Kimberley A. Strassel is the Wall Street Journal’s political writer. She has a column every week in which she discusses politics in Washington.

This week she devoted her column to Ron Paul.

There is one thing that stands out in the article:

Only Paul supports small government.

She admits this again and again in the article. Do you want less government? Do you want more liberty? Do you want more responsibility for your own life? Only Paul is addressing these fundamental issues. Only Paul is pushing these issues.

So should I be happy that a mainstream article has finally pointed this out? Let’s examine the article.

First, Strassel calls Paul “kooky.” Well, a spades a spade. If Paul’s a kook, then perhaps he should be called one. But exactly why is it she thinks he’s a kook? Let’s look at some quotes from the article.

He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today’s terror world.

So we live in a terror world. Just roll that one across your tongue a few times. Terror World. In a Terror World, you need a proactive foreign policy. In other words, you need to go out and kill those guys before they kill you. That’s Terror World.

I mean, can you be any more statist than that? Don’t worry the government is here to protect you. You can’t protect yourself, it’s a Terror World.

Let me tell you this, the government was supposed to be protecting you on 9/11. Did they? So what is the answer? More government? And to say otherwise is to be kooky?

Paul offers a serious challenge to the established statist position (fully embraced by nearly all Republican and Democratic candidates.) He argues:

• If individual Americans had been allowed to take more responsibility for their own security, 9/11 might not have happened. (According to Federal regulations pilots can’t have guns, even if the pilot, the airline, and the passengers want them to have a gun. No guns for pilots. Guns are too dangerous.)
• If American policy in the middle-east had not been so invasive and overbearing, people would have been much less lacking in incentive to carry out any attack. American foreign policy is not a free lunch. There is blowback.

Could Ron Paul be wrong on these issues? Yeah, he could be. But he’s offering — gasp — an alternative view. The Democrats and the Republicans share virtually an identical view:

• You are not responsible for your security.
• America must secure the world.

Shouldn’t at least one party being arguing against this? Is it really kooky to say we want more responsibility for our security? Is it really kooky to suggest the world might not crumble to pieces without a super power holding it together?

Fine, disagree with Paul. Argue for a big powerful state that is responsible for your security and the security of the world. But please recognize the seriousness of Paul’s challenge. Don’t dismiss it as kooky.

I mean, my God, both conservatives and liberals have embraced the concept that the state must protect you and the world, and to argue otherwise is now kooky? If that’s how far we come, then we really, really, really need Ron Paul.

Another quote from the article.

One shame of this race is that for all the enthusiasm the Texan has generated among voters, he hasn’t managed to pressure the front-runners toward his positions. His more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a “North American Union”) and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.

This is plainly false. Why is it that the WSJ can print something that is plainly false. Ron Paul does not believe in a conspiracy to create a “North American Union”. What he has stated is that it will be a natural consequence of both the actions and the ideas fully embraced now by both Republicans and Democrats. And he is exactly right.

Ron Paul has noted that the North Atlantic Free Trade agreement is not really about free trade, which Ron Paul supports. Instead, it is about managed trade. It is about making sure that the big government oversight, regulation, and controls that exists in America also exist in Canada and Mexico.

Now let me ask you something. What could possibly fulfill that goal better than integration? Ron Paul knows what the statists are headed towards better than they do themselves, because he understands the logical consequences of their actions and ideas. There’s nothing kooky about it.

Now Lou Dobbs, he might be kooky:

But then again.

Go back and look at the last quote I gave. Note the bizarre twist. Ron Paul is “violently anti-war”. So it’s violent now to be anti-war? Who is Strassell kidding? Moreover, Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense, and he believes in defensive war. He supports just war theory. He has never advocated passivism.

So his anti-war views are only extreme when you juxtapose them against the view America needs to be providing security for the entire world.

To not want America to maintain security for the entire world is to be “violently anti-war”? Breathtaking.

Finally the biggest blooper of them all.

Mr. Paul isn’t going to be president.

We’ll we’ve seen this before, haven’t we?

10 Ron Paul can’t win
20 Ron Paul can’t win
30 Ron Paul can’t win
40 Ron Paul can’t win
50 Ron Paul can’t win
60 Ron Paul can’t win
70 Ron Paul can’t win
80 Ron Paul can’t win
90 Go back to line 10

They just keep saying it over and over and over and over again.

Well, whether he wins or not is not up to them. It’s up to you. What are you going to do about it?

Here’s the link –>

Ron Paul 2008.

Click it already.