Laissez-faire

Reuters reported the following statement by Ron Paul, regarding a comment made by John McCain. He made public his intent to keep troops in Iraq for 100 year or more:

“John McCain’s statement in favor of keeping troops in Iraq for
100 years or longer puts him out of sync with the majority of
Americans, who want our troops to come home. Further, his
comments recklessly put America at risk as such a statement will
likely serve as a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who
appeal to radicals and incite violence against Americans by
claiming that the US desires to occupy the Middle East
indefinitely.

“It is time to act in the true national security interest of the
United States and begin withdrawal from Iraq and the rest of the
Middle East immediately. Americans will be far safer under a pro-
America foreign policy that seeks to end the dangerous idea that
the US should be the policeman of the world.

“Further, the financial costs of keeping troops in Iraq for a
century would be massive - in addition to the steep price in
American lives. If John McCain really wants such a long term
presence, he needs to level with the American people and tell
them that his policy means we will not be able to fulfill our
obligations here at home.”

Lasts night’s presidential debates on ABC, though the most fairly moderated debate yet, was still full of frustration as Ron Paul was laughed at by the other candidates for no other reason than their lack of an intelligent response. The following clip, where health care was discussed was one of the most blatant examples.

The candidates talk vaguely about the tweaking they would do to our dismal health care system that is dominated by powerful insurance and drug companies in collusion with the federal government. Then when Ron Paul gets a chance to respond, he attempt to address the roots of the problem with not nearly enough time. But he makes two points very clear: There is no way the government could possibly afford to pay for our extravagant foreign policy and quality health care at the same time; and inflation* caused by the excessive borrowing and printing of money is to blame for sky-rocketing health care costs.

Thompson was next to respond, and started with a sarcastic gesture toward Ron Paul’s statement. He had to do something to segway back into the buffoonery that he and the other candidates had to offer. They all laughed at Thompson’s ignorant remarks, attempting to marginalize the only man making any real sense. When Ron Paul addresses economic issues, it goes way over their heads, and they have to resort to these childish tactics. They don’t even try to make an opposing argument because they cant.

Fred’s question to Ron Paul was: “So if we stopped printing so much money, we could get out of the war and provide health care for everybody?”

To interpret what Paul said as such means that Fred was either not listening or he is unable to follow simple logic. Unfortunately for Fred, I think it’s the latter. If Dr. Paul had the time to continue, he would have discussed the other major factor involved in the health care issue, and that is the government involvement. He would, as he has so many times, addressed the specific problems and how we need to return to truly a free market based system where insurance companies and drug companies cannot run the show behind the scenes through the government.

*McCain brought up inflation first, but unlike Dr. Paul, he has a very poor understanding of economics and monetary policy, and would never attempt to address the cause or solution to the problems associated with inflation.

The New Hampshire State GOP has revoked their sponsorship of tomorrows Fox News debate due to the exclusion of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. Good for them.

The results of the Iowa caucuses are in. Obama won on the Democratic side and Huckabee on the Republican. Here is the rest of the vote breakdown, including the number of delegates to the national convention each candidate received from Iowa.

My thoughts, as you might have assumed, are focused on the Republican side (or should I say, the side that Ron Paul is on?), and here they are:

I just finished watching the O’Reilly factor where Nick Gillespie, Editor-in-Chief for Reason Magazine, discussed the exclusion of Ron Paul from the upcoming Fox News debate/Interviews — which, by the way, is absurd given that Dr. Paul is polling higher than Giuliani in Iowa and Fred Thompson in New Hampshire; both of whom will be included.

Gillespie stood his ground and did a relatively good job of defending Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy which frightens Bill. He also defended the right of Fox News, a subsidiary of a private corporation, to exclude any candidate they choose, for whatever reason.

here’s the balanced discussion(?)…90% Bill and 10% his guest:

O’Reilly followed that segment with another attack on Ron Paul. The guest, a retired Lt. Colonel, used the typical approach of calling Ron Paul a lunatic (or something to that extent). He then implied that others before him have had the same crazy ideas, and they ultimately led to the attacks on 9/11.

The attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, are a prime example of the retaliation by extremists that are irritated by the unwarranted (not to imply that their actions were just) intervention in foreign affairs. The attacks occurred during a period when our foreign intervention is at its most intrusive levels in history. Why would anyone use this as an example of the failure of non-intervention? Those responsible for the attack — undoubtedly deserving to be brought to justice regardless of their intentions — gave explicit reasons for the attack, and it had everything to do with our meddling in their affairs: Affairs that were no threat to our national security.

I’ll be renewing my subscription to Reason Magazine and continuing to regard Fox News as a poor source for accurate, unbiased reporting.