With each passing day, the GOP nominee process does make a couple of things quite clear. Romney is the establishment choice as we all know and second, Ron Paul will likely have to run as an independent if he wants any chance at winning the Presidency.
More and more people each day are converting to Ron Paul with the same caveat. Everyone has reservations about his foreign policy. If they could just get past that, he would likely deny the establishment their candidate of choice.
That begs the question of just how ‘dangerous’ his foreign policy is to the security of the United States. Keep in mind, his belief is that our foreign policy of interventionism is a direct threat to our liberty as citizens. He believes that ‘potential’ threats from foreign sources is trumped by known threats to our liberty. Such as is the case with the PATRIOT Act. He’s been very consistent on this issue throughout the years. Most recently, he has been speaking out against the TSA actions in Tennessee.
First off, you need to decide which interpretation of ‘isolationism’ and ‘non-interventionism’ you wish to agree with. Depending upon your source, you can find differences or some that claim they are one and the same. I could write an entire novel examining just this issue alone. Suffice it to say his detractors tend to try to tag him with both labels.
We do know this for sure. Ron Paul believes in protecting the homeland first and foremost. No doubt because it’s what the Constitution declares a POTUS must do. Securing the borders would actually become a priority. In fact, here is his 6 point plan for doing just that.
Continue reading “Economic Nyquil – is Ron Paul worth the ‘risk’?”