Friday, August 03, 2007

Last week Congress voted 418-1 on the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. Seemed like a no-brainer to me. So, who was the nay vote? None other than Ron Paul, candidate du Jour for some of our younger voters, and self described libertarian for President of the United States. It is people like Ron Paul and those who support him without thinking things through that have the potential to damage our global reputation in the long run. What is this nay vote other than a reincarnated "America First" movement. We have been down this road before. In light of the blundering Bush administration and its rush into Iraq, the isolationist viewpoint has returned.

And now, in light of the collapsed bridge in Minnesota, a bridge I've driven over a few times, I can't help but say I bet I know which side of the vote Ron Paul has been on for bills involving infrastructure improvements over the years. Any young readers thinking about voting for Ron Paul because he happens to play up his social libertarian side on popular talk shows, think again. There's another side to the libertarian coin. Most recently, it has been called the "Reagan revolution." But indeed, we have also been down that road before. And it took the Progessive movement at or near the turn of the previous century to pull us out of it. We're getting to that point again.

With regard to his statement that he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution," that's not governance, that's dereliction of duty. Even the most fervent proponent of "original intent" wouldn't say that, would he?


Unknown said...

Why don't you listen to Ron Paul's opinion on Darfur. As soon as our government gets involved and picks a side, we end up being bogged down in someone else's civil war, which is precicely the problem we're facing in Iraq right now. If you read the bill, there's a clause in there that sets a dangerous precedent: "(3) the provision of military equipment for nongovernmental organizations in the Darfur region of Sudan, the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS), or the United Nations". I can't speak for Ron Paul, but the bill sets a precedent for military involvement there.

The government should condemn the atrocities and inform the american people of the NGO's helping out in Sudan right now, and I suggest donating to one.

Anonymous said...

While I applaud your efforts to help end the tragedy in Darfur, my question for you is this.

Is the U.S. responsible taking care of every situation around the world?

Should we as a nation intercede into Tibet? What about the killings in India, Pakistan, China, Chechnya, Afghanistan, The Balkans, The Middle East etc?

The 'War' in Iraq has consumed almost $600 billion dollars, in Afghanistan and the Middle East, over $1.1 trillion dollars.

What cost to us as Americans would you have us pay to prevent or stave off these types of conflicts?

Why is it that America and no other nation can stop this conflict? Why can't the EU put more effort into preventing the genocide in Darfur?

We as a nation cannot afford to be the policemen of the World. We are already borrowing money from China to pay for a ludicrous war in Iraq.

How will further generations of American's be able to pay for every conflict that others ensnare the U.S. into?

Unknown said...

It is people like Ron Paul and those who support him without thinking things through that have the potential to damage our global reputation in the long run.

Which global reputation? The one where we were admired, or the one we have now?

Watch this space

If FB decides to reinstate the account of the former "president" tomorrow, I expect an uptick of activity here for random updates ...