Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why a Tea Party conservative now supports Ron Paul...including his foreign policy
American Thinker ^ | 12/16/2011 | Russ Paladino

Posted on 12/16/2011 7:48:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Ask any conservative about Ron Paul and you will usually hear the following statement: "I love him on fiscal policy but his foreign policy is naive and dangerous." You can also throw in the obligatory "He hates Israel." If someone had asked me about Paul from 9/12/01 through October of 2011, I'd have said the exact same things.

Something about my certitude always felt a bit uncomfortable, though, because I admired the "good parts" of Ron Paul (and later, his son Rand). Having participated in the Tea Party movement since its inception, and then witnessing the phony propaganda concocted to invalidate it, my BS meter began to pin whenever I heard (or spoke) harsh rhetoric denouncing Ron Paul. Since the contradiction bugged me, I decided to take the advice of my twenty-year-old son and read Ron Paul's book, Revolution. This required me to consider ideas which were once unthinkable. I undertook the mission with the promise to think outside my conservative box.

After reading the book, I came away with a completely different understanding of Ron Paul and his philosophy. I'm hoping my Tea Party compatriots, fellow conservatives, and all Americans will step outside their own comfort zones to do the same. It is vital that our nation seriously consider the important constitutional concepts and defense of liberty that Ron Paul espouses.

Today, the Middle East is falling to Islamic rule like a series of dominos. The supposed "friendly Arab nations" want our troops out of their land and threaten to side with our enemies. Our soldiers are hamstrung by politically correct rules of engagement that make them sitting ducks. Our economy is collapsing under the weight of our debt (a good portion of which goes to fund our worldwide military adventures),

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: foreignpolicy; galvestonsnoopy; rino; ronpaul; spotthelooney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last
To: Armaggedon
I assume your statement has to do with his opposition to foreign aid to Israel,
he also would eliminate the aid we give to country's who's stated goal is the destruction of Israel.
how is it pro Israel to give her a gun and then give her enemies 4 guns?
51 posted on 12/16/2011 9:50:23 AM PST by standing man (stand tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Now he is up to several good ideas from one or two.


52 posted on 12/16/2011 10:16:12 AM PST by CJ Wolf (OMG - Obama Must Go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: chrisser
That said, there is no otherwise. Nobody else is advocating the kind of cuts in government Paul is, and without cuts of that magnitude, we're going to be broke sooner rather than later.

In other words, we're either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we're going to be isolationists because we're flat broke and our economy has collapsed to the point we will be impotent on the world stage.

Precisely. It's nail meet head. We've got two choices -- regroup an reorganize, or collapse -- and Ron Paul is the only one telling the truth on that one.

What none of the strategic thinkers around here have figured out yet is that there would actually be a great advantage for Conservatives to a Ron Paul presidency with Ron Paul as a libertarian: When Ron Paul goes after government departments and entitlement benefits with a chainsaw -- and the Democrats are screaming in pain -- hardcore Conservatives would actually look like compassionate Moderates for a change -- and Liberals would look like the communists they are. A Ron Paul presidency would be an entire paradigm shift for American politics that would define the lines again and forever obliterate the Republicrat mindset.

53 posted on 12/16/2011 10:16:57 AM PST by Bokababe (Save Christian Kosovo! http://www.savekosovo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

Was listening to Rush this morning and heard sound bites from the debate. Ron Paul is crazier than I thought.


54 posted on 12/16/2011 10:43:47 AM PST by SkyDancer ("If You Want To Learn To Love Better, You Should Start With A Friend Who You Hate")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Ron Paul the guy who is a 9-11 truther....He is good on fiscal stuff but is so far left of Kucinich on foreign policy there is NO WAY I could vote for him (except if he is running against Barry)

...and if he goes third party we have Perot all over again and the re-election of Barry, which is completely unacceptable.

55 posted on 12/16/2011 10:53:05 AM PST by Prov1322 (Enjoy my wife's incredible artwork at www.watercolorARTwork.com! (This space no longer for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
Ron Paul drones are like shapeshifters...they can be anything and everything at the same time.

One day, they are teaparty activists, the next, OWS protesters.

56 posted on 12/16/2011 10:57:48 AM PST by lormand (A Government who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I can understand Paul, he is a Libertarian. That said, what I DON'T understand is, why can't you be an isolationist WITHOUT all the crazy yappings. There are Paleocons who do so. As nuts as Buchanon sometimes comes across, he's not nearly as loony as Paul.

I say this as someone who has ALREADY voted for Paul in the past, for President, last time when he ran as a Libertarian, so I am not a hater, its just a shame that he goes over the deep end.

