A Dispassionate Reasoned Argument From a Real Conservative
Debt & Taxes – Ron Paul wants to lower taxes by abolishing the income tax and cutting spending. He also wants to lower the debt, stop inflation by ending irresponsible printing of money, and he thinks it's a bad thing that our debt is financed largely by China and Saudi Arabia. He feels we should balance the budget and eliminate wasteful spending of all kinds. He's concerned about the falling dollar, and he thinks we are in the midst of an expanding economic crisis.
Clearly, all of this is insane. Only a maniac could possibly believe that lower taxes are a good thing. First of all, if average Americans had more money to spend, they would probably waste it on lottery tickets and pay-per-view wrestling. It's government's job to protect us from that kind of wasteful spending.
As for the debt, it's a good thing. Let's face it, debt is normal, it's correct, it's as much an American institution as apple pie and baseball. If we didn't have debt, we couldn't have plasma TVs and X Boxes. If the government didn't have debt we couldn't have any more bridges to nowhere or wars in countries that dis us. Is that what he wants? And as for selling the debt to foreign countries, could the Paulistenians please explain why that's bad? What are they gonna do, foreclose? The worst that could happen is that we have to learn to speak Mandarin and after all, everyone should know a foreign language.
And why not print more money? Look at it this way, at home when you run low on ramen noodles, you go get more. Money is like ramen noodles. When we run low we print more. That's just common sense. There is no relationship between printing more money and money being worth less. That's silly, it says right on the dollar that it's worth a dollar. What more do you need than that? And if the dollar falls too much against the Euro we can always nuke the European Union. They're commies anyway.
Border Security & Immigration Reform - Ron Paul has a six point immigration plan. He wants to: physically secure the borders, enforce visa rules, oppose amnesty, end welfare for illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and pass real immigration reform with rules and waiting periods without amnesty.
Madness! If we physically secure the borders and don't have an amnesty program, there won't be anyone to mow lawns. And then grass will grow out of control, and pretty soon the whole country will look like the Amazon rainforest. Is that what he wants? Besides that, chickens will go unplucked. No more fried chicken! THAT'S UN-AMERICAN! And if terrorists can't get in, we might not have another 9/11 and then we might have to declare victory in the War on Terror. Is this guy on crack? And if we enforce the visa rules, we'll run short on Pakistani doctors who work in the emergency rooms where illegal Mexicans go for free medical care when they get stabbed in gang fights. Is he trying to create a health care crisis? As for anchor babies, how does this traitor think illegal immigrants will be able to apply for welfare if they don't have kids to go with them and interpret at the Department of Social Services? And if we cut off welfare for illegals what would we spend the money on? Services for citizens? Then you end up with a nanny state. Isn't it better to turn the illegals into blood-sucking, dependent, shiftless parasites sucking on the government teat? Besides, the illegals take the money they save by using government hand-outs and wire it back to home to their countless unemployed relatives. If they didn't do that, we would have to increase foreign aid to Latin America. Think of all the money that would cost!
War & Foreign Policy – Ron Paul believes the war in Iraq to be illegal, costly in blood and treasure, entered into under false pretenses and detrimental to our national security. Further, he believes that foreign policy should be conducted through negotiation, trade and communication, not through the use of military force.
OK, now if this doesn't prove that Ron Paul is one Christmas light short of a strand, I don't know what will. First of all if we weren't fighting Iraqis in Iraq, we would be fighting them in Duluth. Saddam Hussein had clearly expressed a desire to put troops ashore in Nantucket and he would have if we hadn't acted immediately. If George W. Bush had not heroically stood up to the Constitution, and unilaterally declared war on Iraq, our children would even now be learning Arabic in madrassa, schools and your wife would be wearing a burkha. Furthermore, what do you think would happen to the prosthetic limb industry in this country if we quit creating amputees?
And does Ron Paul really think the founders meant that only Congress has the power to declare war just because it's in the Constitution? We can't be bound by that! The founders never envisaged a situation in which the President would need to pre-emptively invade any country that threatens to kill his father. Duh!
As for conducting a foreign policy not based on the threat of invasion, how else does this nutball expect us to deal with people we don't like? Look at it this way, if you don't constantly threaten everyone you meet on the street with a gun, you might get mugged. Therefore, it only makes sense to shoot everyone you meet and ask questions later. Or to put it another way, talk is cheap and war is expensive. Since war is more expensive; and more expensive things are intrinsically better than cheaper things; then war is better than diplomacy. And if we run out of money to pay for war we can print more. If we run out of troops, we can draft the illegal aliens we let in through the open borders. THAT is a coherent foreign policy. Peace is for pussies.
Smaller Government – And finally Dr. No believes in smaller government and personal freedoms as defined in the Constitution.
This is so ridiculous as to not merit a response. But for those of you in the tin foil hats, I will attempt to explain how stupid this is. If government were smaller who would pay for: the K-12 Fishing Mortality Education Program in Orange City, CA, Beaver Management and Control in Mississippi, Mormon Cricket Research in Nevada or Citrus Waste Utilization in Winter Park, FL? And these are just a few of the necessities provided via the 696 pages of earmarks in the recently passed omnibus spending bill. Is Ron Paul trying to tell us we could get along without Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance programs? Puh-leeze! Besides, everyone knows that government is the most efficient manager of everything from health care to Asian Horned Beetles. Just look at how efficiently they've managed Iraq. If you don't believe me, just ask the Presidents of Halliburton and Blackwater or the prisoners at Abu Gharib.
As for personal freedoms, who needs 'em? I mean, does he want the terrorists to win? And make no mistake, the minute we allow the terrorists to make us stop giving up our civil liberties they've won. They hate us for our freedoms, and if we start exercising our freedoms they will hate us even more! Wiretapping, waterboarding and war are the three Ws that make America great!
So in closing, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for bin Laden. That should be starkly clear. He is supported by liberal fascists, Islamo-fascists and neo-Nazi fascists. No one but a fascist would support peace, lower taxes, sound money, strong borders and smaller government.
