Ron Paul and the "War on Terror"

Ron Paul has has been attacked by some conservatives who accuse him (while admitting that he has an "impeccable" voting record) of underestimating, misunderstanding, or perhaps even "misunderestimating" the threat of islamic terrorists (aka "jihadists," "islamo-fascists," etc.). For many conservatives, this is such a central issue that it would prevent a vote for Ron Paul inspite of their agreement with Dr. Paul on many other areas of conservative thinking (role of government, taxation, 2nd amendment rights, pro-life stance... see also; I'm a Republican, why should I vote for Ron Paul).

My contention however, is that Dr. Paul's position on this matter is simply not clearly understood. In fact, I will explain how a Ron Paul presidency would do more to protect Americans from islamic terrorism than a Giuliani, Clinton, McCain, Obama, Romney, or other such presidency.One must start with more clearly defining what exactly it is that we're discussing here. What is the "War on Terror?" Well, in basic terms we are talking about terrorism. But not just the idea of terrorism - or a vague notion that there is this terrorism out there in the world. No, we're talking about something more concrete than that. The "War on Terror" would be more plainly and more correctly identified as "Actions or Measures Against Terrorists and to Prevent Terrorist Acts." Ron Paul understands this and so doesn't concern himself with appealing to fears or proposing actions against an entire concept.

Following are just a few of the measures that Ron Paul has publicly declared his support for - real, measurable actions to pursue and prosecute terrorists and to prevent terrorist acts:

1) Restrict immigrations from nations that sponsor, harbor, or otherwise train/cultivate terrorists. This is a common sense measure, and yet the wheels are already in motion to admit large numbers of Iraqi refugees (just as we did in the 90s - some of whom were later linked to domestic terrorist acts). Few other politicians, even those who throw "War on Terror" into their campaign speeches, are even suggesting that this restriction should be put in place.

2) Secure our borders and enforce our current immigration laws. The Border Patrol and the INS operate with one eye closed and one hand tied behind their back. We have some highly-qualified and patriotic men and women serving their country in these capacities, but they have been increasingly stripped of the ability to effectively perform their duties. Not only would enabling these agencies to be effective provide tremendous economic benefits, but few argue with the inherent security threat of having virtually wide open borders and allowing foreign nationals to overstay visas and wander the country freely (or slip in across the border and no one ever knew they came and went). Some of our politicians (even some of those who want to be president) talk tough about "terror", but offer no specific solutions to address the glaring problem of our insecure borders and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws -- why then do we believe them or see them as "tough" on terror?

3) Arm pilots. If there's a fear that planes could or would be hijacked and used as a weapon by terrorist, the fact that we have not armed commercial pilots (except on a limited scale) is inexcusable. Ron Paul supports immediately training and arming pilots as a strong deterrent against this threat. A "jihadist" with a box-cutter would be no match for an ex-military commercial pilot armed with a .357 Magnum....

4) Massively scale back foreign deployments and operations. No matter how wrong the islamic jihadists are, the fact of the matter is that they do use our presence in the Middle East (and elsewhere abroad) as a powerful tool in recruiting and indoctrinating new jihadist recruits. This is not excusing them or apologizing for their vitriol or hatred, it is simply acknowledging what we can observe. If we remove our soldiers from harm's way, not only do less of our men and women in uniform die for an Iraqi constitution upon which Iraqis can't agree, but we also strip the would-be-terrorists from their most powerful recruiting and fund-raising ammunition.

5) Improve intelligence gathering and inter-agency cooperation. If there was one very clear lesson of September 11th, 2001, its that the attack very likely could have been prevented through agencies enforcing existing measures, and through better agency cooperation. Recently Ron Paul decried the fact that the FBI has so few personnel that are proficient in arabic. We didn't need the creation of additional, massive government bureaucracy any more than we needed to maintain the status quo. We needed our laws enforced and more consistent application of some common sense. This point dovetails nicely with numbers 1 and 2 above.
The "frontrunners" in the still-early presidential race are keeping their focus on "staying on the offense", or "taking the fight to the enemy." Nice words, but where's the practical application? The conflict in Iraq at this point prolongs the creation of a breeding ground for terrorism as explained above. Why does "taking the fight to the enemy" seemingly ignore going after Osama Bin Laden, cited as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks? Ron Paul urges us to apply pressure to Pakistan (who many allege is harboring Bin Laden), or otherwise pursue Bin Laden until we've apprehended him. Dr. Paul doesn't beat us over the head with slogans and one-liners that appeal to your fear. Instead, he offers real solutions through common sense and practical measures.

