At last night’s Tea Party Express-sponsored Republican debate in Tampa, Florida, Ron Paul was loudly booed by the audience in the middle of a masterful lesson on the root causes of terrorism.  We have now come full circle, as the father of the Tea Party gets thrown under the bus for not being as bloodthirsty as the supposedly “pro-life” Rick Santorum.

Here is the exchange between the Peace Candidate and Pro-Death Rick:

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why people can’t understand the difference between explaining a criminal’s motives and justifying those motives.  Chickenhawk Rick accuses Dr. Paul of “blaming America” for the 9/11 attacks.  I challenge anyone to read the blog post that Santorum references and honestly conclude that Ron is “blaming America.”

On NPR this morning, I heard this same tripe repeated.  The reporter was getting reactions from tea partiers who attended the debate.  The only mention he made of Ron Paul at all was to point out that “some” attendees were displeased with him saying that the presence of American troops in Afghanistan “justified” more terrorist attacks against the US.

So much for unbiased journalism, because that is not what Dr. Paul said.  He simply explained that if we continue to follow a Santorumite foreign policy, we can expect to be under threat of more terrorist attacks.  That’s a warning, not a justification.  As if telling a child to stop poking a hornets’ nest means you side with the hornets.

Jack Hunter has a great blog entry today on Ron Paul’s official site pointing out the practical benefits of a Paulian foreign policy.  He asks what should be an obvious question: “Could you imagine police detectives trying to stop a serial killer while completely ignoring his motives?”  What if they just chalked up every murder to the fact that the murderer was just irrational and crazy?  How could they expect to ever solve a crime?  It’s preposterous on its face, and yet that is how we go about assessing terrorism.

Hunter brings up another great point, comparing the US to other “free and prosperous” nations that could easily be defined, in the words of Kill ‘Em All Rick, as “antithetical to the jihadists.”  What about Canada, or Switzerland, or any number of other countries that enjoy a similar level of Westernized political freedom that Al Qaeda hates so much?  Why aren’t they under the threat America faces from terrorism?  Could it possibly be because they aren’t engaged in global empire, with at least 1,000 bases in at least 150 countries?

Dr. Paul is at his best when he asks us to consider how we would feel if China or some other foreign power had troops on American soil.  This appeal to the Golden Rule really clarifies an issue often clouded by pride, propaganda, and over-zealous patriotism.  If we are willing as Americans to set ourselves apart as so qualitatively superior to the rest of the world that universal moral standards don’t apply to us, then we have utterly lost the idea of what America is all about in the first place.  How can we recite that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and then reserve those rights only for ourselves?

I am never more proud to be a Ron Paul supporter than when he is defending truth, justice, and peace in the area of foreign policy.  And if that means that the Tea Party hates him, then so be it, because they are the ones who have forsaken their founder.  I want Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination so bad it hurts, but if he loses because of his foreign policy, that’s OK with me; I’ll go down with him, proudly standing for peace and liberty.

Here is Ron Paul’s full set of highlights from last night: