This is a special edition of The Claw dedicated to exposing the insanity of Ron Paul. The first parts are taken directly from the transcript of the Sioux City Fox News debate, with my own commentary tossed in. Since this column went so long, and I have soooo much more on this topic, I will run another special edition next week.
The main problem we have is the government is too big and the debt is too big and you have to cut spending so you have to get people to come together. They have been coming together to increase spending for decades. We have to get them to come together to do the opposite.
But there are two factions up there, one wants welfare and the other want warfare around the world and policing the world. So you go to people who like warfare you say give me half of the cuts that have to be in the welfare. Go to welfare people and say give me the cuts to cut the oversea warfare spending and bring people together and live up to what they say.
Since Ron Paul also stated that he would be cutting the budget by a trillion dollars, this means that he would be cutting national defense by 500 billion. The 2012 national defense budget is 682 billion. This means he wants to cut our national defense by over 73%. That is beyond insane. Cutting out unConstitutional departments, agencies, and entitlements would bring our budget into balance.
Congressman Paul, many Middle East experts now say Iran may be less than one year away from getting a nuclear weapon. Now, judging from your past statements, even if you had solid intelligence that Iran, in fact, was going to get a nuclear weapon, President Paul would remove the U.S. sanctions on Iran, included those added by the Obama administration. So, to be clear, GOP nominee Paul would be running left of President Obama on the issue of Iran?
But I'd be running with the American people, because it would be a much better policy. For you to say that there is some scientific evidence and some people arguing that maybe in a year they might have a weapon, there's a lot more saying they don't have it.
There's no U.N. evidence of that happening. Clapper at the -- in our national security department, he says there is no evidence. It's no different than it was in 2003. You know what I really fear about what's happening here? It's another Iraq coming. There's war propaganda going on.
And we're arguing -- to me, the greatest danger is that we will have a president that will overreact and we will soon bomb Iran. And the sentiment is very mixed. It's -- it's very mixed even in Israel. You know, there -- the -- a head of the security for Israel, who just recently retired, said that it wouldn't make sense to do this, to take -- to take them out, because they might be having a weapon. So I would say that the greatest danger is overreacting. There is no evidence that they have it. And it would make more sense -- if we lived through the Cold War, which we did, with 30,000 missiles pointed at us, we ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That's how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.
First of all, there is puh-lenty of evidence that Iran is building nukes. They are working with the North Koreans on bombs and missiles. The latest North Korean underground bomb test was publicly called a failure by military sources in the West, but those same sources have quietly acknowledged that the readings of the test would be exactly what they would expect if the NorKs were testing an EMP weapon.
Secondly, there’s a huge difference between the Soviet Union of the Cold War and Iran of today. The Sovs were lead by sane people without death wishes. They did not want to risk a full-blown nuclear war. Iran’s Mad Mullahs and I’minajihad have said that they WILL use nukes if they get them. They have pledged to exterminate our ally Israel. They WILL give those nukes to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. If they get killed in a reprisal strike, that is fine with them. They would then be martyrs for Islam. One of the first indicators we will see if Iran finishes a nuclear weapon will be a large cloud rising over Tel Aviv.
Third, not only did we actually find WMDs in Iraq in the form of chemical artillery shells, but that was not the real reason to invade in 2003. You see, we signed (and the Senate ratified) a ceasefire accord with Iraq in 1991. Those accords said that if Iraq violated the terms, the Desert Storm Coalition was required to reform and militarily remove Saddam’s government from power. Bill Clinton said multiple times during his Administration that Saddam was breaking the terms. Clinton violated the law by only ordering pin prick airstrikes instead of reforming the Coalition and invading Iraq. George W. Bush, for all his faults, was 100% in compliance with Constitutional law by invading in 2003.
Iran is reportedly running exercises on closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key passage, as you know, for global trade. Now what should the U.S. response be if Iran were to take that dramatic step?
(Screeching) This is -- the plans are on the book. All they talk about is, when are we, the West, going to bomb Iran? So why wouldn't they talk about -- they don't have a weapon, they don't have a nuclear weapon, why wouldn't they try to send out some information there and say, you know, if you come and bomb us, we might close the Straits of Hormuz down.
So already the President, and I think he is wisely backing off on the sanctions, because it's going to be an economic calamity if you take all the oil out of Europe. So I think that makes sense.
He knows these sanctions are overreaching. Sanctions are an act of war when you prevent goods and services from going into a country. We need to approach this a little differently. We have 12,000 diplomats in our services. We ought to use a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.
Wow, that made almost zero sense. Since when does Iran respond to diplomacy? On top of that, if Iran wasn’t building nukes, why would they refuse to allow inspectors back into their nuclear facilities to verify the claims?
