Hey readers,

I received another response from my family member that I thought I would post for everyone’s benefit. Naturally I’ll continue to protect / respect this individual’s privacy. This time, we were talking foreign policy.

 

____Family Member’s Response_________________

While our foreign policy probably has had negative unintended consequences doing nothing would have also had negative unintended consequences. As doing nothing is also foreign policy.  I believe the real motivations of the Islamic jihadists is based in their religion and world view. Read http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4292, and http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=3821 .

Our policies are sometimes go too far, total isolation and doing nothing will probably encourage our enemies. Bin Laden stated that our lack of response indicated that we were weak and could be attacked. Also, Islamic terrorism in not limited to the US. There are attacks all over the world in countries with no people in the middle east. There have been attacks in Thailand, the Philippines, Bali, Sudan, Ethiopia, India, Russia, China, Pakistan, Nigeria to name a few.

I am curious, what has Ron Paul said his response to 9-11 would have been?

 

___My Response Below_______________

to […]

GREAT questions.

I don’t believe they attack us because we are free. After all, they don’t attack Sweden or Switzerland. The question is what would we do? This video does a good job contextualizing. http://youtu.be/XKfuS6gfxPY

If Ron Paul was president, there wound not have been a 9/11. Watch him predict that our foreign policy in the 90’s would lead to attacks on our homeland. He would not have conducted the attacks that aggravated them in the first place. http://youtu.be/_6hxE3mPgtM

If we listen to Bin Laden’s reaction to 9/11, we should also listen to his reasons for the attack. He told us outright why he did it, and he didn’t say “because they are free.” He said, because we’d been bombing the middle east, and we had bases on their holy land.
http://youtu.be/DJLMtRt88ZUhttp://youtu.be/-qQYDn5wqeg

NOW let’s say Ron Paul was not the president back then (which obviously he was not) and that 9/11 did happen (which obviously it did). President Paul would have voted for the authority to go after those who harmed us, which he did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Terrorism
He also introduced the introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 which would allow us to go after the terrorists, not just after the countries that harbor them.

The problem is that the USA didn’t go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Rather we went after Saddam who had no link to Bin Laden according to the 9/11 commission report.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5228545/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/commission-no-link-between-bin-laden-saddam/#.TvFPxdRSQsI

In fact, Ron Paul would have killed Bin Laden in 2001 when he was cornered in Tora Bora
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/bin-laden-dead-why-didnt-we-get-him.html

To recap:

  1. 9/11 would not have happened under President Paul (or constitution lover like him)
  2. In the event of a 9/11 like attack happening, he would go after those who actually did the dirty deed, not some random dictator.
  3. Under President Paul, Bin Laden would have been killed 10 years earlier than under Bush/Obama

Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate with military experience, and has raised more money than all other GOP candidates combined (and also more money than Obama) from military and their families. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/07/ron-paul-military-campaign-donations-/1 He is much more trustworthy on foreign policy than someone like Gingrich who dodged his draft orders. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/boyernewt2.html

Thanks again for another quality debate! See you soon,

-DM

P.S. Just for fun, here is Ron Paul predicting the economic collapse – http://youtu.be/9S3lXDOQ7ec

Advertisements

Really Long Email to my Aunt

September 15, 2011

Hi all!  Yep, I agree, being politically involved in today’s world is vital.  Too many people focus on football and American idol… meanwhile the country is falling apart!

Unfortunately, not all of the GOP candidates are pro 2nd amendment, and few are as aggressively supportive as Ron Paul.  I’m glad to hear you like a lot of what he says, and that it’s his stance on moral issues that are troublesome.  In a ‘free’ country, moral issues should not be dictated by the government, but decided on an individual basis so those issues shouldn’t stand in the way of voting for him in the upcoming primary.  Generally speaking, these moral issues are decisive games that politicians play to win votes, but really have little impact on the country… at least compared to war / an economic collapse / a monetary collapse. 

