Mark Steyn Calls Ron Paul's Worldview 'Sheer stupid, half-witted parochialism'

During Mark Steyn's regular appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show he explained why the "truther-ism" aspects of Paul's and his supporters beliefs wouldn't hold up.


From The Daily Caller:

“This by the way is not an irrelevant thing because it gets to the heart of the most disfiguring aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign — leaving aside his unpleasantness to Michele Bachmann the other night and all the rest of it — which is this stunted parochialism.” Steyn said. “Let’s say for a moment 9/11 was an inside job. Does that also mean the Bali night club bombing was an inside job? That the Madrid train bombing was an inside job? That the Beslan school shooting was an inside job? That the London tube bombings were an inside job? In that case, that’s one hell of a sum to be hiding somewhere within the darkest recesses of Dick Cheney’s specific line items.”

And that, says Steyn, along with his isolationist view on foreign policy, is where Paul “meets the left.”

“So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

Mark Steyn is spot on.


I have found further confirmation and explanation via Proof at Say Anything Blog that Ron Paul is much more of an isolationist than I had previously thought. In Proof's post Ron Paul On Foreign Policy: "Most Assuredly An Isolationist", Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Ron Paul, reveals Ron Paul's radically rigid isolationist foreign policy views. 


From Eric Dondero: 

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously.

But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay” (sic)…

I think this reveals a hard-core isolationism which is disturbing. How could Paul not see the legitimacy of the U.S. having entered WWII in order to stop Hitler from murdering countless Jews as well as other innocents?  This is where Paul's rugged individualism -every man for himself - conflicts with justice and promoting the common good.  We must protect those most vulnerable in our society. I guess this is another instance of his belief that states or a state has the right to do wrong, even if it is morally abhorrent.  That is an unjustifiably morally unacceptable position.  It would have been morally unacceptable for nations to allow the extermination of the Jews to continue.  Paul's foreign policy views are too dangerous not only for me but for all Americans, America, and for him to be commander-in-chief.  I cannot wrap my head around how any sane individual could hold these types of foreign policy beliefs.  

On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul, and Missionaries

Before starting this post I want to let everyone know that my entire family will be getting together to celebrate my parents 50th wedding anniversary so from tomorrow through Sunday I will be taking a break from blogging.  Hopefully next week my blogging will return back to normal, including Eagle Freedom Links and a rule 5 post returning next Saturday and Sunday.

Our foreign policy is so muddled right now that its mission needs to be much better defined and more limited in nature.  While I do think that Ron Paul's foreign policy is isolationalist to a degree (not trade policy) he makes some very good points about the U.S. needing to be less comingled/intertwined in other country's affairs.  While I still believe that it was right for us to enter both Iraq and Afghanistan to stop both perceived and imminent threats, I also think that in the case of Libya, Egypt, Africa, and other Middle Eastern countries' uprisings that we should stay out of those countries' affairs and Ron Paul is correct in saying that we should stop policing the world unless a country would be subjected to a Rwanda-style massacre.  In the case of Afghanistan we were responding to an act of war - 9/11 - just like we did after Pearl Harbor was attacked during WWII.

I do think that it is good if the United States influences other nations but should that necessarily include our military involvement?  Missionaries take care of the needy all over the world.  Their mission is to evangelize, help educate, assist with medical care, and bring the message of Christ around the world.  Maybe missionaries would have more success at converting individuals in foreign lands into a more civilized lifestyle where people are tolerant of all religions, so that those of different faiths could coexist as equals in civil society rather than U.S. militarily try to change the countries and its people?  Maybe we should leave the changing of minds, hearts, and souls to missionaries instead of having the military try to influence these peoples?

Now, if there is an imminent threat to our nation's national security I do think it would be necessary for us to respond militarily.

Does the U.S. Have a Policy on the Muslim Brotherhood?

It looks like the federal government - the United States - has no policy on the Muslim Brotherhood.  On the one hand I think this is pure incompetence on the part of the Obama administration.  On the other hand I question whether the administration could actually be that incompetent which would mean that this policy is being done purposely.  One never knows with this administration.  Incompetence or purposely?  Take your pick. Neither choice is good.  

 From The Washington Times:

The federal government has no strategy to counter the Muslim Brotherhood at home or abroad, according to the chairwoman of the House panel that oversees counterintelligence and terrorism.

“The federal government does not have a comprehensive or consistent strategy for dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups in America,” Rep. Sue Wilkins Myrick said during a hearing Wednesday. “Nor does it have a strategy for dealing with the Brotherhood in Egypt or the greater Middle East.”

The North Carolina Republican is chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee on terrorism, human intelligence, analysis and counterintelligence. Mrs. Myrick said at the hearing that she planned on scheduling closed classified hearings on the Muslim Brotherhood this session with government officials.

Established in 1928 in Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood is widely considered the first organization to push for political Islam or Islamism, a movement that seeks to replace civil law with Islamic or Shariah law.

Islamists were repressed for decades by the governments in countries such as Egypt and Tunisia. But with the wave of uprisings that have toppled those governments, political parties and social movements inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood may be poised to try to assume political power in those countries for the first time.

At the hearing, during which nongovernment experts gave testimony, opinions on this point differed.

Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said “deep concern” about the role the Muslim Brotherhoodwill play in Egypt is “warranted.”

“The Brotherhood is not, as some suggest, simply an Egyptian version of the March of Dimes - that is, a social welfare organization whose goals are fundamentally humanitarian,” he said. “On the contrary, theBrotherhood is a profoundly political organization that seeks to reorder Egyptian and broader Muslim society in an Islamist fashion.”

Nathan Brown, a professor at George Washington University and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood, disagreed.

He said the Brotherhood was not able to get more than 3 million votes inEgypt’s parliamentary election of 2005, despite winning 20 percent of the seats. He also noted that the supreme guide of the Brotherhood has said the group will contest only 30 percent of the seats in the parliament for now.

Mrs. Myrick was particularly concerned about the role the Muslim Brotherhood plays in the United States.

Documents that emerged from the FBI investigation and U.S. prosecution of a charity known as the Holy Land Foundation suggest that some U.S.-based Muslim groups sought to advance the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States.

“There are no buildings on K Street with ‘Muslim Brotherhood‘ in the lobby directory. Instead, the group spreads its influence through a large number of affiliated organizations throughout the country,” Mrs. Myricksaid.

“This allows the Muslim Brotherhood to muddy the water when it comes to foreign funding and influence and to hide behind groups that have plausible deniability of their involvement with the Brotherhood when necessary,” she added.

Lorenzo Vidino, a visiting fellow at the Rand Corp. who wrote “The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West,” said the group has affiliates in more than 80 countries.

But Mr. Vidino warned that there is no monolithic international Muslim Brotherhood that controls each affiliate. He said that Brotherhood affiliates in the West have not sought to turn their host countries into Islamic republics, for now.

Instead, the goal of Western groups is “preserving Islamic identity among Western Muslims,” he said.

Here is Eric Bolling interviewing both Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser from the American Islamic Forum on Democracy: 



We need some type of policy on how to handle the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR in the United States. I am not sure whether all, mostly, or just a small minority are Muslim extremists in those groups but we need to stop the extremists from subverting the Constitution for their own agenda along with stopping them from committing any threats or acts of terrorism against the United States.  In my opinion these groups need to be audited by the government to see where their funds are going, whether they are funding terrorist groups or not.  In addition, since the United States played at least some part in forcing Mubarak to resign then our government should have at least some influence in making sure that Egypt's government isn't going to be run by Islamic extremists.  Nathan Brown isn't concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood in this election because in the previous election they only received about 3 million votes and won 20 percent of the seats but the circumstances are different in the upcoming election.  In the last election the political system was not in turmoil just after the country's leader had been ousted from office like it is today. The Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohammed Badie thinks differently from Mr. Brown.