Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Is Ron Paul fit to be President?

Join The Political Commentator on Google+ here.
Join The Political Commentator Fan page on Facebook here.

Breaking News November 08, 2011 1:15 PM
:

“The United Nation’s nuclear watchdog said Tuesday it has “serious concerns” that Iran is secretly working toward building a nuclear weapon, citing documents pointing to extensive and ongoing research by Iranian scientists on mastering the technology needed for atomic weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency cited “credible” intelligence that directly contradicts Iran’s claims that its nuclear intentions are entirely peaceful.

“The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device…” (Source)

Now on to the article "Is Ron Paul fit to be President?" regarding the candidates desire to use "making friends" with the Iran the cornerstone of our national security platform.


Job #1 of the President of the United States, after defending the Constitution, is to protect and defend the Nation and it's people!

President Obama has been a failure in this regard, so the question one would have to ask when analyzing the current crop of Republican presidential hopefuls, is which ones would be substantially better, the same or even worse than Obama?

The Iran problem!

Reports all seem to indicate that Iran has either already obtained a nuclear weapons capability or is very close to doing so.

This development would not only bode very badly for Israel who Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to blow off of the map, but for the rest of the region and for the entire world.

In one fell swoop Iran could kills tens of thousands or even millions of people while at the same time crippling the global economy by effectively cutting off the supply of oil coming out of the region.

The old mainstay that served the United States and the USSR so well for so long, mutually assured destruction, is a non-starter with Iran as its leadership does not appear to be overly concerned with the concept of total annihilation.

The Obama administration policy for Iran has centered around the imposition of sanctions while at the same time ceding the responsibility of U.S. national security to the U.N. has been a failure to say the least.

Ron Paul on the question of Iran!

Once you read this excerpt and the rest of the article from CNS, ask yourself whether Ron Paul is the man you want in charge of the national security of the United States in these very dangerous times!

"At a time of escalating tensions with the Iranian regime over its suspected nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is suggesting that Washington adopt a new approach – don’t impose sanctions, “treat them differently,” and offer “friendship.”

Re-treading ground he covered during earlier primary campaign debates, the Texas lawmaker said on “Fox News Sunday” that the United States had talked to the Soviet Union and China, both nuclear-armed, during the Cold War.

Asked what the U.S. should do to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear weapons capability, Paul replied, “Well, maybe offering friendship to them. I mean, didn’t we talk to the Soviets? Didn’t we talk to the Chinese? They had thousands of these weapons...” Full article here.

Is he kidding, and if not do we really want him leading the nation? Won't four years of Barack Obama have been enough?


Join The Political Commentator Facebook Fan page here!

Subscribe to The Political Commentator here!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Subscribe in a reader






Follow Michael on Twitter

Friend Michael on Facebook

Connect with Michael on LinkedIn


Enhanced by Zemanta

9 comments :

  1. I wonder if you'll allow my comment to stand?
    Well, here goes nothing.
    Why does the military give most of their support to Ron Paul if his ideas are so 'loony'?
    Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT, agrees with Ron Paul's ideas for reducing America's military budget saying we don't need to defend wealthy nations.
    Christopher Preble, foreign policy expert and VP for defense and foreign policy studies at the CATO institute agrees with Ron Paul that America is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons and does not need a global presence. Preble gave Ron Paul credit for being one of the outspoken critics of the Iraq war.
    Look up Jason M Volack's article on the ABC titled: Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul's Controversial Foreign Policy dd Nov 6, where I got the above info.
    Ahmadinajad is crazy, but already the Ayatollah is looking to get rid of him. The Ayatollah doesn't seem to want to be killed and the Persian people don't want to, either.
    Anyway, that Saudi's are a heck of a lot more dangerous than the Iranian government but since the past few presidents have bowed down to them, both figuratively and literally, they are barely metioned. It's the Saudi's that fund the Muslim Brotherhood, our schools and many US mosques. Look it up and see who our real enemy is. Look up Wahhabiism. It's what the Saudis and Taliban practice. Then tell us who the real threat to America is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with the fact that there are an extraordinary number of national security issues as pressing as Iran, but I disagree with the fact that Iran poses no threat to the U.S. due to our geography and nuclear arsenal.

