The Podium: One libertarian's View.

This week/whenever I do one of these. Ron Paul.

As as a Libertarian, I've had people make the assumption I would support Ron Paul. After all he's a former Libertarian candidate for president, a principal supporter of smaller government, and lower taxes. What's not to like for someone of a more conservative fiscal slant, such as myself?

Answer: Quite a bit.

While I shall not lie to our dear readers, neither about my political leanings, nor my ideas in the forum of economics - I for one cannot, will not and encourage everyone out there NOT to give two rat's asses about this man. An economic view that I agree with means nothing in the face of the proposed destruction of this nation's social structure. Nor do I accept this fear that has became rampant of our economy being on the brink of complete desolation - unless of course we elect our man Ron! No sir, sell that crazy elsewhere.

I do however fear what could happen to the social structure of our nation under the hand of Ron Paul -not that the man has a snowball's chance - and even if elected, I doubt he could strong arm his ideas through. I am most thankful for that. However the concepts he puts forth are most dangerous, and I would like a moment to discuss just a few with you, our dear readers.

I could go on about his idea of repealing Roe v. Wade, but what Republican worth his salt in Fundy-dollars hasn't pressed that issue? Let's instead focus on his more unique ideas.
(All quotations from RonPaul2008.com)

1: "End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

This is not only a poor idea, the concept of removing our 14th Amendment, but a DANGEROUS one. This Amendment came about because States were refusing citizenship to freed African slaves, thus preventing them from being recognized as citizens of these United States. It is dangerous to forget that we as a people have not always been so welcoming to those who live within this country - and that humanity could take a turn for that direction if allowed. I wish it were not so, I prefer the notion of self-management, but it's simply unrealistic at this point. It only takes the corrupt getting power for a few years to turn us on our heads, lets not give them the weapons necessary to screw us.

2: "Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly."

" I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum)."

What precisely does this mean? It means that as his voting record shows, he does not support national testing of students. Couple this with his love of home-schooling and idea that a home schooled student showed be regarded the same as a non-homeschooled student (And this is coming from someone who WAS homeschooled for several years.) and we're going to see students who are not getting anywhere even NEAR a proper education. "The stupid shall inherit the nation." Not a concept I particularly enjoy. What can I expect? His particular brand of crazy only works on the uneducated masses, so let's work to further those numbers. UGH.

3: "I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it: H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills."

The Brady Act? THE FUCKING BRADY ACT. I am personally for gun control revision, as I think it's confusing, and could be greatly simplified with a little thought to what does and doesn't work. But this? This is pure madness. How many people really need a gun RIGHT THE FUCK NOW? Think about it, there is no reason to not have a waiting period. None. It prevents people who are upset and working from rage and impulse from doing something stupid. It allows for checks to ensure that a dangerous individual isn't handed a life-threatening weapon. It's a GOOD IDEA. Insanity.

I could go on. But I'm running long as is, in short - from this (l)ibertarian's perspective Ron Paul combines the worst aspects of Neo-Conservatism with the dark-side of Libertarianism and creates a beast that should not be supported.

To steal from the War on Drugs: Just say no.

/Phage out./