Great article dispelling the myth that Ron Paul is against Israel.

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

86 Responses

by RonPaul.com on August 14, 2011

Day after day we receive many questions aboutRon Paul’s stance on Israel and Iran. And while as grassroots supporters we do not speak for Ron Paul himself in any way, here’s how we understand his position.

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

First of all, it may come as a surprise to many that Ron Paul is actually the most pro-Israel candidate in the presidential race.

With hundreds of nuclear weapons in her possession, Israel has become the most powerful state in the Middle East. She could easily take on her neighbors and eliminate any and all threats to her existence.

Ron Paul would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.

Ending Foreign Aid Sets Israel Free

Ron Paul has also been criticized for wanting to “end foreign aid to Israel.” He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general. Foreign aid acts like an entitlement: eventually the recipient grows dependent on it and will do everything in his power to continue the flow of funds. This might even involve spending some of the already-received payments to “lobby” for more money.

Ron Paul believes this is a bad thing. Not only does foreign aid lead to corruption on both sides; it is inherently immoral. Ron Paul said that “foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country.”

If foreign aid to all countries were stopped immediately, Israel would be the biggest net beneficiary. This is because the U.S. pays much more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies combined than to Israel.

Like a discouraged unemployed person whose welfare payments are about to run out, Israel would finally have the motivation to take care of herself, for example by ending socialist domestic policies within Israel. This in turn would make Israel much stronger and more independent. Ending all foreign aid would indeed set Israel free.

Iran Is a Big Nobody

Iran is a large country, but from a military point of view they are a big nobody. They are surrounded by nuclear powers, they have no air force, no navy, and they are even incapable of producing as much gasoline as they need. Iranian officials are relegated to grudgingly hoping that “the Zionist regime will collapse”, which is the real meaning of Ahmadinejad’s infamous phrase frequently mistranslated as “we will wipe Israel off the map”.

It is understandable that Iran wants to gain the international respect they deserve as a country of 75 million people. But according to U.S. intelligence reports there are no indications whatsoever that Iran is actively working on creating or obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel Can Do What She Wants – But Leave America Out of It

If Israel believes that Iran might one day become a nuclear power and that such a development would be against her interests, Ron Paul would not stop Israel from doing whatever she deemed necessary to defend herself. Israeli assassination squads are already operating within Iran, and several Iranian nuclear scientists found themselves torn apart by mysterious explosions over the past few years. Ron Paul did not interfere. In fact, he would not even prevent Israel from initiating a devastating nuclear attack on Iran.

However, neither would Ron Paul allow American lives to be sacrificed for Israeli interests. If Israeli officials knew that American kids will not throw themselves into the line of fire whenever Israel feels threatened by the boastful words of some wannabe dictator, Israel will act more responsibly when dealing with her neighbors – and grow much stronger for it.

Ron Paul Will Allow Israel to Blossom

Like it or not, Ron Paul is the most pro-Israel candidate out there. His wise policies – not by design, but by pure logical consequence – will permit Israel to grow and blossom as a truly free, independent and powerful state.

This article does not claim to represent Ron Paul’s official position on Israel and Iran. It’s just a summary of how we – as his grassroots supporters – interpret his statements on the issue. Please post a comment if you believe we misinterpreted Ron Paul’s position.

Another Ron Paul Prophecy (Comes True)

In 2008 Ron Paul offered a clear prediction that beyond rhetoric, Obama would offer no real change. Rather, an Obama Administration would maintain the same broken monetary, military and social policy status quo.

Unfunded Liabilities, Or Why Ron Paul Is The Most Moderate Candidate

The popular notion is that Dr. Ron Paul is an "extremist" for wanting to slash a trillion dollars off the federal budget and to significantly reform social security and other entitlement programs. But, a serious study of the the Unfunded Liabilities (that difference between financial promises via social security, medicare, pension plans, etc. and projected funds) that the United States faces, demonstrates that Dr. Paul is the most moderate candidate. The real radicals are the Democrats and Republicans that defend the completely unsustainable fiscal status quo that has led us to over $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

Updated 6/13/2011 7:31 PM |

 1409 |  62

Share

Reprints & Permissions

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

• STORY: Government's mountain of debt

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.

"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.

USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.

The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.

They Hate Us For Our Freedom?

