I watched the Republican debate on ABC television last night while working at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Ostensibly, I was looking for good sound bites to run in my newscasts.
But I was soon engrossed in the conversation especially when it dealt with American foreign policy, Iraq, Iran and terrorism. A uniformity of position certainly made itself clear. Except where Ron Paul was concerned.
Now, Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's in favor of individual freedoms that allow an individual to own his or her own life. It's a basic tenet of libertarianism. But libertarians also believe that everyone is entitled to these personal freedoms. Everyone.
And that essentially put him at odds with Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and the current "golden boy", Mike Huckabee.
All of those men supported the war in Iraq, intervention in Iran if necessary ("necessary" was not defined in the debate) and an ongoing fight against Islamic extremists.
As I outlined in the first post of The Coming Shift, I intend to lean heavily on the writings and input of the entity, Seth, whose books, spanning four decades now, are seminal in explaining the nature of our reality.
Seth makes very clear in the 2004 book, 9-11: The Unknown Reality of the World, written by Cas Smith and Mark Frost, that, while that terrible terrorist act is unforgivable and those who perpetrated it are misguided and spiritually wrong, it serves as a wake-up call primarily for America but for the rest of the Western world, too.
And the message we should hear is one Ron Paul enunciated very clearly in Friday night's televised debate: the United States needs to treat other countries the way it wants to be treated in return. The Golden Rule in foreign policy terms, if you will.
Paul was laughed at by the other candidates. They clearly regard the congressman from Texas as a lightweight intellectually and politically. And they quickly cut him down to size with the usual political rhetoric about remaining strong in the face of terrorism, fighting to maintain America's principles of freedom from tyranny, defending the Bill of Rights ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all") and so on.
When Paul tried to point out that Islamic terrorists hate the United States largely because they are angry and fearful thanks to past U.S. transgressions, he was scoffed at once again.
Thompson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee - all of them - said Islamic terrorists live to destroy the United States. What's implied is that there is no beginning point to their hatred, no source for it; Islamic terrorists are born to hate the United States.
Ron Paul was isolated and alone among the other candidates, his views considered fringe and simplistic.
And yet, in his own libertarian way, he was stating the same thing that Seth has laid out in his past works and in his current material.
If there was ever a greater indication needed that the Republican party is not ready for the Coming Shift, it was found in last night's debate.
But I was soon engrossed in the conversation especially when it dealt with American foreign policy, Iraq, Iran and terrorism. A uniformity of position certainly made itself clear. Except where Ron Paul was concerned.
Now, Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's in favor of individual freedoms that allow an individual to own his or her own life. It's a basic tenet of libertarianism. But libertarians also believe that everyone is entitled to these personal freedoms. Everyone.
And that essentially put him at odds with Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and the current "golden boy", Mike Huckabee.
All of those men supported the war in Iraq, intervention in Iran if necessary ("necessary" was not defined in the debate) and an ongoing fight against Islamic extremists.
As I outlined in the first post of The Coming Shift, I intend to lean heavily on the writings and input of the entity, Seth, whose books, spanning four decades now, are seminal in explaining the nature of our reality.
Seth makes very clear in the 2004 book, 9-11: The Unknown Reality of the World, written by Cas Smith and Mark Frost, that, while that terrible terrorist act is unforgivable and those who perpetrated it are misguided and spiritually wrong, it serves as a wake-up call primarily for America but for the rest of the Western world, too.
And the message we should hear is one Ron Paul enunciated very clearly in Friday night's televised debate: the United States needs to treat other countries the way it wants to be treated in return. The Golden Rule in foreign policy terms, if you will.
Paul was laughed at by the other candidates. They clearly regard the congressman from Texas as a lightweight intellectually and politically. And they quickly cut him down to size with the usual political rhetoric about remaining strong in the face of terrorism, fighting to maintain America's principles of freedom from tyranny, defending the Bill of Rights ("life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all") and so on.
When Paul tried to point out that Islamic terrorists hate the United States largely because they are angry and fearful thanks to past U.S. transgressions, he was scoffed at once again.
Thompson, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee - all of them - said Islamic terrorists live to destroy the United States. What's implied is that there is no beginning point to their hatred, no source for it; Islamic terrorists are born to hate the United States.
Ron Paul was isolated and alone among the other candidates, his views considered fringe and simplistic.
And yet, in his own libertarian way, he was stating the same thing that Seth has laid out in his past works and in his current material.
If there was ever a greater indication needed that the Republican party is not ready for the Coming Shift, it was found in last night's debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment