Many have said that Herman Cain won last night's debate in South Carolina. Many critics of any candidate other than Ron Paul have attempted to diminish Herman Cain by calling him "pro Federal Reserve," and insist that Ron Paul's idea to audit the Federal Reserve will be some kind of panacea to our economic malaise. This is a silly argument, and does not demonstrate much consideration of the facts which led to out poor economic state.
As Mr. Cain has stated, we have bigger problems than the Federal Reserve. What is to be accomplished by an audit? Is not spending money, the exclusive authority of the House of Representatives, the real problem? I am no fan of the Federal Reserve, but if we spend every red cent coming into our government, and then borrow and spend more money, how is the Federal Reserve to blame?
I like Ron Paul's adherence to our Constitution. But his foreign policy based on his interpretation of our Constitution and the writings of our founders is bizarre. To say, in effect, that the islamo-fascist terror attacks against us were somehow our fault for being Americans is akin to blaming a woman for her own rape because she dresses provocatively. Mr. Paul's policy of non-intervention is isolationism, period. If any use of our military force outside of our borders is unconstitutional, then what is the purpose of our military? Is not one of the stated purposes of the Constitution "to provide for the common defence"? In an address to congress, President George Washington said, "Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard. To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." In a later address, Washington went further: "There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war." Self-preservation, not unlimited war, was the goal of the founders. This is reflected in Washington's remarks, and the writings and statements of many of his contemporaries.
Ron Paul, and his champions "Mike" and "the Southern Avenger," like to deride and insult conservatives or libertarians who believe in a strong foreign policy by calling them "neoconservatives." This is a thinly veiled anti-Semitic remark, and it is disgusting. Because our only ally in the middle east is Israel, they see any intervention by our military in the region as a prop in support of Israel. But they forget that there are people, and nations, in the world who wish us ill and make efforts to carry those wishes out. I would recommend the book The Threatening Storm, by Kenneth Pollack, to any reader who thinks that Ron Paul's opposition to the Iraq war "from before the beginning" was an honorable position.
Speaking of honorable, is calling yourself "the Southern Avenger" a good idea? Really? Just what are you avenging? What kind of neo-Confederate neo-secessionist loon would use that title? Do you have a big stack of Confederate money that your great-great-granddaddy saved, and you hope to cash in? Or do you think you are better and smarter than the rest of us dumb Yankees? Maybe you want to bring back to prominence the social club that Nathan Bedford Forrest started? You are an outlier, sir, the fringe of the fringe.