Ron Paul, The Last of the Truth Tellers

Virtually every politician tells the electorate what they want to hear, not what needs to be heard. No where is this more obvious than in the realm of foreign policy. The popular narrative that we were attacked on 9/11 because the jihadists "hate our freedom" does not stand up to critical analysis. I (unlike most of my progressive compatriots) fully acknowledge that the primary force behind the growth in radical Islamic movements is the violent, retrograde elements in Islamic Culture. Such movements emerged as a response to the failures of Arab Socialism and Nationalism to improve the lives of its citizenry and more importantly to redeem their honor by vanquishing Israel. Yet, clearly if the United States were not perpetually involved in the political affairs of the middle east, we would not be the target of their ire, or more specifically the convenient excuse for their continued economic, political and social failures. While our intentions may be beneficent, in  the world of foreign affairs, perception is reality and we are perceived by much of the Arab-Islamic world as crusaders and supporters of despots such as Hosni Mubarak and the House of Saud. One can despise us from afar for our differences, but will almost never actively engage in conflict unless we are foolish enough to meddle in their affairs. In other words, a major cause of the terrorist threat that we face is our imperial foreign policy. Dr. Ron Paul is one of the few politicians brave enough to acknowledge this highly unpopular position. The wisest course of action would be to trade with all and meddle with none. Listen to and learn from this short and very informative video.

To The People of Greece (And The United States)

To the people of Greece - my heart goes out to you; unemployment is spiraling, wages are plummeting and your social safety net is being torn asunder. You can protest and riot against austerity all you want, but it is inescapable; those who live beyond their means and amass unsustainable debt, shall one day live beneath it. Your choices are to institute a regimen of harsh austerity now and pay your debt or default and cut off future credit and face even graver economic instability in the future. On the other hand, the size of the American Economy and the role of the dollar as the de-facto global currency gives us much greater leeway in amassing debt and pursuing monetary tricks, in order to put off our inevitable date with austerity. For decades the American people have accepted the bi-partisan platform of expanding the warfare and welfare state while slashing taxes. This is not the fault of the political establishment, but of the American People, for we elect the Democrats and Republicans, the Bush's and Obama's, who promise the impossible and write off the few voices of conscience and reason, like Dr. Ron Paul, as "kooks" and "radicals." And we as a people chose the path of spending, borrowing and of demanding impossible entitlements from the state. But, the die has been set and sooner than later we will be forced by the iron laws of economics to live beneath our means. If we can summon up the seemingly exhausted wisdom and fortitude of generations past, we can begin to toil, save and invest, so that perhaps our children or grandchildren can live well.

Dr. Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!

Once again Dr. Ron Paul is one of the few voices of conscience and reason in Washington, a true critic against the broken bi-partisan policy of reckless foreign intervention, endless warfare and nation building. Specifically he warns against involvement in the Libyan Civil War, especially while we are still involved in the costly quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. How anyone who claims to be an anti-war liberal can support Obama is beyond me. How anyone can call themselves a small government conservative and support the most reckless form of state intervention, (non-defensive) warfare is even more mind boggling. Listen and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-qm9U3X3EU

Is Ron Paul Secretly A Wizard?

Various friends and family have commented that they could never support a Ron Paul Presidency because "his positions are too extreme...he is an isolationist...he would cut all aid to all countries...he would radically slash spending and shrink the size and scope of government to dangerous levels..."

Unless Dr. Paul is secretly a wizard who possesses magical powers that would enable him to become the first politician in American history to push through their entire platform without making huge compromises, these concerns are totally groundless.

Such a wizard would have to magically disarm the very powerful interests and their well funded lobbyists who would fight tooth and nail to protect the programs, policies and subsidies that benefit them.

Such a wizard would have to invoke a powerful spell to change the minds and hearts of the millions of Americans who would raise high hell if anyone touched the entitlements that they have become addicted to.

And to forge a completely non-interventionist foreign policy, he would have to cast a powerful spell that would return the United States to an epoch (over 100 years ago) when the majority of Americans were not yet convinced of the merits of being "globo cop."

So, if Dr. Paul and his followers could not achieve their end goals, what good could they accomplish? And better yet, why should you support someone whose end goals you may not share?

The answer is that even the best of mainstream democratic and republican reformers have only been able to shift our trajectory by a few degrees, when real change is needed to address unsustainable domestic and foreign policies. As president Dr. Paul would quickly learn that his only options would be to get his reforms voted down or to pass them by making significant compromises. This means that he would have to focus on reforms that would generate manageable resistance from lobbyists and the American People.

So, while he would not be able to achieve "isolationism," he might be able to curb our nation building impulse, which has cost us countless lives and trillions of dollars. A more modest, reserved foreign policy is a prospect that most liberals and conservatives could agree upon.

And while he may be able to eliminate aid to the unpopular regime in Pakistan, he would almost certainly compromise on "political landmines," like aid to Israel and funding HIV Treatment in Sub Saharan Africa.

In his quest to eliminate subsidies, he would score victories against easy targets like oil, tobacco, petroleum and bio fuels (that have driven up food prices), but would face stiff resistance if he were to go against student loans. In other words, he may be able to achieve a more balanced, rational regimen of subsidies.

Regarding social issues, he might be the least contentious president of our time, because he would seek to maximize the extent to which states determined their own drug, marriage and abortion policies. It would take a great deal of effort to shift the debate away from divisive national cultural wars towards a more intelligent one centered on a discussion of merits of self governance and tolerance for culturally and politically diverse communities, but it would be tremendously beneficial for the nation. And while Dr. Paul would never be able to achieve the level of local control that he hopes for, he may be able to curb the worst examples of centralization of power.

Under the best of circumstances he might be able to curb the most noxious examples of waste, warfare and welfare, but he would never be able to create the libertarian heaven or hell that his followers dream of his and opponents fear. But, it doesn't take a wizard to see that if we keep on choosing the same Democrats and same Republicans, we will continue down the path to fiscal ruin.

A Zionist Paulista?

A good friend of mine cannot fathom how I, a Jew who proudly supports Israel, can look favorably upon Ron Paul or any other individual who is opposed to American aid to Israel. He even equated Dr. Paul's position as being indicative of anti-semitism, which is a cheap, ad hominem attack. Before we go on, it's important to emphasize that unlike many on the left, Dr. Paul does not single Israel out, but simply questions the wisdom of interfering in the political affairs of other nations, especially the volatile middle east. In order to better understand this issue, we must dig deeper and explore some underlying realities. First and foremost, it is unwise and even unethical for a government that is deep in debt and cannot meet the needs of it own citizens to financially support other nations. Granted, as an ally and a modern, market oriented democracy, Israel is the most sensible example of foreign aid, but broke is broke. Clearly, our invasive military and political presence in the middle east has helped feed the growing anti-American sentiments in that region. And as regressive as this may sound to those who have been subject to multicultural ideology; our first loyalty must be to the United States.

Given the fact that (for good and for bad) the American political process is characterized by lobbying, conflict, negotiation and ultimately compromise, barring aside financial insolvency, it is virtually impossible that aid to Israel would be eliminated. I cannot think of an example in which a politician was able to pass a "pure bill" that was not subject to compromise. In the unlikely event that a bill to eliminate all foreign made its way into the halls of the senate, we can be certain that it would immediately face a barrage of attacks from a multitude of well endowed lobbyist. First and foremost among them would be powerful pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC. Very quickly Dr. Paul and his supporters would see that their only options would be to fight and fail to get the bill passed in its original form or to make significant compromises. Such a consensus bill would address the most noxious examples of foreign aid, such as the billions that we give to corrupt despots, such as the (former) president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak and the Palestinian Authority. And the most favorable and politically protected recipients of foreign aid, such as Israel, would be the last one to make it to the chopping block. So, rather than write off Dr. Paul's, because of a policy that he would never be able to pass, we should focus on the badly needed reforms that he may be able to push through the rotten halls of Congress.