    Forgetting about the carnage that Iran could generate in body count terms, think about the global economic carnage were the flow of oil from the Middle East to cease abruptly due to a well placed weapon in the Gulf or in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would rather have Ron Paul as POTUS then any of those bought and paid for traitors that are running for the shake of their own egos and money.

    At least Get Government Out of My Life Ron Paul talks the talk and walks the walk. Not like the CEO of the Fedreal Reserve of Kansas City Cain or preppy boy Bankrupt Health Care Romney or Pharmacutical NAFTA Super Highway Perry.

    I'll take my chances with Iran over a Zionist Jew any time. Maybe we should be talking about the 300 nuclear weapons Israel has and put UN sanctions on them. Seems they are more like terroist than Iran is made out to be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for the thoughts although it will be the "Zionist Jews" who will ultimately be left holding the bag to save your ass from Ahmadinejad.

    You'll take Iran? Good luck pal!

    By the way I am guessing that you would fall into the category of "most anti-Semitic" in the recent ADL survey (http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/11/as-jew-its-not-that-im-paranoid-its.html).

    ReplyDelete
  5. First we need to ask if Michael Haltman is fit to discuss this foreign policy issue objectively. If you were a Palestinian- American or an Iranian-American calling on your fellow Americans to attack Israel, your loyalties would be suspect and I would tell you to go pound sand. Ron Paul is correct when he says this policy does not help Israel at all and your short essay avoids that discussion. Now I don't fault you thinking you are helping Israel by trying to get America to protect Israel. In the 1930's, British Americans pounded the airwaves and newspapers with "save mother England" stories to get Americans into the war. Democrats such as FDR lied to the public but worked to get us in. Just as the British American loyalties where suspect, so to are yours today. A full disclosure from you Michael is required. "Are you a Jewish American?" If you are, your loyalties are highly suspect and probably all out of whack for your love of Israel. Further, since you offer no real argument rebuttal to Ron Paul's reasoning, the answer is in the affirmative, "Yes Ron Paul is MORE than fit to be President". As any American who thinks of "AMERICA FIRST" and not Israel first, Paul's foreign policy reasoning makes perfect sense. Your loyalties Michael are in serious question. Now before you go screaming anti-Semitic, the fact is we have a right to know where your loyalties are. Most of all, there is nothing provided by you or anyone that I know of that even comes close to demonstrating that Iran is nationally suicidal, thus Israel's 300 nukes are yes valid protection. Now if you and Israel can't live with the stress of Mutually Assured Destruction, then I suggest you encourage mother Israel to give up her nukes in exchange of Iran giving up theirs. And finally, a simple internet research shows that what you say, that the Iranian President said he wants to "blow [Israel] off the map" is provably false. He said he wants a 'Regime Change in Israel', and frankly so do I. Just like South Africa's apartheid, I find Israeli Apartheid appalling. Just as South Africa needed a regime change to end the apartheid, so to does Israel need a regime change to end its apartheid and accept the Saudi Peace Plan. And finally, your comments suggesting that Zionist Jews will be left holding the bag to save "our ass" from Ahmadinejad is wishful delusional heroic thinking, and may go to show where your loyalties are, as evidenced by "our ass".

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am Jewish but as an American first I think that if you read the news out of the IAEA and the analysis from sources someone like you might take as more objective, the Ron Paul national security/foreign policy plan of "making friends" with Iran is asinine.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/world/un-details-case-that-iran-is-at-work-on-nuclear-device.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15652783

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/08/iran-attack-barack-obama-presidency

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.10775/pub_detail.asp

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/8/watchdog-reveals-irans-nuclear-arms-work/

    Hopefully one of these five articles (although most likely not the NYT) is objective (i.e. anti-Israel) enough for you but I am guessing that is not the case.

    I will look to see for you what Al Jazeera has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ron Paul served. Of all the presidential candidates only Ron Paul and Rick Perry wore a uniform.

    Paul gets more contributions from active duty military than all other candidates combined (including their Commander in Chief).

    Making an argument that Ron Paul isn't "fit to serve" is stupid, jingoistic nonsense...it's an argument devoid of understanding of the US Constitution. Yes, he's "fit to serve" because the Constitution says so.

    ReplyDelete

;