As odd as it may sound, the title of this post is essentially what we are facing in the political arena. The presidential election isn't for another 18 months, but early debates have generated a lot of attention lately, mainly due to U.S. Representative Ron Paul's stance on the U.S. Constitution. If you haven't heard of or know about Ron Paul, he is one of 10 candidates that are seeking to win the Republican primaries, then go on to seeking the presidency. I suggest you get acquainted with him here and here.
When it comes to government policy, no one has the record that he has when it comes to voting consistency. This is because he uses the Constitution as the measure by which he votes. I have yet to hear of another congressman who actually does that.
Christians ought to be tremendously delighted that we have someone who actually believes in following the Constitution. After all, aren't Christians constantly arguing against non-Christians that our Federal government was founded upon Christian principles? There ought to be a groundswell of support for Ron Paul from conservative Christians, but it has been eerily silent. So far, all I've seen in Christian support of Ron Paul is coming from Chris Ortiz of the Chalcedon Foundation.
Maybe silence is better than opposition at this point. Maybe Republican Christians are rethinking their position on a lot of things since Ron Paul burst into the scene at the debates. I sincerely hope so. I sincerely hope they take a good hard look at Ron Paul, because to oppose him is to actually oppose the limits of the Constitution. And to oppose those limits is to oppose the Christian principles that those limits were founded upon.
The Constitution is not perfect, but it the law of the land by which we, as United States citizens, are obligated to uphold. The President even more so. If we, as Christians, won't back a candidate like Ron Paul, then we might as well abandon our arguments that our country and goverment was founded on Christian principles.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Ronny and the Nine Clones
Having watched both the first and second Republican debates, it is easy to see Ron Paul clearly stand out from amongst the cloned candidates. How could he not? The Nine wannabe-Kings were pro-war, while he wasn’t. The Nine want a National ID card, while he didn’t. And though the Nine wanted to cut taxes and reel in spending (haven’t we heard that before?), Ron wanted to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Still, though standing so far out of line from the current state of the Republican Party, Ron was hardly acknowledged by the mainstream media. Even though MSNBC, the host of the first debate, had Ron winning their own poll, with the highest approval and the lowest disapproval, not one of their writers acknowledge him as the winner of the debate. Makes me wonder: How do you declare one of the clones a winner if all they do is say the same rhetoric?
But the first debate is old news now. Last night’s debate is THE news.
As it was before in the first debate, Ron received very little air time. In fact, in two rounds of questions, Ron never received a question concerning the sanctity of life and on immigration. It’s likely that there is nothing that Fox News could corner him on those issues. But then again, what issue can you corner Ron on when he has shown that he is not a flip-flopper and that he bases his decisions based on the Constitution. But they tried anyway…and failed.
In what may have been a staged attack on Ron, Rudy Giuliani spoke out of turn against Ron when Ron answered the question, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?” From the transcript, we read:
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
To one Republican observer over at Cyclone Conservatives, he thought that:
At the same time, while I understand his foreign policy perspective and find some agreement in terms of nation building, I think he worded his answers poorly tonight and allowed him to be body slammed by Rudy on 9/11.
Assuming that he meant Rudy took apart Ron's statements, I replied:
Rudy never offered any counterargument to dismantle Ron's statements. Instead, he only offered up astonishment ("That's really an extraordinary statement"), misunderstanding ("we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq" - Ron never said anything about us "inviting" the attacks), and ignorance ("I don't think I've heard that before" - though James Ostrowski points out that two well-known reports have expressed the unintended consequences of our interventionist policies).
Yes, Rudy is truly ignorant of the idea of unintended consequences. The official 9/11 Commission Report had stated that the anti-American sentiment from the Middle East stems from our intervention and occupation over there. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Sadly, by the reaction of the audience and the slander against Ron in many articles and commentaries, it seems that America can do no wrong by being the policeman of the world. After all, we are spreading Pax Americana. There is no such thing as blowback when peace is the goal.
Despite the crowd’s approval of Rudy, it actually gave Ron the opportunity to speak the facts and lay out indirectly the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you. It was a dose of reality about what has been done and what we really should be doing. And what a doozy of a dose it was as the rest of the Nine wanted to reply to Ron. Too bad it didn’t happen. I’d love to see Ron give them a history lesson and the cause and effect of American hubris and hegemony.
The next debates are really going to be interesting now that the kid gloves are off and the brass knuckles are coming on. This assumes, of course, the powers-that-be don’t start axing candidates from the debates. They don’t like Ron. He won’t butter their bread. Even if polls show him to be in the top 3, they could care less about the people. Democracy needs to be spread abroad, but it surely cannot be practiced here.
But the debates aren’t the only things to look forward to since there is a lot of time in between. There will definitely be more traffic heading to Ron’s campaign site; mainstream media can no longer ignore him; the grassroots movement will continue to grow even bolder; and people will begin to ask the right questions as to the role of government. Too all supporters of Ron Paul: Be like Ron Paul and be prepared to answer!
Still, though standing so far out of line from the current state of the Republican Party, Ron was hardly acknowledged by the mainstream media. Even though MSNBC, the host of the first debate, had Ron winning their own poll, with the highest approval and the lowest disapproval, not one of their writers acknowledge him as the winner of the debate. Makes me wonder: How do you declare one of the clones a winner if all they do is say the same rhetoric?
But the first debate is old news now. Last night’s debate is THE news.
As it was before in the first debate, Ron received very little air time. In fact, in two rounds of questions, Ron never received a question concerning the sanctity of life and on immigration. It’s likely that there is nothing that Fox News could corner him on those issues. But then again, what issue can you corner Ron on when he has shown that he is not a flip-flopper and that he bases his decisions based on the Constitution. But they tried anyway…and failed.
In what may have been a staged attack on Ron, Rudy Giuliani spoke out of turn against Ron when Ron answered the question, “Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?” From the transcript, we read:
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
To one Republican observer over at Cyclone Conservatives, he thought that:
At the same time, while I understand his foreign policy perspective and find some agreement in terms of nation building, I think he worded his answers poorly tonight and allowed him to be body slammed by Rudy on 9/11.
Assuming that he meant Rudy took apart Ron's statements, I replied:
Rudy never offered any counterargument to dismantle Ron's statements. Instead, he only offered up astonishment ("That's really an extraordinary statement"), misunderstanding ("we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq" - Ron never said anything about us "inviting" the attacks), and ignorance ("I don't think I've heard that before" - though James Ostrowski points out that two well-known reports have expressed the unintended consequences of our interventionist policies).
Yes, Rudy is truly ignorant of the idea of unintended consequences. The official 9/11 Commission Report had stated that the anti-American sentiment from the Middle East stems from our intervention and occupation over there. Is it really that hard to comprehend? Sadly, by the reaction of the audience and the slander against Ron in many articles and commentaries, it seems that America can do no wrong by being the policeman of the world. After all, we are spreading Pax Americana. There is no such thing as blowback when peace is the goal.
Despite the crowd’s approval of Rudy, it actually gave Ron the opportunity to speak the facts and lay out indirectly the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done to you. It was a dose of reality about what has been done and what we really should be doing. And what a doozy of a dose it was as the rest of the Nine wanted to reply to Ron. Too bad it didn’t happen. I’d love to see Ron give them a history lesson and the cause and effect of American hubris and hegemony.
The next debates are really going to be interesting now that the kid gloves are off and the brass knuckles are coming on. This assumes, of course, the powers-that-be don’t start axing candidates from the debates. They don’t like Ron. He won’t butter their bread. Even if polls show him to be in the top 3, they could care less about the people. Democracy needs to be spread abroad, but it surely cannot be practiced here.
But the debates aren’t the only things to look forward to since there is a lot of time in between. There will definitely be more traffic heading to Ron’s campaign site; mainstream media can no longer ignore him; the grassroots movement will continue to grow even bolder; and people will begin to ask the right questions as to the role of government. Too all supporters of Ron Paul: Be like Ron Paul and be prepared to answer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)