Saturday, July 7, 2007

How to convince Republicans to vote for Ron Paul

Here is a great article I found in Mike Duchemin's blog

It is clear that Ron Paul is the most qualified presidential candidate who will do the best job for America. However, it will be an uphill battle to muster enough support for him before the megaprimaries on February 5, 2008. He has several factors working against him. The mainstream media ignore him, by and large, and the fat cats in the new media do everything they can to pretend he doesn't exist. Meanwhile, the Council on Foreign Relations, in their corner offices and penthouses, tweak their handlebar moustaches and laugh maniacally while preparing to invade Iran.

The neocons fear Ron Paul far more than the libs do because they know that their house of cards will fall if Paul's message receives attention in the marketplace of ideas. This is because they have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of the rank and file Republicans. They have convinced the conservative base that American needs to maintain an empire in order to protect itself against terrorism. In discussing this issue with Republicans, keep these points in mind:

Do Not Begin By Demonizing President Bush

There are still many Republicans who support President Bush. You may know that President Bush is actually a fire-breathing slobber demon from the third circle of hell, but if you begin your conversation with Loyal Q. Republican with a statement like that, you will turn him off to anything else you might say. Build your case and let him come to the conclusion for himself that George Bush makes Ulysses S. Grant look like a competent president.

Start With the Borders

This is one thing that many war-mongering conservatives will already agree with you about. Point out that Ron Paul has a six point plan for border security and immigration reform. His plan is common sense. His plan is not wishy-washy, and his plan is consistent with protecting the nation against foreign terrorists. Use this point to transition to the military action in Iraq.

Point Out That The United States Policy On Terror Is Counter-Intuitive

Why is it that those who say they care about protecting us against terror at all costs will not secure the borders? Which is more dangerous to U.S. citizens, having Islamic Fascists in Iraq and Afghanistan or having them cross the unprotected borders into our country? If our policy is "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here," wouldn't you think that the smartest (and most dangerous) terrorists would simply come to where all the undefended American civilians are?

Point Out That the Nation Building Campaign in Iraq is Nothing More Than Social Engineering

Most Republicans will not have a problem seeing that social engineering does not work. You only need to direct them to the failed public schools to see that. You can talk with them about how Affirmative Action, the Great Society, Prohibition, and the myriad of other "progressive" social engineering movements have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse. At this point most Republicans will be agreeing with you and perhaps adding personal anecdotes about their opposition to social engineering. This is where you use a little jujitsu to cause the nation building argument to collapse under its own weight. If social engineering doesn't work here in America, what makes you think it will work halfway across the world, especially if the armed forces are acting as the social engineers? Back when Clinton was president, Rush Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton, why is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush? This internal critique doesn't merely take a nick out of the hawkish warmonger; it finishes him off. Either he has to accept that the purpose of the military is to act as international police and change his party affiliation to the one with the jackass mascot, or he has to admit that his definition of "victory" is impossible using military means.

Then What Should the U.S. Military Do?

The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces. You heard me correctly, I said ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES, as in 65% of all the countries in the world. In case you were wondering, the other countries do not hate us because of our liberty or wealth--they hate us because they are quartering our soldiers. How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran decided they were going to build a military base in your country? Exactly.

But That Would Be Surrender, Wouldn't It?

You can only surrender when you are in a declared war. We are not currently at war. We are in an unconstitutional arrangement in which our troops are being used to enforce a United Nations resolution (or 16 of them or whatever). The point is that the United States Congress did not declare war. They passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to enforce resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Of course, the U.N. Security Council did not authorize a regime change, but who's counting? The Republican hypocrisy in its use of the United Nations is astounding. When the U.N. serves their purposes, they clamor at the opportunity to champion its cause. When they disagree with the U.N. then the U.N. doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways, and The Constitution only allows for one option. Representative Paul would never go to war as the result of a resolution that came from an unelected, foreign body, like the U.N. Moreover, Ron Paul would avoid tangling the United States in foreign alliances that would drag the country into war (like our entangling alliance with Great Britain is about to do in Iran).

But Doesn't That Make Ron Paul an Isolationist?

No. Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Ron Paul believes in free trade with other nations (not managed trade like NAFTA, mind you). The current U.S. foreign and domestic policies have us on a one way trip to One World Government.

Didn't Ron Paul Vote Against the Patriot Act?

Yes he did, as well he should have. The "Patriot Act" gives the executive branch ridiculous powers. Anybody can be held by the Federal Government without cause forever according to the act. This may not sound bad to some of you, but imagine if President Hillary Clinton had such powers? Homeschoolers, pro-life advocates, gun rights advocates, pastors, and bloggers would disappear and never reappear under the reign of terror by uberfascist Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ron Paul is the Only Constitutionalist in the Race

If elected, Ron Paul would be one of the only presidents in U.S. history to have a genuine respect for the constitution. Most presidents have spent their time in office attempting to circumvent, or, in the cases of horrible presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt, utterly destroy the constitution. Ron Paul is founding father material, unlike the blowhards and demagogues who currently fill the overwhelming majority of offices inside the beltway. He is the only candidate that walks the walk of a limited government, that protects the personal liberty of its citizens, and his record is plain for all to see.

No comments: