Skip to main content

Is Ron Paul's Anti-war More Honest?



Ron Paul Campaign Hits 40,000 Meetup Group Members
Ron Paul had an extra reason to smile as the impressive figure of 40,000 volunteers had been met, which is a substantial amount more than Barack Obama, the candidate with the second best Meetup organization who has 5,801 members.
~September 5th, 2007 by Ryan of Product Reviews Net
Click to read article

Why is Ron Paul so much more popular than Barack Obama?

Ron Paul, like Obama, enjoys popularity because he has voiced an anti-war position with regard to the former socialist dictatorship in Iraq from the very beginning. But the huge difference is Obama is a dedicated Marxist whose anti-war sentiments rise from his left-wing hate-the-heroic-individualism-of-America state of consciousness, whereas Ron Paul is a genuine American hero whose anti-war sentiments rise from his unflinching integrity in defense of Constitutional process.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democratic candidates play left field shaded so far to the left that they are in foul territory. Ron Paul plays in center field and says only "let's play by the rules." Barack Obama would say it's better for America to lose wars if winning would give freedom-loving Republicans any credit. Ron Paul says it's better for America to win any war it fights, but America can only win if Congress seems 100% behind the effort.

Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats have done everything possible to assure an American loss and an American embarassment because they are fundamentially anti-capitalist, which means anti-freedom. Ron Paul says America can only win and not be embarassed if most Americans are pulling in the same direction ... but without a Congressional Declaration of War, there was never any hope of most Americans pulling in the same direction.

Barack Obama wants us to believe all wars are evil ... unless of course initiated by a Democrat, a socialist government, or a radical Islamist group. Ron Paul says we must not be afraid to fight in our defense, or to fight for right, but there must be a proper Constitutional process so the entire country is united behind the effort.

Barack Obama pretends to be anti-war. But put him or Clinton or Edwards in the White House, and they will escalate their Marxist war against American free-enterprise and individual freedom. Ron Paul says governments start wars, not free citizens. He understands that individual freedom and free enterprise, not socialism, is the only way to assure world peace.

Big difference! See also: A Brand New Republican Party?

The device which prepares libertarians for success, A Course in Miracles, has much to say about world peace starting with each individual:

How is peace possible in this world? Certainly peace seems to be impossible here. Yet the Word of God has promised peace. God gave the Holy Spirit to you, and gave Him the mission to remove all doubt, and every trace of guilt. Thus He is your Guide in choosing. He is in the part of your mind that always speaks for the right choice. He separates the true from the false by His ability to perceive totally rather than selectively. The Holy Spirit is the way in which God's Will is done on earth as it is in Heaven.



Available free of charge online:
Course in Political Miracles



Technorati tags:
,
, , , , ,
, , , , ,,,, ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I agree entirely. Ron Paul's antiwar position is from a truly individualist standpoint and Barack Obama's (along with most of the other Democratic candidates who claim to be for peace) is from the perspective of sheer subjectivism.

Ron Paul has convinced me, me who supported the invasion, that he is correct. That Barry Goldwater in saying war should be rare was correct. I still think the Iraq military effort was worthwhile but why did we stay?

Ron Paul recognizes something that only historical scholars and, actually, a number of people who lived through World War II understand. That is that we catch more flies with honey than with salt; in other words, war must be the last resort if we are to remain a free country and have allies around the world.

I hope that Ron Paul's campign continues to be as blessed as it has been... if he does not win, then he is still having an incredible impact on the general political landscape, and that is as important as anything.
September 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Todd Steinberg said…
Hello, I found you via a comment from a RP article. I plan to read some of the articles from your blog. I was inspired to come up with a spiritual based libertarian blog too from my religious perspective:

http://libertarian-bahai.blogspot.com/
September 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said…
I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, and I have absolutely no enthusiasm for an Obama presidency. Not for the differences that this posting claims to find between the two candidates, however.

