Ron Paul: LUNATIC??

You can only "parrot" the party line and not think outside the box. I hear many people complaining about the stances of Ron Paul and I attribute this to a lack of understanding of the Constitution.

We have a local radio host here in the Queen City which has this problem.

A favorite saying of Herman Cain goes as follows "when you can't attack the message attack the messenger", however Mr. Cain uses this statement against democrats anytime they disagree with any stance of the republicans. I find it quite amusing that this simple statement seems to go only one direction. It isn't as simple as republican right and democrat wrong. The simple fact that our local host isn't willing to think outside the republican box because he himself is scared that somehow the information he is feeding his listeners is tainted.

The U.S. has been over seas for years and the evidence of 9/11 has been on the horizon however it has been ignored for years. Yes there is something called the "blowback" factor and we should learn from it.
The original "blowback" factor occured September 11, 1857. To discount this as a lunacy is not learning from history. I suggest the host learn the Constitution and what LIMITATIONS were placed on the federal government.

It IS NOT the JOB of the federal government to spread democracy around the world and until many on the republican side and democrat side learn the written words of the Constitution and abide by them we shall be subject to any group which dispises our infringing government.



http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_090707_Hr1_Seg2_Traders%20to%20America.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg4_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Ron%20Paul%20and%20Democratic%20canidates.mp3
http://www.ksgf.com/Portals/67/KSGF%20Audio/This%20week/KSGF_091107_Hr2_Seg3_Guest%20Host%20Glenn_Cool%20President.mp3

I add the following from a person I consider a friend and a patriot. Clearly this answer is related to a topic much similar to this blog entry.

Thank you Jeremy

"I unfortunately cannot agree with you on this one.

First, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. He doesn't want to shut off the U.S. from other countries. He mostly refers to himself as a non-interventionist.

Also, I think Muslims have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. Freedom of Religion is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and applies to everyone as long as their practice does not interfere or violate the rights of others.

As far as the extremists, Paul argues that it is because of our CURRENT foreign policy (and that of the past) that contributes to any hatred of America and the western world. I would happen to agree with him.

Of course, the western world has been trying to shape the Middle East for centuries now, but I think our modern attempt began around 1917 when the British started getting involved again (let me know if I'm wrong). Since then, we've been pushing and pulling on the region relentlessly. Of recent, didn't we have a hand in creating Hussein? And didn't we have a hand in creating Osama Bin Laden? And didn't we have a hand in starting a revolt in Iran?

When did we start thinking that war was alright in the first place? Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, nor did they have weapons of destruction, nor did Hussein support Al-qaeda (from what I've read, he actually hated them). So why are we there? It's not because of terrorism. Some may say to help spread Democracy....that's not our job. Paul would rather open the borders to communication and free trade, allow our markets to penetrate a country's defenses.

And who said anything about surrendering? I am sure there are plenty of times when it is better to surrender than to stay the current course, but I don't recall hearing surrender. He merely wants to leave a war that should not have been started, as I am sure many agree with and it's actually what he's been saying since before the war.

Plus, I feel that saying "Look at Europe now Muslim ways of life are slowly taking over" is a bit prejudice and a statement made by many that just don't know many practitioners of Islam and fear what they don't know. I know a practicing Muslim that was the circuit court judge in Corpus Christi. He was a GREAT man and I would have trusted my life with him, if the need ever arose. He had a very high respect for the Constitution and what it means to be free. The truth is, Muslims aren't a major problem, just as Christians, Jews, and Hindus aren't a major problem (I apologize if I missed yours). If we were protecting the CONSTITUTION like we should have been for these past 200 years....no group could "take over" the country by simply moving here for a better life.

I, personally, am much more fearful of the group of people, leading this country, that are taking our rights and liberties away at an extremely accelerated rate. People that think that it will protect ME if I get spied on by a satellite. People that think it will protect ME if I have to carry a national ID card. People that think it will protect ME if I cannot carry a weapon for self defense. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my phone conversations listened to. People that think it will protect ME if I can have all my financial and personal information sifted and sorted through and shared with the other governments of the world. People that think it will protect ME if I allow the Constitution to become null and void.

War should almost never be brought up. It is destruction and leaves many dead and many more broken. Over 3700 of our troops, fellow U.S. citizens, that took on the responsibility and an oath to protect our Constitution have given their lives in a conflict that should not have been started. Over 71,000 Iraqi citizens, non-combatants, have died during this conflict as well.

The war in Iraq makes no more sense than attempting to lock people up because they live in a state where there are people that might commit a crime".