As I have said before, Ron Paul is a man of integrity, a very rare honest politician with the verifiable voting record to back him up. He believes in the Constitution, something that sadly, few politicians even want to acknowledge these days. But on top of all of this, for those who are concerned about the threat of terrorism -- if you want powerful words that appeal to fear and emotion, by all means, vote for Giuliani or Clinton, Obama or Romney. If instead you want to see the United States remain a nation of liberty and yet also become safer at the same time, well then Ron Paul is the man for the job.

Can Ron Win?

Many voters - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike, may be reluctant to throw their support behind Ron Paul with one powerful reason in mind; he simply has no chance to win. But is Ron Paul just a relatively obscure, "lower tier" candidate who cannot distinguish himself from the rest of the pack or who does not have a wide enough appeal? Or instead, is there something truly unique about Ron Paul and his candidacy? Is there a quietly growing groundswell of grassroots support that could spill over into strong showings in the early primaries?
Although the media widely describes Rudy McRomney as the top 3 candidates and many now throw Fred Thompson into the "top four," Paul has raised more money in New Hampshire than either Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. Am I suggesting that Ron Paul is going to win the New Hampshire primary? Well, no. But could Paul shock many political analysts by making a very strong showing - possibly even in the top 3? If fundraising is any indicator then the obvious answer is yes! Now granted, it isn't enough for Ron Paul to make a respectable showing in New Hampshire and immediately declare victory. Naturally we are talking about his ability to win the whole thing -- to win the national primary (and then the presidency). However, the respectability of a strong showing in the first primary would give Dr. Paul even more of the national exposure he needs to showcase the singular nature of his candidacy.
This brings me to the real meat of the argument -- Ron Paul is the true conservative candidate in this election. He is the candidate that the real base of the Republican Party has been yearning for since the conclusion of Reagan's 2nd term, when the torch of the party was picked up by Bush Sr. in 1988. Most just don't yet know it. I readily admit that the possible or likely candidacies of Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich could muddy the waters and make it more unlikely that a large number of Republicans will have the opportunity to hear Ron Paul's distinctive message. Yet I also assert just as readily that their presence in the campaign does not diminish the fact that he alone among the candidates is a true conservative. While others claim to be the standard bearer of the conservative movement, I think it can be plainly demonstrated that only Ron Paul passes the test.
The starting point is a non-interventionist foreign policy. This has historically been the conservative foreign policy position, as Ron Paul rightly has been insisting until he's blue in the face. Many people today don't realize that even George W. Bush espoused a non-interventionist foreign policy when he argued in his first campaign that we should not be policing the world. He did this precisely because he knew that position would resonate with his conservative base. Conservatives also attacked Clinton mercilessly for his interventionist foreign policy - including but not limited to the entanglements in Bosnia and Somalia. Ron also passes the conservative test on 2nd Amendment rights, taxation, abortion, immigration, and above all, limited government. He is the only candidate actively pushing to dramatically scale back the size and scope of the federal government, frequently invoking the Constitution to that end. There is simply no other candidate out there who is expounding these conservative principles.
An increasing number of Americans feel that our country is headed down the wrong path - that our politicians are selling us out, that we're losing a cultural war with widespread ramifications, and that we're a nation drifting away from the rule of law - a nation of contradictions. Americans are growing in their discontent with politics as usual, and with a run-away train bureaucratic Leviathan that grows every four years whether Democrat or Republican occupies the Oval Office. The bottom line is that our country needs a leader like Ron Paul.
The last Republican candidate for president who won decisively was Ronald Reagan - because he appealed not just to Republicans, but to independents, moderates, and "Reagan-Democrats." Who then has the best chance to win in 2008? Rudy McRomney or another candidate in the tradition of Bush Sr. or Bush Jr.? Or Ron Paul, whose honesty, integrity, and common sense approach will appeal not just to Republicans, but to Americans.

http://ronpaul.newlibertyusa.com