Paul wants to pull all servicemen out of Iraq, back to the United States, immediately. Obama (and all of the other leading Democratic candidates) wants to "redeploy" the majority of troops -- with many to be placed in Kuwait or other friendly gulf states -- and to leave a force of 30,000 or so in Iraq "to avert a bloodbath" (as if our 160,000 troops were able to avert the one that has been taking place for the last four years). Paul wants to end military operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Obama not only wants to stay in Afghanistan, but talks about launching an attack on Pakistan (!). Paul opposes sanctions against Iran, and says that we should not threaten a nuclear strike against Iran. Obama supports sanctions and says that the option of nuking Iran should not be taken off the table... And on, and on, and on. Ron Paul is consistently opposed to military interventions abroad, while Obama supports many.

I don't see how this squares with your thesis that Obama's stance on Iraq betokens a wish that America fail. If he wanted America to fail, as punishment for its capitalism, and if withdrawal from military engagements constituted "failure," wouldn't he take positions more like Paul's?

What you miss is the real disagreement between the two candidates, which is a philosophical disagreement over the legitimacy and utility of interference in the affairs of other nations. If you want to tie Obama's foreign policy to "Left-wing" ideas, it would be far more logical to compare his willingness to threaten force against Iran and Pakistan, on the one hand, and his willingness to tax, regulate, and otherwise boss around Americans. (I happen to think that this is poppycock, as history has offered up for more leaders with a taste for warmongering than with a taste for "social justice" legislation, but I digress).

In any case, though, I'm glad that we can agree in our support of Ron Paul.
September 12, 2007 at 3:15 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Sarah Palin's Joy Ayn Rand's Ideal?

Lesson 50: "I join Ayn Rand, educating spiritually." Government worshippers are in control of most universities, virtually every public school system, and almost every major media market. The general public has been thoroughly brainwashed to believe that if there is a problem, or the illusion of a problem, government solutions are the answer ... a new government program, a new government bureaucracy, more power to government. Because almost all avenues of education and information have been under the control of government worshippers, the vast majority of people are stuck in thinking habits which will never for long periods of time serve liberty. Because people's underlying thinking habits will rise to the surface again and again, any libertarian political victory can only be short-lived ... unless people's underlying way of thinking is changed. As much as I might hate to admit it, thorough re-education of the public cannot not be a number one priority for libertaria...
7 comments
Read more

Ron Paul is Wrong; Mitt Romney is Right!

"Ron Paul does not believe we went into Iraq because of 9/11. But Mitt Romney obviously believes we did. So who’s right?" ~Gary Benoit The strained arguments of some libertarians that Dwight Eisenhower is somehow responsible for the 9/11 attack in New York is equivalent to arguing that President James Buchanan was responsible for the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the Baker-Fancher emigrant party on 9/11 in Utah. It is truth in the sense we are all responsible for everything in our world. This is a very valuable truth, wouldn't you say? The twisted leftist argument is that Islamic Jihadists would not have declared war on Western societies if it hadn't been for Western government policies reaching back through the years. But anyone who studies the Koran knows this argument is bullshit. The Koran demands that war be waged on "infidels" until everyone on earth is either converted to Islam, enslaved by Islamists, or killed. Mitt Romney is right. The United States...
10 comments
Read more

Jesus Christ & Ayn Rand: Brother & Sister

It is far too easy (intellectually lazy) to conclude that Jesus Christ and Ayn Rand are miles apart in what they teach. Nothing is further from the truth. It is only necessary to juxtapose the words of Ayn Rand with the words of Jesus to see they teach exactly the same. Ayn Rand summarizes her teaching this way: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." — Ayn Rand, Appendix to Atlas Shrugged Let's look at the words of Jesus Christ regarding these four elements: 1. heroic being, 2. happiness as purpose, 3. productiveness, and 4. reason as absolute. Let's start with the idea that man must choose to be a heroic being. Here is how Jesus Christ says it: Be not content with littleness, but be sure you understand what littleness is, and why you could never BE content with it. Littleness is the offering you ...
2 comments
Read more