Dr. Paul makes good Constitutional arguements . Unfortunately the majority of Republicans have accepted the New Lefts attitudee that the Constitution is a dangerous anachronism. Once the Constitution is dismissed, the motivating force for political action is fear and religion united. Anyone who does not subscribe to obvious fact that we are now engaged in an epic struggle with radical Islam-Fascists is either a coward, uninformed, or a potential foe.
Thus the animus towards Dr. Paul.
I believe it was John Hennedy, after the New Hampshire Debates who said to Dr. Paul, " I shouldn't have to educate you about this (the Islamic Threat ).
Yesterday I was watching c Span broadcasting the author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, or something like that. The author repeatedly insisted that a cerrtain line and verse of the Koran demanded that all Moslems make pemanent Jihad unless all infidels are either converted, subject themselves as inferior, or are killed.
This made me think of a passage of the bible that my friend Mike studied in Church study last Sunday. The passage starts when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the Golden Calf, God ordered him to kill all those who bowed before it. Much bloodshed ensued.
I wonder what part of the Bible was followed by the Spainish when they made a similar threat to the Jews in 1492?, or for that matter, what part of the bibleinspired the IRA.. Could the reading of those portions of the bible and the history of adherants to those portions be used to make an arguement that all of Christianity and Judaism is bent on world domination , and that young Christian men can at any time be recruited.?
The Author insisted that all moslems can be subject to radicalization because of the fundamental nature of Mohammads call to Jihad. He made no mention of any moderating influences to that danger. In my own home in a conversation I had with Fatima upon her return from a long trip to her native Bosnia she volunteered that Arabs had come to Bosnia to recruit . She said that they did not meet with any apparent success as the European Moslems have a long history of viewing themselves as European, and peaceful.
Then much to my amazement, the author, proceeded to discuss the Crusades as if it was a matter of accepted history that they were a defensive action by a united Christian Europe against the ever present threat of Moslem domination. He followed with the assertion that by the end of the centrry Moslems will dominate Europe and Shia law will be enforced.
Does this prediction echo the certainty of Europe falling to Communism that was prevalent in the Republican party just 20 years ago?
All of the above dire predictions of the Moslem threat was welcomed by the Audience at the American Enterprise Institute, if I recall the particular think tank correctly.
The neo Muslim theologists, historical revisionists, and arm chair teenage shrinks at the various think tanks seem to be the manufacturers of the world view that gives Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others such certainty of purpose. Like Osama,any moderation is not an option, it is the refuge of the uninformed, the weak, or the self deluded.
How can Dr. Paul be more effective in undermining the certainty that the epic threat of Radical Islam is acute and that no other choice exists except fighting them there before they fight us here?
Would not some one on one debates with articulate and calm and respected leaders of the neo-con movement be useful. Wouldn't the offer of a debate be attractive to ego of some prominent neo-cons.
Perhaps Dr. Paul vs Rumsfeld would work., or Perhaps vs. richard Pearle.
The basic problem is that fear is a far larger motivating force than reason.
We need to be very very afraid of Osama's creation: the fear he has set in the hearts and minds of the leaders of the United States and the people who follow. Perhaps Dr. Paul could calm some fears by addressing them directly in debates with the most articulate proponents of such views.