57 posted on 12/16/2011 10:58:45 AM PST by Paradox (The rich SHOULD be paying more taxes, and they WOULD, if they could make more money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rashley
It astonishes me that the Tea Party supports Gingrich. The man is a megalomaniacal Progressive. How could anyone imagine Gingrich or Romney doing anything to roll back the damage Obama has done. If either of them is elected he will only tinker with Obamacare at the margins. The pace of the erosions of our liberties may slow, but it would march on nevertheless.

Obviously I agree with you re: the paramount importance of curbing statism. But I don't think it's accurate to assail Gingrich as a "Progressive" by any means, considering he's one of the only political leaders in recent memory who's lead a successful charge in scaling back the size and scope of big government.

You might want to read this if you haven't.
58 posted on 12/16/2011 11:44:01 AM PST by Utmost Certainty (Our Enemy, the State | Gingrich 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I read the entire article three times, just to be sure: The word "Iran" appears once.

I was at the first national Tea Party on April 15th 2009 in NYC. There were libertarian nitwits with Ron Paul and John Gault signs all over the place then, too. Libertarianism appeals to a small percentage who always refuse to think their simple solutions through to their logical conclusion. Because their numbers are small, they are constantly trying to glom on to whatever political movement will get them the most attention.

From its inception, the Tea Party was about smaller government, lower taxes, and family values. But it was also about restoring America's standing in the world. Ron Paul wants to do a 180 from that last cause, and he is purposely dishonest about his intentions. His supporters have no business polluting this conservative website with their stupidity.

59 posted on 12/16/2011 12:04:20 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov1322

Exactly. I only meant in the unlikely chance that he is the GOP nominee....


60 posted on 12/16/2011 12:23:35 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Exactly. I only meant in the unlikely chance that he is the GOP nominee....

My apologies as I was not as clear as I should have been. I understood that and my comment was not directed specifically at you but at the frustration of a potential 2012 scenario.

For the good of this country and future generations, we need to do whatever we can to send the BHO regime back to Chicago in January, 2013.

61 posted on 12/16/2011 12:33:10 PM PST by Prov1322 (Enjoy my wife's incredible artwork at www.watercolorARTwork.com! (This space no longer for rent))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
There are a lot of reasons to re-visit our foreign policy, particularly abandoning the idea of nation building. But a guy who so readily makes the US into the villain and Moslem states into the victims really is missing the big picture. 1683, the height of Moslem tyranny was not that long ago, and it was real, and it was terrible. Look into the Moslem slave trade that flourished back then, when white Europeans were captured under the excuse of Jihad. This IS a clash of civilizations. A clash of ideologies - one of Western liberalism, and another of anti-modern expansionism under the guise of religion.
62 posted on 12/16/2011 1:24:02 PM PST by Sam Gamgee (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. - Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

The President doesn’t have to be a dictator, and he doesn’t have to shrink the entire government to make a huge difference.

He can simply refuse to appoint cabinet members to various positions and those departments will be nullified. He can choose which laws to enforce and to what level - if immigration laws can be ignored, so can others. How effective would Labor or EPA or Education be with no one at the top? Unless Democrats had majorities in both houses, there’s little chance they could do anything fast enough to make a difference.

PLus, our government is structured to keep any branch from power grabs, it’s not structured to prevent a branch from voluntarily giving up its powers. If a President Paul fires the whole department of Education, what’s Congress going to do about it? Seize control? They can barely manage themselves on a good day. It would be tied up for years before the SC got to it just like Obamacare.

If we had a solid two years with entire departments eliminated, I think enough people would see that we never needed them in the first place.


63 posted on 12/16/2011 3:05:31 PM PST by chrisser (Starve the Monkeys!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

If there was one other candidate in the running who was clearly in favor of fighting only when we go all out to kill the bad guys and their enablers, rather than fighting decade long nation-building “wars” under the Care Bears Rules of Engagement, Paul’s support would be a lot less.
///////////////////
EXACT LEEEE

and I believe that if we cut the money strings to Israel we also cut the leash to the Israeli Bulldog that will then free it to eat up Islam until it says uncle or is dead. Either way is good for me.

Cut aid to Israel and Iran would be de-mullahed in 3 weeks by Israel.


64 posted on 12/17/2011 11:38:52 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right

we’re either going to be isolationists because Paul implements it - something we could change after 4 or 8 years, or we’re going to be isolationists because we’re flat broke

also can be said about the trade deficit. Since we lose around 40 billion a month, as isolationist we would lose zero a month. but billions would stay and circulate in the USA.


65 posted on 12/17/2011 11:44:37 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Utmost Certainty

Yep. When I see in one 48 hour period our Government pass a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR STOP GAP and then an INDEFINITE DETENTION BILL......I wonder if this keeps up, will the Iranian mullahs find anything worth taking over?


66 posted on 12/17/2011 11:47:08 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rashley

Yep. I’d need a much more hawkish vp.


67 posted on 12/17/2011 11:51:37 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

You know, we have had years and years of Conservatives and years and years of the war on terror and it has done nothing. We still has Islam as our enemy.
Time to wage real war or not at all. And Declar it FIRST. Thats what Paul says. I’m for that.


68 posted on 12/17/2011 11:54:44 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CJ Wolf

rIGHT!


69 posted on 12/17/2011 11:55:43 PM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

In practical terms, Islam has a billion people, so it is pretty much impossible to fight in real terms. But this does not mean it wins, either. It means we need a multi-pronged approach to rendering it less harmful.

To start with, we long ago realized that we had to cull the tiny fraction of Muslims who had the spunk to both join terrorist organizations, to train, be armed and travel to other countries to conduct acts of terrorism, as well as those living amongst us willing to do so.

Afghanistan and later Iraq proved to be perfect roach motels to lure these dangerous and rare ones out of their dozen or more home countries, to travel and concentrate to fight our soldiers, rather than staying anonymous and attack our civilians.

And once these terrorists are killed, there are no ready replacements of their caliber, so the sword of Islam is dulled.

I mentioned the serious risk of homegrown terrorism, which we have also addressed by taking our security seriously.

Next, we have recognized that many people are only Muslims because they are forced to be. And given the opportunity to leave that onerous religion, they take it. So if we can provide such opportunities in the more coercive nations, we seriously undermine the more radical states.

It’s a process. But unless barbarity annihilates civilization, civilization almost always wins.


70 posted on 12/18/2011 1:44:41 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

Have you all seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/user/HonestPresident2012#p/a/u/0/I8NhRPo0WAo

I have more in common with Ron Paul than anyone else running. If any of the other candidates win we will not get real change. They are all different sides of the same coin. If we can get half of what Ron Paul wants to do done we will be in a much better place as a country.


71 posted on 12/18/2011 8:20:02 AM PST by birddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Russia made Afghanistan a huge roach motel. It didn’t stop attacks on our African Embassys, or the Cole. Lebannon’s roach hotel didn’t stop the attacks against Israel. I don’t believe the roach motel theory works at all.

But you nuke a few islamic cities and tell the rest of islam they are on the short list and they will .....as you say.... given the opportunity to leave that onerous religion, they take it. Unless we can replace nuking them with quick covert government overthrows that guarantee FREEDOM OF RELIGION, many will have to die.

And although it true that many are in fear of speaking out against islam in mulah controlled countries, the same comportment of moslums is seen in places where moslums live in complete freedom. England and the USA and France. Did anyone see even one single moslum on the face of the earth cheer the death of Osama?

The vast majority like being feared by and protected by Freedom loving people. They need to learn to respect U.S. as well........and right now they only see us as infidels....every last one of them.


72 posted on 12/18/2011 11:18:59 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC

It is estimated that the Russians killed between 150-180,000 fighters, but the overwhelming majority were either Afghans or Pakistanis. There was no worldwide push for jihad to free Afghanistan.

In large part this was because the US sponsored the northern Afghans to do most of the heavy lifting. They were more nationalist than Taliban, and were both ethnically and religiously different. For the most part, the Taliban just stayed in Pakistan, hoping, with some justification, to flood in and take power once the Soviets were kicked out by the northern alliance.

At the same time, OBL was building his organization parallel to, and friendly with the Taliban, likely headquartered in Quetta. So when the Taliban took power, it was a natural outgrowth that al-Qaeda would move in.

So the bottom line is that to some extent, Afghanistan was to the Soviets what Vietnam was to us, but with roles reversed. And while the Soviets tried to use some US Indian Wars tactics, that was about the end of the parallels.


73 posted on 12/18/2011 12:32:00 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Any recent history of head injury/brain damage?


74 posted on 12/18/2011 3:48:17 PM PST by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madison10
Ron Paul is a racist, Nazi-ish,

Can you provide an example of Ron Paul advocating National Socialism?

75 posted on 12/23/2011 1:54:09 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: davisfh
The thing that really frightens me about this Ron Paul character is that he might run as an independent.

Can you provide a contemporary example in which Ron Paul suggests that he might run as an independent?  It aeems to me that It seems to me that the idea only comes from Paul's detractors.

76 posted on 12/23/2011 2:00:29 PM PST by Celtman (It's never right to do wrong to do right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Celtman

Well, we’ll know down the road, wont we?


77 posted on 12/23/2011 3:33:24 PM PST by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: birddog

If any of the other candidates win we will not get real change
//////////
exact LEEEE.


78 posted on 01/07/2012 12:41:03 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-78 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson