A local Kentuckian take a big stick to Rand Paul - 'He's Just like his Father!' by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
According to a February 3rd. post by Conservative KY Gal, Rand Paul has admitted that he intends to further his father's work in government should he be successful in his bid for the Kentucky Senatorial seat. I see nothing wrong in wanting to help further the cause of returning the United States to a constitutionally limited government. KY Gal certainly does, and she has plenty of reasons to fight this cancer in our midst.
This post is wrong on so many levels. First and foremost, Ron Paul's approach is the constitutional approach. Secondly, this post fails to mention that in the aftermath of 9/11, Ron Paul, the only person in government to keep a cool head, turned to the advice of the founders in the constitution and introduced bills in the House authorizing letters of marque and reprisal against these criminals. Yes, I said criminals! Not 'enemy combatants', 'terrorists', 'causes of man-made disaster' or any of the other plethora of labels used to describe this gang of thugs and mass murderers in the last 9 years. Providing any label other than that of international crime syndicate is a play on words that only bolstered the 'never let a good crisis go to waste' crowd. Naturally, the big government war-mongers won out, the military-industrial complex hit the jackpot, and we are now mired in two endless foreign wars for endless domestic peace with a resultant bill of over a trillion dollars and counting. Talk about a waste of worthless fiat money!
According to his (then) senior aide, Eric Dondero, "I can remember his (Paul) early noises made to his policy advisor circle immediately after the 9/11 attacks, not to vote for the resolution to go into Afghanistan. He finally relented after much pressure from the district, and even his staff." Nobody argues the constitutionality of going to war in Afghanistan. The mandate from Congress was clear. Ron Paul's vote for that action was a result of hearing from his constituents, whom he faithfully represented (and still does), however reluctant he was to act. Had Congress issued letters of marque and reprisal as advocated by Paul, there would have been no convincing argument for war in Afghanistan and the vote would not have been necessary.
Constitutional foreign policy is not isolationism (whatever that is); it is the common sense practice of minding our own business in a world where entangling alliances and big brother international politics are bleeding us dry. To say that we now have American-style government in 2 middle-eastern countries is not something to be proud of. I'm certainly not proud of what we've done to our country in the last 220 years and dread to think what the founders would say if they saw what we've done to the republic they fought (and many died) for.
KY Gal proves yet again that statists (she prefers 'conservative' but it's the same thing, just another play on words) are out of touch and dangerously rigid in their political approach to fighting crime. They consistently fall into the trap of thinking that the solution to every problem is legislation from a bloated and overbearing government coupled with egregiously loose fiscal policy. Using images of the heart-rending destruction of 9/11 for an emotional plea in support of the maiming and deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in faraway places is an outrageous reminder of how far big government schills will go to further their cause. Her statement on the big government benefit to Kentuckians is a revelation: "To a Ron Paul fan this is fine, it's what Paul espouses, but in a state with two military bases, is this a "principle" the people of Kentucky would favor if they are made aware of Rand's statement? (sic)". The carrot here is that government brings jobs and money to Kentucky by having a standing army in a sovereign state. Shame she couldn't put it like that whilst she was schilling for her masters in Washington.
In the end, we read the old, tired, worn out dogma about how Israel is surrounded by enemies and big brother America needs to defend her or else... On the contrary, Israel is neither weak nor in need of protection, as most self-respecting Israelis will confirm. Her whole argument boils down to her assertion that 'they hate us'. Good luck with that.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 16
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