Senator Santorum, you have a very different thought about the threat from Iran. For several years, according to the U.S. military leaders, Iran has provided training, funding, and lethal arms to jihadists killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are those acts of war?
They have been continually. They just tried to plan an attack here in this country, killing the Saudi ambassador. They have been at war with us since 1979. The IEDs that have killed so many soldiers, they are manufactured in Iran.
This is -- Iran is not any other country. It is a country that is ruled by the equivalent of al Qaeda on top of this country. They are a radical theocracy. The principle virtue of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to President Ahmadinejad, is not freedom, opportunity, its martyrdom.
The idea, Ron, that mutual assured destruction, like the policy during the Cold War with the Soviet Union would work on Iran when their principle virtue is martyrdom, is -- mutual assured destruction with respect to Iran would not be any kind of, you know, idea of preventing a war. It would be an inducement to a war.
This is what their objective is. Their objective is to in fact create a calamity. This is what their theology teaches. They believe that it is their mission to take on the West. They don't hate us because of what we do or the policies we have. They hate us because of who we are and what we believe in.
And we need to make sure that they do not have a nuclear weapon. And we should be working with the state of Israel right now. We should use covert activity. And we should be planning a strike against their facilities and say, if you do not open up those facilities and not close them down, we will close them down for you.
Well said, Senator. While you are correct that Iran has only been at war with us since 1979 (thank you, James Earl Carter), Islam has been at war with the entire non-muslim world for over 13 centuries. Their holy book commands that all non-believers be converted, enslaved (the term is dhimmitude), or put to the sword. The whole world is to be conquered and a worldwide Caliphate is to be implemented.
Governor Romney, this week President Obama said the U.S. asked Iran to give our downed high-tech drone back. As you know, the Iranians have it on display. They claim they are extracting data from it and they have no intention of giving it back.
Yesterday you called the president's response, quote, "extraordinarily weak and timid." Now in your book you write, quote, "weakness invites challenges, acts of intimidation, acts of aggression, and sometimes war."
So in this case, are President Obama's actions inviting war?
Absolutely. Does timidity and weakness invite aggression on the part of other people? Absolutely. A strong America, a strong America is the best ally peace has ever known. This is a president with -- the spy drone being brought down, he says pretty please? A foreign policy based on pretty please? You have got to be kidding.
This is a president who fundamentally believes that this next century is the post-American century. Perhaps it's going to be the Chinese century. He is wrong. It has to be the American century. America has to lead the free world.
And the free world has to lead the entire world. The right course under President Obama's plans is to shrink our military, thinking somehow if we appease or accommodate the tyrants of the world, that the world will be safer. He's wrong.
The right course for America is to strengthen our economy, our values, our families, and our military. We need to rebuild our Navy and go from nine ships a year to 15. We need to modernize our Air Force. We need 100,000 new additional troops in our military. We need to take care of our veterans in the way they deserve.
It is time for us to recognize once again a strong military does not create war. A strong America prevents people from trying to test us around the world.
Well said, Governor Romney. Now will you please explain to Ron Paul how his plan to cut our defense budget by 73% would be sheer madness?
Congresswoman Bachmann, today is the official end of the U.S. military operations in Iraq, and there is real concern, as you know, about growing Iranian influence inside Iraq. Also, the deputy prime minister there has expressed concerns about the country possibly slipping into civil war. Are there any circumstances as president where you would send U.S. troops back in to Iraq?
Well, I think clearly the biggest mistake that President Obama has made -- and there are many when it comes to foreign policy -- has been the decision that he made regarding Iraq. He was essentially given on a silver platter victory in Iraq, and he's choosing intentionally to lose the peace.
And we all know what's going to happen. We know that Iran is going to be the hegemony and try to come into Iraq and have the dominant influence. And then Iran will essentially have dominance from the Persian Gulf all the way to the Mediterranean through its ally, Syria.
And with all due respect to Ron Paul, I think I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one that we just heard from Ron Paul. And I'll tell you the reason why.
And the reason why I would say that is because we know, without a shadow of a doubt, that Iran will take a nuclear weapon, they will use it to wipe our ally, Israel, off the face of the map, and they've stated they will use it against the United States of America.
Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their admission -- their mission is to extend jihad across the world and eventually to set up a worldwide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.
Obviously, I would like to see a lot less nuclear weapons. I -- I don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I would like to reduce them, because there would be less chance of war.
But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals, but they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd.
Uh, Ron? They declared war on us 13 centuries ago. If they are abiding by exactly what the Quran says, they are not being “radicals”. You are acting like the Democrats in America who call anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States by that same term. The Islamists ARE going into Switzerland and Sweden. They have not made many attacks there, but they are immigrating there and breeding like rabbits, just like they are doing in Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, etc. They will be in position to take control of those nations within a few generations.
If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. It said they come here and they want to do us harm because we're bombing them.
No, they are doing it because that is what their religion REQUIRES them to do. Was Italy bombing arabs when Black September struck in Rome? They are Islamists, bent on spreading Islam across the globe. They strike us because we are the strongest force that can counter them. Please return to reality!
What is the whole world about the drone being in Iran? And we're begging and pleading, and how are we going to start a war to get this drone back? Why were we flying the drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why are we in -- have 900 bases, 130 countries, and we're totally bankrupt? How are you going to rebuild the military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people?
So I think -- I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting. And we need a strong national defense. And we need to only go to war with a declaration of war, and just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often.
If you don’t understand the concept of forward deployment, then you have no business trying to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. We have those bases around the world so we can get our forces and supplies wherever we need them in a rapid manner.
Can I respond? And the problem would be the greatest under-reaction in world history if we have an avowed madman who uses that nuclear weapon to wipe nations off the face of the Earth. And we have an IAEA report that just recently came out that said, literally, Iran is within just months of being able to obtain that weapon. Nothing could be more dangerous than the comments that we just heard.
(Screeching and sputtering) There is no U.N. report that said that. It's totally wrong on what -- what you just said.
It's an IAEA report.
(Losing all control) That -- that is not -- that is not true. They -- they produced information that led you to believe that, but they have no evidence. There's no -- been no enrichment of these bombs.
And if we agree with that, the United States' people could be at risk of our national security.
OK. She took my time, so I'd like -- I'd like to finish. If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in the 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. And Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to them, and talks them out of this so we don't have a nuclear exchange.
And you're trying to dramatize this, that we have to go and -- and treat Iran like we've treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis, and 8,000-some Americans have died since we've gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war. You can solve the problems if we follow our constitution and go to war only when we declare the war, win them and get them over with instead of this endless fighting and this endless attitude that we have enemy all around the world.
Kennedy blockaded Cuba. You would call that an act of war. Your knowledge of the use of military force in relation to the Constitution is quite faulty. There is a difference between limited action and full war. The Founding Fathers knew that. Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates without a declaration of war. Look up the Monroe Doctrine. As for many of our actions, it is impossible to declare war against people who are not a real nation state. Al Qaida isn’t a nation state, so we cannot declare war on them. The pirates of Somalia are not a nation state.
In response to this article about Dr. Paul possibly winning in Iowa, I found a response that is better than any I could ever write regarding Dr. Paul:
John R. Vigil, MD Says:
December 19th, 2011 at 1:09 pm I was surprised to see the results of the Fox News Poll showing Ron Paul leading in who the pollsters thought would win the Iowa caucus vote. While, I consider myself a conservative and lean more towards libertarianism, I am nonetheless, quite frankly concerned about the possibility of Ron Paul winning the primaries and–God forbid–possibly becoming president of the United States. My concern comes as a fellow physician who believes that Dr. Paul suffers from a real psychological disorder characterized by megalomania, narcissism, delusional thinking, paranoia, antisocial characteristics, and (abnormal) feelings of persecution. Now, I am not a psychiatrist, but I did minor in psychology as an undergraduate and most physicians have been educated in the behavioral sciences and have been trained to diagnose common psychiatric disorders. Furthermore, it is estimated that the incidence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder occurs 34 times more often in medical doctors than in the general population.
Over the last several weeks, I have been studying Dr. Paul as well as his followers through his television appearances, his letters (and Newsletters), social media, and video clips from You-tube and have noted a very disturbing pattern of Dr. Paul showing all of the psycopathological characteristics of a genuine “cult leader” and his followers showing all of the characteristics of a cult. I have studied cults and their leaders and have outlined the “five basic rules” of being a cult leader. I have also indicated the psychopathology associated with cult leaders as they form their cults:
The number one rule of a cult leader is to polish and cultivate a persona that you–and only you–have been chosen, anointed, or have achieved spiritual, political, or intellectual enlightenment above all others. This shows features of megalomania, delusions of grandeur, as well as narcissism.
1. Dr. Paul has tried to cultivate this persona for over 30 years as the “outsider” and enlightened one within the “Washington establishment”.
2. Dr. Paul has publicly stated that while he believes in term limits, they do not apply to him because (paraphrasing) “there is no one good enough to bring in to replace him”.
3. In 2010, Dr. Paul commented to his wife that he would run for President in 2012 “if things were happening so quickly and fast in our country and we were in a crisis period…and needed somebody…with the knowledge he as, he would do it”.
