In “Paul Campaign: Make Lemons Out of Lemonade,” David Codrea of The War on Guns protests Fox News’ decision to refuse to invite Paul to its New Hampshire GOP debate taking place tomorrow night.Many thanks to Nicholas Stix for his insights. And he's not even a Paul supporter.
45Superman also has something to say. I do hope he's a regular stop for you, as his is one of the more principled voices out there.
3 comments:
I certainly appreciate the kudos, David, but I can hardly take any credit for repeating your work.
I'm just glad you don't resent it.
Thank you for your kind words, David.
My beef with the other candidates is that they are not what they claim to be; my beef with Paul is that he is exactly what he claims to be. Thus, I can (very) respectfully disagree with Paul; there is nothing to respect in someone who lies about his basic positions.
In spite of the above, I do have a certain sympathy for Giuliani regarding certain dishonest practices (e.g., lying about crime) he was compelled to engage in, as mayor of New York City. Not only was he faced with racial terrorists threatening to burn the city down, but he had treasonous media supporting them. (Come to think of it, he could make a pitch for electing him president based on the foregoing, but he's not about to be so honest—might cost him the black vote, harharhar!)
Paul supports cutting down the welfare state, but that's not going to happen, and as Milton Friedman, may he rest in peace, never tired of pointing out, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. If we deported the 20 million to 30 million adult illegal aliens, and their untold millions of illegal anchor babies, and a few million “legal” alien undesirables, we might then be able to use the momentum to cut some welfare for Americans, on top of that. But if we don't get rid of the foreign criminals in our midst, the treasonous media will help them leverage their force of numbers, and their love of violence, into expanding the welfare state to the point of economic and political collapse. (The cultural and legal collapses have already occurred.)
My other problem with Paul is his support of H1-B visas. We already have over one million American tech and science workers, often with crushing college loan debts, who cannot work in their chosen fields, and typically experience long-term unemployment and/or underemployment and/or menial, low-wage employment in other fields and economic ruin, because of H1-B visas. The tech and science industries have fraudulently brought in a million or so foreign (mostly Indian) tech and science workers with foreign educations inferior to that of the Americans, in order to pay them half as much, and have them work as indentured servants. And although the H-1B is a "non-immigrant visa," the “non-immigrants” never leave. They eventually get green cards, and end up as citizens.
And yet, Ron Paul is the only candidate in either party that believes in American sovereignty. Without his participation in the debates, there is no choice; you might as well flip a coin. And a smart network executive, concerned about ratings, would insist on inviting him, since without Paul being there to spice things up, the debates will be snoozefests with comatose ratings.
Nicholas: "Paul supports cutting down the welfare state, but that's not going to happen, and as Milton Friedman, may he rest in peace, never tired of pointing out, you cannot have a welfare state and open borders. ..."
You seem to be implying that Paul is not in favor of securing the borders. Paul actually is strongly in favor of securing the borders AND deporting those not here legally AND denying welfare to illegal aliens. Just what is the issue with Paul's position regarding "illegals" and welfare?
Post a Comment