Marriage:

To me, this is an easy one.   I think it’s important for us to understand our roles as Christians, and as citizens and where the two delineate.  The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Federally defining marriage is clearly making a law that respects an establishment of religion.  As Christians, you and I can decide that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we can even promote that idea through the Church, and in our interpersonal interactions.  However, as citizens, we don’t have constitutional authority to define marriage… at least not in a ‘free’ country.  There are lots of things that we oppose as Christians that are legal.  Let’s take the 10 commandments for example:

 

 

  • I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no other gods before me. – legal
  • You shall not make for yourself an idol. – legal
  • Do not take the name of the Lord in vain. – legal
  • Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. – legal
  • Honor your father and your mother. – legal
  • You shall not kill/murder. – it is illegal to kill
  • You shall not commit adultery. – legal
  • You shall not steal. – it is illegal to steal
  • You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. – legal unless you are under oath
  • You shall not covett your neighbor’s wife. – legal.
So 80% of the 10 commandments (while they are obviously wrong to break) are perfectly legal.  For the U.S. Gov to insist on defining marriage to preserve the moral fabric of the country, shouldn’t that mean that they need to make all of the 10 commandments illegal too?  Shouldn’t they make divorce illegal?  Obviously I’m being sarcastic.   

It’s also interesting to study the origins of modern marriage.  We’ve only had federally recognized marriage for about 100 years, and the reason the government got in to the marriage business was (they said) for health reasons.  The reality, is they didn’t know the ramifications of interracial marriage and because they were afraid of it, they decided to make it illegal   Now, interracial marriage is commonplace, but we are left with the government deeming who is allowed to fall in love (and be recognized) and who is not.  In other words, when George Washington was married, it was not federally recognized… and why should it have to be?  The REAL way to protect the definition of marriage is to let the CHURCHES define it… not the government.  If anything, I think we as Christians should be offended that the government gets to decide who is married and who is not.

As for Ron Paul’s other more ‘out there’ issues, I say this:  Freedom means having the ability to make good and bad decisions.  After all, if we are free only to make good decisions… are we really free?  Does the prohibition of marijuana help anyone?  The prohibition of alcohol gave rise to Al Capone and the gangsters of that era.  Prohibition actually gives power to criminals who will sell it on the black market.  I live in CA where it is easier for under age people to get MJ than it is for them to get alcohol. Keep in mind, I am saying this as someone who has never smoked marijuana, and I never would no matter if it is legal or not.  There are plenty of things that are already legal that I also won’t be doing because I’m capable of making those decisions for myself.

In conclusion (and again, call me crazy) I think God wants us to choose Him, and choose to trust Him and live our life according to His will.  I don’t think there is anything to be gained by forcing others who have not made that Godly commitment to live in His ways.  If anything, I think this pushes people farther from God and alienates them from the Church.  Regardless, if we tell people we are a free society, we should act that way.

Sources

 

 

 

Capital Punishment

I’ve read lots of Christian debate on Capital Punishment and it confuses me honestly.  I personally will stick to “thou shalt not kill.”  While we are on the topic, though, here is a great bit of scripture: 1 Samuel 8:10.  The more I look at our government, the more it resembles an old kingdom… and that really bugs me.

 

Sources

 

 

 

Electability

This is where the media bias just crushes Paul unfairly.  He actually has the best chance against Obama, but the media is viciously anti Ron Paul… and to me that is more confirmation that he is the right guy.  Here are some stats to back up what I am saying:

 

Long story short, don’t believe MSM.  Ron has a great chance to win… they just don’t want him to.  After all, the only thing it takes for him to win… is for him to get more votes than the next guy!  Nobody thought Obama would get elected… and look at the mess we are in now.
Really Awesome Videos

 

 

 


Conclusion

Thanks so much for listening to my craziness.  I agree with you completely – we need to find the best candidate.  The Country can not withstand very many more lying politicians.   I see the big three issues as 1) the economy, 2) health care, and 3) foreign policy.  Fortunately Ron Paul is the only 1) economist, 2) doctor, and 3) Military (air force) person in the race!  

Much love (and thanks for the robust debate),