4. Dr. Paul presents in interviews as haughty and stern and seems to be lecturing rather than engaging in conversation.
The next rule is to appeal to the disconnected, disenchanted, and disaffected in society who are often intellectually, politically, and emotionally immature (i.e., younger people)and convince them that while you have been “chosen” (or more likely self-selected) you are (almost) human just like them and can empathize with their disenchantment and discontent. This shows more tendencies of narcissism and ego-feeding by someone who sees them self as inherently better than others, but with a need to surround one’s self with those less fortunate or less “enlightened”—a “savior complex”, if you will. Often times, the empathy and compassion shown to the acolytes is not genuine (which is a feature of antisocial personality) and is only used for the ulterior motive of personal gain in sex, money, or power (or sense of superiority) or combination thereof.
1. Dr. Paul has always had a relatively small number of fanatical followers who have mostly been drawn from younger people in society. He routinely targets schools, colleges, and other events where younger people tend to be.
2. His “populist” message today resonates with many, besides young people as social, geopolitical, and economic turmoil are perceived to be worsening and more and more people become disenfranchised, disenchanted, and discontent.
3. Dr. Paul’s ploy of not accepting Medicare payment for his Medicare services or a congressional pension—while on the surface seem like noble gestures—are really means to portray himself as “one of us” and morally higher than his colleagues.
The third step is through indoctrination, coercion, repetition, and/or isolation to exercise mind control over your flock of followers by relieving them of their ability to think rationally (usually by not allowing them to test your theories or have access to “the outside”)—but not emotionally—while simultaneously convincing them that your ideas—while plausible (but generally at the far fringes of mainstream thought) are the “light and the truth”. This shows more elements of antisocial ego-building in that the leader is now getting others to surrender their will and rational thought against deep seated norms of the self and/or society while they align their thinking towards that of the leader. Furthermore, this shows the disordered or delusional thinking of the leader who generally has delusional thinking of the world and how it operates and he or she is the only one with the power to fix it.
1. Dr. Paul plays on the emotions of his followers by carefully crafting plausible—and easy to understand– (but highly improbable and at the fringes of mainstream thought) scenarios out of complex geopolitical, political, social and economic issues that are at “top of mind” of our society and that tug at some of our most basic interests (individual freedom, economic freedom, nationalism, sanctity of life, torture, and war) and evoke very basic human responses such as fear, anxiety, anger, disgust, and etc.
2. Dr. Paul’s views on national defense, monetary policy, isolationism, and constitutionalism are considered by most to be outside of the mainstream of rational political, social, and governmental philosophy.
3. Dr. Paul has consistently repeated his messages over 30 years and as noted above, tends to target younger followers who are easier to indoctrinate.
The fourth rule is to proselytize not only your “enlightened philosophy or beliefs, but also to spread forth the word that while you and your followers are “the enlightened or chosen ones”, there will be naysayers and those that will persecute you and the movement. This clearly shows the elements of paranoia and persecution by the non-believers.
1. Dr. Paul and his followers are very defensive when challenged on the issues and their beliefs. Instead of engaging in earnest discourse, they tend to attack and accuse the “non-believer” as persecuting them for their beliefs or of being ignorant and unenlightened in their philosophy.
2. Dr. Paul and his followers display a common paranoia and decry a “conspiracy” of the right, the political elite, and the left against them and their “lofty ideas that will save America”.
3. Dr. Paul has consistently offered the explanation that others are simply “out to get him” by taking “tongue-in-cheek comments out of context” and things that were written in his newsletters (but purportedly not authorized or written by him).
4. Dr. Paul comes off as defensive and angry when challenged in interviews and becomes condescending.
The fifth and last rule is to convince your followers that it is only through blind faith and rigid adherence to your philosophy—no matter how foreign it may be to self or to society—that that blind adherence or “loyalty” is the only path to salvation, redemption, or the reparation of the “perceived” ills of society. This is more antisocial ego-building and the tightening of control over the flock.
1. Dr. Paul and his followers play the same monotonous drum beat about “smaller government”, defense of our borders, monetary reform and fiscal responsibility, “stop the wars”, and national isolationism over and over again like a Gregorian chant and mantra in a blind and stubborn adherence to their fringe philosophy that is the only path to saving America despite practical, rational, philosophical, and real world evidence against and “common sense” opposition to their “zany” ideas, Messianic messages, and Utopian philosophies .
Some authors would add another step which is to construct a “doomsday scenario” for your followers, such as “the end of the world, World War III, or economic collapse as the great incentive to motivate the followers to adhere to and spread your teachings. This, again, would show delusional thinking as well as narcissistic thinking, especially if the leader and his or her followers will be the only ones saved from the impending calamity.
By the way, I too am a Vietnam Era Vet (Army)and also served as an officer in the medical corps for the National Guard during Desert Storm and there is no way in hell I would ever support Dr. Paul to be my Commander-in Chief!
"[A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801
The Constitution of the United States
Follow me on Facebook.