate and the only sane voice at the debate you should look at the entire picture before calling attention to this man's candidacy. Although he is voicing what the majority of America wants to hear (i.e. he's being smart about his platform) you should read about his other ideologies and policies. He wants to privatize social security and get rid of the department of education and the IRS. While he would shift America into an isolationist policy he would continue to privatize and prop up big business. Granted I have not spent alot of time researching Ron but I read enough to realize that the only repub candidate worthy of any note is not worty to be presidant.
by
aaron (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 12:42:12 PM
Ron Paul says whatever needs saying. The fact that he says it even when it is decidedly not in his own political interest proves that he is not biulding a "smart political platform." Indeed, a majorityof the things he says in and outside of Congress are totally against his political interest. He never votes alongside the PACs and lobbyists and those of his colleagues who were "purchased" by them - and as a result is shunned by all of them, including big media.
"He wants to privatize social security" - Yeah. He'll allow people to keep their own money (after abolishing the IRS) and put it into a savings account that will leave them more for their retirement than social security ever did - and that system won't go broke and it won't need"fixing" by raising taxes on future generations.
He wants to get rid of the department of education and the IRS - Yippie !!
He would shift America into an isolationist policy - Wrong. He'll have us trade with everyone - just not under the Gloabilst's umbrella of managed trade versus true free trade. In fact, we are "isolated" now. Everyone hates us because we shove our policies down other countries' throats at the barrel of a tank.
He will continue to prop up big business - Wrong. He will terminate allcorporate tax subsidies, aka corporate welfare.
Because of all of the above, he IS worthy to be our president. In fact, in my opinion, nobody else is.
Alex
by
Alex Wallenwein (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 4:12:26 PM
With more research you might just embrace Ron Paul
In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education. Throughout the 1980s, the abolition of the Department of Education was a part of the Republican Party platform who saw the department as unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. People in many communities prefer to have control of their children remain a local affair instead of being dictated by Washington. I believe the decline of our schools can be somewhat linked with the interference from the Department of Education. And besides, the U.S. Constituition leaves the education of children as a state matter, not a Federal one.
It seems intellectually unfair that you dismiss the desire not to start wars (especially nuclear wars) by labeling it as isolationism. If we continue our 60 year policy of aiding and propping up dictators (ie. the Shaw of Iran, the Prince of Saudi Arabia, Hosni Mubarak of Eqypt and dozens of others) who often rule over police states we can expect people in those countries to get very angry with us. Continuance of our 60 year policy of sticking our nose in everyones business, telling them how they should run there countries will lead to many more no-win wars where 100s of thousands of people die and no good comes of it.
Personal income taxes only account for 30 percent of the federal governments revenues. So if we end the war in iraq, scale back our extravagent foreign policy, end the phony war on drugs, quit giving billions of dollars to corporations we could scale back federal government spending to 1990 levels and then we could end the personal income tax.
by
USPatriot36 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 5:06:38 PM
If you were on the floor dying of a heart attack, you wouldn't chase the doctor away because he had bad breath, would you?
The madmen destroying America need to be stopped. I can't believe you're worried about his support for "big business", while the madmen are set to bring about WW3, a police state, economic collapse, and God only knows what else.
And BTW, please explain precisely what "isolationist" means in the context of Ron Paul's ostensible foreign policy ideas, and explain why it's "bad".
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 7:22:11 PM
i'm a libertarian regent law student surrounded by what appears to be a sea of unwavering republican/bush devotees. both bob barr and jonathan turley have spoken at the law school and we could really use a dose of ron paul to round out the exposure to more elegant ideas. what do i need to do to get ron paul to regent? i just want to do my part, which includes more than voting.........
by
scott talbert (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 5:10:41 PM
Many of those that are against Ron Paul's policies simply don't understand them. This fact is perfectly understandable as rarely does anyone speak about liberty or freedom or limited government these days. Lew Rockwell has a website and Ron Paul is a consistent contributor. Look on the left for the columnists and read what Paul has written. He is clear, concise and right on! Also, it would help to learn some Austrian Economics. The Keynsian economics you learned in school has since be debunked. Ron Paul would be no friend to big business, except in the sense of giving them a free market unfettered by useless regulations. His policies would end corporate welfare, and the warfare state. He is so popular because he is the lone voice of reason on either side. He supports privacy and believes that individuals are better suited to run their lives than is the gov't. Go Ron Paul!
by
Janet Gifford (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 9:33:48 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
