Commander-in-Chief Ron Paul?
Presenting the definitive illustrated rebuttal to the jihadists' candidate.
December 28, 2011 - 3:56 pm
The 1979 film Being There came to mind recently after I heard Ron Paul utter more of his irrational ideas on foreign policy — the gist of course being that the jihadist enemy wages war because of us “being over there.” In Being There, Peter Sellers plays a middle-aged, simple-minded gardener who hasn’t had any real contact with the outside world. After his benefactor dies, he has nowhere to go and so ends up wandering the streets of Washington, D.C. By literal accident, he enters the world of powerful Washington insiders who mistake him for a man of profound intelligence and introduce him to those in power.
No matter what he says, no matter how absurd, they believe it all to be profundity, even leading some to consider him a serious presidential candidate. And so it is with Ron Paul, that no matter what he says, he is still considered by some to be a serious presidential candidate. The most recent revelation about Paul’s destructive foreign policy ideas comes from an ex-aide to Paul who says, among many claims, that Paul opposed any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
I’ve created over a dozen Ron Paul cartoons and graphics within the last year and I’ve posted them all in the proceeding pages with the below making its debut here at PJ Media. Based on everything Ron Paul has said about the threats we face from the jihadist enemy, and his never mentioning the victims of the attacks against America, what would a President Ron Paul say and do if the enemy were to set off a nuke in America?
Next: Ron Paul: Originalist?
Below is a graphic that accompanied a blog post titled “Originalism is Ron Paul’s Undoing. Will it Be Ours?” In it, Amy Peikoff argues:
What we need… is not a candidate who accepts wholesale whatever our Founders, as great as they were, meant when they wrote and established the Constitution. Rather, we need a candidate who understands what policies are right for the United States - those that protect individual rights – and who will work either within the scope of the Constitution or, as might sometimes be necessary, to change the Constitution, in order to implement them.
Next: Think our response to jihad can’t get more ap.Paul.ling?
I did the below piece in Sept. 2010 after Paul pulled one of his, “They’re over here because we’re over there” excuses for the enemy, as if our being “over there” (for reasons that have everything to do with “them”) justifies Muslims flying planes into buildings in order to mass murder Americans. It was also a commentary on how weak the enemy viewed George “Islam means peace” Bush & Barack “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear” Obama. Either way, Paul makes even Obama look like a hawk.
Next: Whom would the enemy vote for?
I did the below graphic after Paul expressed regret over our killing of Osama bin Laden. Besides everything else that this says about him, it’s his absolute indifference to the victims of jihad that condemns him for me. For more about his foreign policy, generally, see: “Why I Won’t Vote For Ron Paul”
Next: Befriending our greatest enemy
I did this piece of Ron Paul and Ahmadinejad after Paul answered the question of how he would deter Iran from acquiring nukes with “maybe offering friendship to them.” Ron Paul speaks of offering American friendship to the greatest state sponsor of terrorism on earth which has American blood on its hands and which constantly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. And its “theme song” is “DEATH TO AMERICA!” This alone disqualifies him from the presidency, but don’t tell that to his supporters…..
Next: If you think Ron Paul is crazy….
I drew this after noticing that one too many Ron Paul supporters are not only willing to excuse his irrational ideas about foreign policy, without any attempt to defend them, but are also willing to threaten critics of Ron Paul in the guise of equating the murder of their fellow Americans with forcibly preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In a piece posted today, Daniel Greenfield argues that “The most troubling thing about the Ron Paul campaign is not Ron Paul, but his supporters.”
Next: Ron Paul’s foreign policy in one word
For more than one word on why “Ostrichism” should be the word used to describe Ron Paul’s foreign policy, see this post.
If you want to see more of my work, please visit my blog where you can get a glimpse at my current graphic novel, THE INFIDEL, featuring PIGMAN, the jihadists’ worst nightmare.