Posted by
Charles Lewis on Friday, January 04, 2008 10:09:09 AM
Paul finds fence "off-fence-ive"
by Charles R Lewis
Confirmed: In an interview with John Stossel (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/02/ron_paul_on_immigration), the irrascible Ron Paul has announced his opposition to the hapless border fence, declaring he considers it "offensive," and asserting that denying welfare benefits to invaders will stem the tide by itself (as if holding back a few taxpayer-financed goodies is gonna deter WMD-armed terrorists). Wow.
One might wonder why I'm so (admittedly) obsessed with Ron Paul that I've written so many blog spots on him I've stopped counting. It's because he's been the candidate to whom those Republicans who see through the establishment's "fake five" have chosen to turn, and that's a tragically wrong decision.
Very briefly, I'll first outline why none of the above is acceptable to anyone even remotely interested in America's survival:
- Rudy Giuliani is essentially a pro-abortion, Joe Lieberman-style lib who thinks calling himself a "Reagan conservative" by itself is enough to trick us into electing him.
- John McCain gutted the First Amendment everywhere but the Internet, has his sights on that as well (in addition to wanting to hand it over to the UN), has been to the left of LULAC on immigration, and is a John Edwards-style Marxist on economics.
- Mike Huckabee thinks those who feel proof of citizenship should be required for voting are "race baiters," and Simon Legrees to boot. He's rabidly anti-homeschooling, and wants us to throw more billions into the government school boondoggle - in this case, especially into "music education." Plus he came close to eclipsing all other Pork State Governors in history combined (including Bubba) in taxing, spending, and murderer pardoning.
- Mitt Romney had a lower ranking than his Democrat opponent on Second Amendment issues, favors socialized medicine, and rammed through gay marriage enforcement (when he was under no even perceived obligation to act at all) with a zeal worthy of fellow Massachusen Barney Frank. And his record as governor belies his supposed tough anti-invasion positions. (Parse his words, by the way - he says we should cut - not eliminate - federal benefits to cities "calling themselves sancutary cities." Note there are countless sanctuary cities, but none of them call themselves that, so they'd be home free under Mitt. And why don't we just arrest their treasonous mayors, rather than cutting funds that never should have been in the feds' possession in the first place?)
- Fred Thompson has shilled for pro-abortiion groups, was the actual driving force behind McCain's free speech outlawing "Campaign Finance Reform" act, and, ominously, is a member in good standing (as are most of the others) of the CFR, which as I write this is going forth full throttle - right before our eyes - with our merger with Canada and Mexico via the NAU.
I could write much more, but if you don't get the picture now, you're beyond redemption.
That leaves Ron Paul (who's pretty much obliterated apparently genuine alternatives like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Hugh Cort, and Alan Keyes). And Paul's dogged supporters (of which I was one for more than a few years) cling for dear life, giving him a respectable 10% (if we can trust the vote counters or machines, and we can't) in Iowa last night. Even Joseph Farah, who, to his credit, saw through Paul all along, is starting to give Paul positive cyber ink, pulling the incriminating Stossel piece this morning and replacing it with one praising Paul's "family values."
That's right. The man opposed to prayer in schools and the marriage amendment, and for legalized marijuana and prostitution and gays in the military and not opposed to the abortion pill gets some trumped up nod in some alleged family values survey and WorldNetDaily (my favorite site, by the way) dutifully regurgitates it for our consumption. And the Paulistas revel.
Ron Paul and his minions are the true neocons. He spreads the revisionist historical viewpoint that paleoconservatives opposed the war in Vietnam on the grounds that we had no business there, were the agressors, the "imperialists." (Don't you love the way communists - in conjunction with 5th columnists like Ron Paul -always accuse those that resist their world conquest designs of doing exactly what they - the red themselves - are doing?)
Funny, I was a conservatie in the '6o's, long before the term "neocon" was coined. And I don't remember a single conservative criticizing the war in 'Nam on the Jane Fonda/John Kerry grounds on which Paul would have us think they did. We just objected to the fact that the goal wasn't to win, but "contain." Only the "new conservatives" - who bring along the baggage '60's liberal sensibilities see Vietnam in harmony with the left.
Funny how it doesn't bother Paul when the reds and their raghead surrogates go all over the globe taking over countries by lopping off billions of heads, killing children in front of their parents and parents in front of their kids. But if we deign to lift a finger to help some commie-beseiged country resist, we're the imperialists.
And our "military-industrial complex" (not the multinationals, international bankers, UNers, Trilateralists...) are Ron Paul's bogeymen. (I would posit that without our brave military and excellent weapons industry, we'd have long since lost our freedom forever.)
And the Paul legions - mesmerized by the effects of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy - have continued marching off the cliff behind him. Undeterred by his 67% ratings from both the NEA and the ACLU. Or by his determination to stand by and watch Taiwan get half vaporized and half swallowed up by China. Or Israel by Iran (I think many of them actually savor that last one). Or any nation daring to be our ally - by whatever US enemy is in the neighborhood.
Nor did it bother them when he announced he would not support any other GOP candidate that got the nomination (Tancredo was still in the race at the time). Even though he was continually praising left-of-red (total gun ban, mandatory government school indoctrination for all students, abortion on demand forever...) Dennis Kucinich at the time and saying he wouldn't rule him out as a potential running mate (Kucinich had already announced that he'd welcome Paul as his).
Again, I could go on, but suffice it to say that Paul's stance against a border fence is the ultimate test for the no-core-principles-whatsoever persona of the Paul armies. To continue to support him now would be to overlook a virtual hammerlock on the third rail of contemporary American rightwing politics.
And it gets even worse. Paul added, in the Stossel interview, that he'd deport only those invaders caught committing other crimes. That, just for instance, those that applied for welfare would be denied that welfare but allowed to return to the general population unimpeded. And that in the future - once the entitlement aspect is removed - a scenario virtually equivalent to open borders would suit him fine.
I've grown sick of hearing Paul zealots pronounce that their man was the "only candidate tough on illegal immigration." It's now crystal clear that he's not appreciably different from Santuarudy, Sanctuaromney, or McCainnedy on the issue. This one cannot be reasoned away.
An enemy has been identified and duly self-outed. I urge Paul's partiotic faithful to transfer their support to one of the genuine candidates I mentioned above, before it's too late to save America.