Every so often, however, Paul opens his mouth and lets out a stream of paranoid conspiracy and no-nothing isolationism that is actually startling in its vehemence. Such is his latest emanation, which issued from his website today. Reading it, you see the mask of civil, well-reasoned discourse slip with the opening phrase: "(o)ur American way of life is under attack". Paul goes on to conflate disparate, apparently unrelated issues into a simulacrum of reasoned argument -- a familiar, conspiracy theory trope. The world, according to Paul, is being controlled by a secret cabal of "elites" who want to create a one world government. They will do this by taking your guns, taking your property under eminent domain, and letting foreigners into the country.
Reading this, I long for the days when Ross Perot was the Loony Tunes candidate. At least he wore his insanity on his sleeve.
from Ron Paul 2008: Message from Ron Paul:
Our American way of life is under attack. And it is up to us to save it.
The world's elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they succeed, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ol’ USA will only be a memory. We cannot let that happen.
The UN wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.
Our right to own and use property is fading because bureaucrats and special interests are abusing eminent domain.
Our right to educate our children as we choose is under assault. "No Child Left Behind" is seeing to that. And our right to say "no" to forced mental screening of our school-aged children is nearly gone.
The elites gave us a national ID card. They also gave us the most misnamed legislation in history: The Patriot Act. And these same people are pushing to give amnesty to illegal immigrants and erase our national borders.
Record government debt is putting a burden on our children and grandchildren that is shameful.
Yes. Our American way of life is under attack. And it's understandable that many are concerned, even discouraged, about the kind of country our children and grandchildren will inherit.
But we must never let discouragement become surrender.
8 comments:
It's only fearmongering if the fears are irrational.
Think Ron's fears are irrational? Check out the price of gold, oil, and the US Dollar index today. At historic highs (and in the case of the dollar index, lows).
A Canadian dollar is now worth more than an American one. That's never happened before.
Ron Paul is the only way out. Otherwise it's a bankrupt techno-police state.
Want to know why I think Paul is irrational? What's the connection between gun control, testing students for mental illness and an alleged conspiracy to create a single North American state. That's why.
With respect to the rest of your comments: whenever anyone says that there's only one way out, I'm suspicious. When they say that only one individual must be elected president or else we'll have a "bankrupt techno-police state", then I know I'm in the presence of a devotee, a true-believer. There's absolutely no point in debating with someone whose beliefs are set in stone.
For everyone else: I am extremely concerned about the decline of the dollar, which happens to be in today's news in the U.S. (in case you're elsewhere in the world or reading at some future date). The rate at which this nation is borrowing and, for that matter, consuming troubles me greatly. The reckless economic policies of the past 6 years are clearly unsustainable and have already done great harm. We need a sound approach to correcting these problems and setting us back on the right course. In case it isn't clear to you already, Ron Paul's radical isolationism and libertarianism would take a bad situation and make it disastrous.
Go back and read about Herbert Hoover and the Republican party's protectionist response to the Crash of 1929. It was based not on economic realities, but on radical ideology and a desire to punish those who "caused" the crash. It was allegedly pro-business, pro-American and a restoration of earlier, simpler economic models. The result of those policies was the greatest depression this nation ever experienced. That is precisely what the far right economic models Paul advocates would result in if they were ever put in place: a total meltdown of our economic system.
So, you think Dr. Paul is irrational because... you can't write a coherent paragraph?
Want to know why I think Paul is irrational? What's the connection between gun control, testing students for mental illness and an alleged conspiracy to create a single North American state. That's why.
No, but that's pretty funny.
The gist of what I was saying should be clear, but because I have offended Anonymous' delicate sensitivities with respect to grammar, let me restate why I think Ron Paul is irrational.
Ron Paul believes in an international conspiracy to enact gun control laws, test students for mental illness, take property by eminent domain, and create a North American Union. Them's some pretty wacky views.
Feel free to correct the factual basis of this statement if you wish, "Anonymous". If you can't do that, feel free to correct my grammar.
The American Ruse &
when Black Friday comes.
Honesty or lies?
Compassion or greed?
Intelligence or narrow-minded?
Guts, or go along to get along?
Ralph Nader
Cynthia McKinney
Ron Paul
Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Jesse Ventura
H. Ross Perot
President Carter
JFK RFK MLK Malcolm
ryanshaunkelly:
The fact that you put Cynthia McKinney, Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Jesse Ventura, and H. Ross Perot on the same list as JFK, RFK and King speaks for itself...but I'll bite anyway: what's yer point?
Read the last line of the congressman's quote:
Testimony from Cong. Paul (Texas) during the debate on the House floor is as follows:
"This does not deny any funds for any testing of those individuals who may show signs of mental illness. It only denies funding for any universal, read by many as mandatory, which is a bit of overkill as far as I am concerned. There is $26 million in this bill for these programs. Eight States have already been involved, and three more have applied for grants.
"The main reason why I oppose this is I think there is a lot of overtreatment of young people with psychotropic drugs. This has been going on for a lot of years, and there are a lot of bad results, and once we talk about universal testing of everybody, and there is no age limit, matter of fact, in the recommendation by the New Freedom Commission, there is a tendency for overdiagnosis and overuse of medication. There are as many complications from overuse of medication as there is with prophylactic treatment.
'There is no evidence now on the books to show that the use of this medication actually in children reduces suicide. Matter of fact, there are studies that do suggest exactly the opposite. Children on psychotropic drugs may well be even more likely to commit suicide. It does not mean that no child ever qualifies for this, but to assume there is this epidemic out here that we have to test everybody is rather frightening to me.
"Matter of fact, when the State gets control of children, they tend to overuse medications like this. Take, for instance, in Texas, 60 percent of the foster children are on medication. In Massachusetts, it is close to 65 percent. In Florida, 55 percent of the children in foster home care are receiving these kinds of medication.
"Once again, I want to make the point that this does not deny funding for individual children who show signs that they may need or they have a problem and need to be tested. It is just to make sure that this is not universal and not be mandatory and that parental rights are guarded against and that the parent is very much involved"
As for the conspiracy theory argument: NAFTA, Bretton Woods II.
Additionally, Herbert Hoover and the Republican Right's "response" was NOT to punish anybody, it was merely not to reward failure. A clear distinction should be understood because your basic comprehension is lacking hardcore. Name this quote: "It is not the function of the government to relieve individuals of their responsibilities to their neighbours, or to relieve private institutions of their responsibilities to the public." The stock market binge is the 1920's is the equivalent of living high on the hog without creating real value. The reality is that there was no real wealth, only speculation. And speculation is the acceptance of risk. Part of the acceptance of risk is the acceptance of possible failure. Imagine a country where people stretch themselves to purchase houses they can't afford with the simple notion that housing prices will 'only go up'. If the prices fall should they be absolved of the harsh realities of failure?
Post a Comment