Who Is Incoherent, Rush or Ron?

On Tuesday's program Rush Limbaugh said that everyone in the Republican debate from the night before did well except of course for the incoherent Ron Paul.

I'm the one who thinks it's never too late.  And I thought last night everybody -- except Ron Paul, and this was even good, he was incoherent.

 And later he said,

His foreign policy on Bin Laden and Saddam was incoherent.

Now I am not really certain what Ron Paul said that was incoherent. I don't remember him playing audio clips demonstrating this. He simply chastises his foreign policy once again. Yet I find it interesting that military members are donating more to Ron Paul's campaign than any other candidate combined. Is this because Ron is incoherent and military members are just stupid too?

Of course we get the typical statement by Rush that America is the solution.

Just like in the world, the United States is the solution to the world's problems, conservatives are the solution to America's problems.  There is a cultural divide in this country that has been created and erected by the left.  It's our version, as I said earlier in the program, of our own Berlin Wall.

Now why is America the solution? Is it because we stand for liberty and freedom? Why is Congress attempting to pass law after law undermining that liberty such as the Patriot Act and the current SOPA & PIPA Bills. Why does Rush complain how terrible our big bloated government is within our own borders while ignoring the very same problems as our government exports its tyranny all over the world?

Now Rush goes on to play sound bites of Newt:

We're in South Carolina.  South Carolina, in the Revolutionary War, had a young 13-year-old named Andrew Jackson.  He was sabred by a British officer and wore a scar his whole life.  Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies:  Kill them.  (cheers and applause)

To which Rush responds:

RUSH:  Kill them.  Andrew Jackson, another near standing ovation.  What did we get after 9/11?  We had the State Department putting together seminars, "Why do they hate us?  What did we do to cause this?"  Ron Paul (imitating Paul) "We don't need anymore wars.  What did we do? I mean, we have to understand, if we start bombing them, well, they bomb us."  Right.  Andrew Jackson: kill 'em.  And even today, ladies and gentlemen, there are lots of headlines tut-tutting over the violent rhetoric in last night's debate.  The violent rhetoric and headlines about how the Republicans promote child labor laws.  Home runs were hit last night.

So Rush considers Ron Paul's position incoherent. Now what is interesting about both Newt and Limbaugh's position is that it totally misses Ron's point. Notice they quote Andrew Jackson. But who is Andrew Jackson fighting against? He was fighting against the mighty British Empire of the world. England had tried to take back America under its authority.

Now think about this. Osama Bin Laden is not a part of an Empire. If we are going to be coherent and consistent, we would have to see Bin Laden as one who is under the thumb of an American Empire.

To put it another way, Andrew Jackson, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, and etc etc. were the terrorists of the day according to the British Empire.

Today the United States is the new British Empire. The United States literally has hundreds of bases throughout the world dropping bombs on all kinds of people. How does Rush Defend this? He simply mocks anyone who would say such a thing. On several radio programs Rush admits that this is a world ruled by the use of force. So I guess he's okay with bombing foreign countries into submission to America's demands.

So as far as I can tell, the Conservative solution is to go to war with everyone. And in attempting to make everyone bow down to us, we will go broke and lose true respect throughout the world. If Rush Limbaugh wants to be a true follower of our Framers, then let him listen to an often quoted Jefferson (as quoted on Lew Rockwell's website):

Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none

Here is the full quote:

About to enter, fellow citizens, on the exercise of duties which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is proper that you should understand what I deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently those which ought to shape its administration. I will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people — a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of the revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority — the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia — our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press; freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trail by juries impartially selected — these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation.

These are the principles Ron Paul actively promotes. I don't see Rush Limbaugh doing such. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument, and Rush is the one being inconsistent and incoherent.