The Romney campaign makes a big effort to join the Tea Party, conservative grassroots activists and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. They not only invited Rand Paul to speak at the Tampa convention, but also they programmed a video of "Tribute to Ron Paul" to show the delegates. However, these are only crumbs: the video is not likely to highlight Paul's most interesting positions, such as his violent opposition to the American empire and his endless wars.
No, the real cake, complemented by the almost libertarian icing, is Paul Ryan, whose addition to the post opens up the possibility of having a campaign problem with Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of "Objectivism." . . .
That some "libertarians" are ready, willing and able to swallow this promise, I have no doubt. They claim that Ryan "gets the free market". Well, whoop-of-doo! The Chinese Communist Party, these days.
However, it does not really prevail, even to the extent that Deng Xiaoping's heirs do, because he thinks he can still have an overseas empire and a "limited" government with a low tax rate and "Les Chicoms" - using right-wing republican phraseology - are "isolationist," meaning their foreign policy is tantamount to caring for their own business and gaining so much. Ryan, on the other hand, seeks to maintain "American leadership" in the world, and how says, "leadership" is an educated euphemism for domination.
In a speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society - where? - Ryan has fully expressed the expression of US foreign policy under his command, and while the vice presidency is an office with little power, from the point of view of the speech, the position of vice president in a republican administration 'would become once again a neoconservative lobby for more and more wars.
Ryan may be a neocon drone, but it is not Dan Quayle: he realizes, as he said in his speech to the Hamiltonians, that "our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are in the midst of a collision, and if we do not put our budget into a sustainable path, we choose decadence as a world power. "
Translation: We can not have an empire, given our current financial situation. So what is the solution? For any normal American, who has never wanted an empire, the answer is simple: give up the imperial demands of "world leadership" and tend to our own misused and leached garden. . . .
Ryan's infamous budget wants to increase military spending and declare any cuts in limits because, you do not know, it's a "strategic" issue, not a dollar-and-cents issue. .
No, the real cake, complemented by the almost libertarian icing, is Paul Ryan, whose addition to the post opens up the possibility of having a campaign problem with Ayn Rand, the late novelist and philosopher of "Objectivism." . . .
That some "libertarians" are ready, willing and able to swallow this promise, I have no doubt. They claim that Ryan "gets the free market". Well, whoop-of-doo! The Chinese Communist Party, these days.
However, it does not really prevail, even to the extent that Deng Xiaoping's heirs do, because he thinks he can still have an overseas empire and a "limited" government with a low tax rate and "Les Chicoms" - using right-wing republican phraseology - are "isolationist," meaning their foreign policy is tantamount to caring for their own business and gaining so much. Ryan, on the other hand, seeks to maintain "American leadership" in the world, and how says, "leadership" is an educated euphemism for domination.
In a speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society - where? - Ryan has fully expressed the expression of US foreign policy under his command, and while the vice presidency is an office with little power, from the point of view of the speech, the position of vice president in a republican administration 'would become once again a neoconservative lobby for more and more wars.
Ryan may be a neocon drone, but it is not Dan Quayle: he realizes, as he said in his speech to the Hamiltonians, that "our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are in the midst of a collision, and if we do not put our budget into a sustainable path, we choose decadence as a world power. "
Translation: We can not have an empire, given our current financial situation. So what is the solution? For any normal American, who has never wanted an empire, the answer is simple: give up the imperial demands of "world leadership" and tend to our own misused and leached garden. . . .
Ryan's infamous budget wants to increase military spending and declare any cuts in limits because, you do not know, it's a "strategic" issue, not a dollar-and-cents issue. .
Comments
Post a Comment