Ron Paul: Reactionary or Visionary
February 4, 2012
Patrick J. Buchanan
2/3/2012
After his fourth-place showing in Florida, Ron Paul, by then in Nevada, told supporters he had been advised by friends that he would do better if only he dumped his foreign policy views, which have been derided as isolationism.
Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?
Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul’s views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain’s seem to belong to yesterday’s Bush-era bellicosity.
Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.
The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.
One Comment
leave one →
Harold
ACGR's "News with Attitude" 
I heard that it was great, and we know who would said that. Ron Paul is on target with the Constitution on that issue. I have to admit he is a bit vague in economic because the Constitution does not and could not specify the economy other than government should see to it that the people have the mean of pursuing the common welfare which is necessary for the four freedom. His weakness comes in when he tries to reconcile liberty with the needs of today which is more complex than during the Day of the Constitution.But those are Libertarian views Ron Paul is struggling with. In harmony with the liberty he supports he should not hold any one 100% on the Libertarian party doctrine, Free means free to think and decide not what the book say but what one concludes based on natural and moral values. It is Ron Paul I admire not a libertarian or any Party “bible” A state does need borders or it is not a state. Laws are for all and a civil society is based on people accepting the laws or change it. Entitlement is a made up word. Social Security in not based on Entitlement but on trust that money paid in trust will be there as promised. It is short because the trust was robbed, Gore was
right.