An argument that is rarely heard, but I support is that American aid has not always been in Israel's interest. Specifically, it has allowed the United States to pressure Israel into pursuing policies that are not necessarily its interest. I am quite confident that Israel would have withdrawn from the dead end peace negotiations that have eroded Israel's security while offering zero tangible benefits. Were it not for American financial pressure Israel would have responded more decisively to end the intolerable barrage of missiles and mortar fire that emanated from hamas controlled Gaza. And many believe that Israel would have already dealt with the looming threat of a nuclear Iran. Conversely, some leftists believe (due to cognitive impairment) that American aid has allowed Israel to "avoid making necessary concessions towards peace." Either way, I believe that the benefits of foreign aid are outweighed by the costs of reduced sovereignty that it imposes. Under a pro-Israel president like GW Bush, interference may have been minimal, but under the Obama Administration pressure to offer greater concessions to the Palestinians is likely to grow. On a side note, I believe that American aid has indirectly allowed Israel to put off making necessary domestic reforms like addressing the rampant welfare dependency present in its Haredi communities and trimming a still bloated public sector. I am not very religious, but it is worth noting that even the Torah cautions the People of Israel on putting too much faith in alliances with the great power of the day.

So, what is a Zionist Libertarian to do? The answer reflects the larger libertarian philosophy that a diminished state means that we, as individuals, communities and civic organization are responsible for the welfare of our fellow man. Rather than aggressively lobby the federal government to transfer wealth from American taxpayers to the Israeli Government, we as Jews, we as Zionists must support our beloved Israel with our own money, with our labor. An uncomfortably but important element in this discussion is the bad light that that the Israel lobby has cast on Jewish communities. Even reasonable Americans who do not harbor an iota of anti-semitism cannot help but look unfavorably at those who support lobbyists who place the interests of other nations above the United States, especially during times of economic scarcity. Before the American government began offering financial assistance, the primarily source of foreign aid to Israel was the American Jewish communities who freely and generously gave. In contrast to ethno-political lobbying, such civic involvement reflects the best of Jewish and American traditions.

Going Agains The Tide

In 2001, few politicians were willing to openly question the flawed reasoning and outright lies used to justify the impending war in Iraq. Those who did so risked being accused of being "soft on terrorism" on "unpatriotic." No politician went against the tide as much as Ron Paul. So called conservatives should understand that the impulse to intervene, build and shape other nations represents the height of the statist-leftist hubris that they so detest. They wisely question the wisdom of allowing the state to freely engage in social and economic engineering within the United States, yet they encouraged it to do so in other nations, at such a great cost in lives and money.

Ron Paul on Another War Against Iraq

by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75 – the resolution clause stating that by not obeying a UN resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been committing an "act of aggression" against the United States – what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our attention from what should be our number one priority at this time: finding and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution to our problems in the Middle East – many of which were caused by our interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, "I never saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas coming from various quarters about, 'let's go bomb.'"

House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just after the terrorist attack, states that, "The president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." From all that we know at present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen "evidence" of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for example, the "smoking gun" of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that "the Prague meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against Iraq." The Times goes on to suggest that the "Mohamad Atta" who was in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi involvement in the anthrax scare in the United States – a theory forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former CIA director James Woolsey – have, with the revelation that the anthrax is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.

Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN Chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter – who lead some thirty inspection missions to Iraq – come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, "In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing...Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none." Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?

The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that Iraq attacked Iran some twenty years ago. What the legislation fails to mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and counted on technical and military support from the United States in its war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of Kuwait more than ten years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in the New York Times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.

We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of our European allies – critical in maintaining this coalition – have explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was "completely united" in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian President Vladimir Putin cautioned recently against American military action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for Iraq, the Russian president said, "...so far I have no confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we are fighting against." Relations with our European allies would suffer should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.

Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the attack, but a certain backlash from all Gulf and Arab states could well produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the coalition that, "If we want to keep consensus...we should not resort, after Afghanistan, to military means."

I do not understand this push to seek out another country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other, we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?

In conclusion, this legislation, even in its watered-down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly seems the time to go out in search of new battles.

December 21, 2001

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Real Change You Can Believe In

Dr. Ron Paul has consistently and bravely spoken out against America's perpetual state of warfare and failed war on drugs, both which have cost us billions and eroded our civil liberties. No other politician has done more to champion fiscal responsibility, transparency and an end to corporate welfare. Unlike our very disappointing president, Dr. Paul represents real change you can believe in. To listen to a great speech he gave, click on the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBPPBKcre0Y

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars

While I am not in total agreement with Dr. Ron Paul's foreign policy vision, he is correct that our deviation from constitutional protocols regarding warfare have led to our disastrous
conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These protocols were put in place by the Founding Fathers, to avoid having the United States getting trapped in the endless wars and foreign entanglements that have lead many nations to tyranny and penury. For good reason, the constitution does not allow the president to arbitrarily launch wars, rather wars must be formally declared by the Congress. Although the Congress is not immune to militarism, its decisions are generally subject to greater scrutiny and debate than the "police actions" launched by the executive branch. A war on terrorism may be necessary, but it cannot be open ended and ill-defined, it must be be conducted in conformity to the letter and spirit of the constitution.

The Trouble With Unconstitutional Wars

August 04, 2010

by Dr. Ron Paul

Our foreign policy was in the spotlight last week, which is exactly where it should be. Almost two years ago many voters elected someone they thought would lead us to a more peaceful, rational co-existence with other countries. However, while attention has been focused on the administration's disastrous economic policies, its equally disastrous foreign policies have exacerbated our problems overseas. Especially in times of economic crisis, we cannot afford to ignore costly foreign policy mistakes. That's why it is important that U.S. foreign policy receive some much needed attention in the media, as it did last week with the leaked documents scandal.
Many are saying that the Wikileaks documents tell us nothing new. In some ways this is true. Most Americans knew that we have been fighting losing battles. These documents show just how bad it really is. The revelation that Pakistani intelligence is assisting the people we are bombing in Afghanistan shows the quality of friends we are making with our foreign policy. This kind of thing supports points that Rep. Dennis Kucinich and I tried to make on the House floor last week with a privileged resolution that would have directed the administration to remove troops from Pakistan pursuant to the War Powers Resolution.

We are not at war with Pakistan. Congress has made no declaration of war. (Actually, we made no declaration of war on Iraq or Afghanistan either, but that is another matter.) Yet we have troops in Pakistan engaging in hostile activities, conducting drone attacks and killing people. We sometimes manage to kill someone who has been identified as an enemy, yet we also kill about 10 civilians for every 1 of those. Pakistani civilians are angered by this, yet their leadership is mollified by our billions in bribe money. We just passed an appropriations bill that will send another $7.5 billion to Pakistan. One wonders how much of this money will end up helping the Taliban. This whole operation is clearly counterproductive, inappropriate, immoral and every American who values the rule of law should be outraged. Yet these activities are being done so quietly that most Americans, as well as most members of the House, don't even know about them.

We should follow constitutional protocol when going to war. It is there for a reason. If we are legitimately attacked, it is the job of Congress to declare war. We then fight the war, win it and come home. War should be efficient, decisive and rare. However, when Congress shirks its duty and just gives the administration whatever it wants with no real oversight or meaningful debate, wars are never-ending, wasteful, and political. Our so-called wars have become a perpetual drain on our economy and liberty.

The founders knew that heads of state are far too eager to engage in military conflicts. That is why they entrusted the power to go to war with the deliberative body closest to the people – the Congress. Decisions to go to war need to be supported by the people. War should not be covert or casual. We absolutely should not be paying off leaders of a country while killing their civilians without expecting to create a lot of new problems. This is not what America is supposed to be about.

Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks?

Agree or disagree with his positions, Dr. Ron Paul is always thought provoking, especially in his heterodox analysis of the WikiLeaks controversy. With the proliferation of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction that we are witnessing, I do not think his approach to foreign policy is realistic, however, he is one of the few politicians who offers a much needed challenge to the status quo. And the system badly needs more politicians who err on the side of: peace, non-intervention, transparency and careful adherence to constitutional rule, especially after 10 years of GW Bush and Obama.

Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks

December 07, 2010

by Dr. Ron Paul

We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the Wikileaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.

At its core, the Wikileaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.

No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?

In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post-World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.

Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk.

The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the Wikileaks revelations is so predictable: "See, we told you the world was a dangerous place," goes the story. They claim we must prosecute – or even assassinate – those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.

We should view the Wikileaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1580/Focus-on-the-Policy-Not-WikiLeaks.html

More Victims of the War on Drugs (part II)

Dr. Ron Paul is the most outspoken critic of the war on drugs, needless warfare in the middle east and Washington's destructive fiscal policies. I urge you to really listen to Dr. Paul and although you may not agree with every one of his points, you will see that he is intelligent, honest and willing to challenge the status quo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvFYCky0muY

Sex, Drugs & Rockin' Ron Paul

A Real Man of Change


Most progressives share my opposition to the war on drugs, but fail to treat it as a symptom of an underlying political disorder. Few view it as a symptom of the federal government's increasing disregard for constitution boundaries. As dictated by the 10th Amendment, the regulation of substances falls under a broad category of activities that are reserved for states and communities. And on a deeper level most progressives fail to see that the war on drugs is the natural outcome of a progressive nanny state driven by the belief that citizens must be cared for and protected from themselves by wise bureaucrats and "experts." The only major politician that publicly acknowledged this truth and calls for real change is Dr. Ron Paul.

Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate

by John Stossel

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul opposes things like prostitution and drug use, but he says the federal government has no business trying to stop adults from engaging in them. Freedom of choice, he says, shouldn't just be restricted to choices he approves of. It's the job of the federal government, says the congressman, to protect us from external threats, but it should not try to protect us from ourselves.

Here's the final edited installment of my interview with him.

John Stossel: Would you legalize marijuana, cocaine and heroin?

Ron Paul: I would get the government out of regulating all those substances and would allow the states to deal with the problems, such as whether children can buy cigarettes and alcohol or hard drugs or marijuana. Different states would probably do different things. The first federal law against marijuana was in 1938 -- the government (controlled marijuana) through high taxation because it knew it didn't have authority to say that you're not allowed to smoke marijuana. Today it's gone berserk. The federal government overrules a state (California) that has legalized marijuana for very sick people with AIDS and cancer. That's how absurd the war on drugs has become.

Could a state legalize heroin?

Under our federal system of government, that would be the case. If you ask the people who are against (legalization of heroin) if they would use it, they say, "Oh, no, I wouldn't use it! It's always those other people that might use it, so I have to take care of them and prevent them from doing harm to themselves."

Is that a proper role for government?

No, I don't believe so. The government should not be involved in personal habits. I have no problem with state laws that protect children from the use of these drugs. But under the Constitution, the president and the federal government wouldn't have a say in it.

Should gays be allowed to marry?

Sure. They can do whatever they want, and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but gay couples can do what they want. I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function; it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage. But a hundred years or so ago, for health reasons, the state claimed that to protect us, you had to get a license to get married. I don't agree with that.

Prostitution?

I think when you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice. You can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms. I don't believe government can legislate virtue. I can reject (vice) personally and preach against it, whether it's drugs or prostitution, but my solution comes from my personal behavior and how I raise my children. Whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice.

You seem to be saying that adults own their own bodies. If a woman wants to rent hers out or someone wants to smoke crack, that's their business.

Yeah. People make bad choices in religion and philosophy, but we don't regulate their thinking or their religious beliefs if they're not harming other people. That's why I defend this position that government can't protect individuals from themselves. It's just impossible. (And when it tries) it becomes a tyrannical state.

Which brings us to abortion. What do you think of Roe vs. Wade?

It was a federal encroachment over state laws, so I wouldn't have that.

So some states might outlaw abortion, and other states would allow it. That'd be OK with you?

That is right. Under our system, unless you change the Constitution, that's the way it should be taken care of.

You consider it murder, but it should be allowed if a state so chooses?

I don't use that term. I (say it is) a tragic set of circumstances, and life should be protected.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2008/01/09/live_and_let_live,_says_one_candidate?page=full&comments=true

Common Ground Between Progressives & Conservatives: Dr. Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul (R - Texas)

Even though my "progressive" surely disagree with many of Ron Paul's points, I hope that they can find common ground with Dr. Paul's criticism of our grossly irresponsible fiscal and foreign policy. As a staunch supporter of free market economics, Dr. Paul is vehemently opposed to subsidies and selective treatment of connected corporations, which "progressives" usually refer to as "corporate welfare." Although the reasoning of both sides may be different, there are points where they can work together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSRvnXtrmtE

Knights of the Old Republic

The republic has become an empire. Who will save us?

Dr. Paul is on the Ball!

Scroll down to check out this interview with Dr. Paul - once again he is on the ball!

There's nothing inherently wrong with a big business as long as they arrived at and maintain their size by providing goods and services that the public desires. Look at the Fortune 500 from today and from 30 years ago and you will see a long list of "corporate monopolies" that are no longer on the list or no longer even exist, because newer, more innovative companies provided better, more cost effective goods and services.

A big business is only problematic when it:

1. Arrived at or maintains it size and market dominance through government subsidies, preferential treatment, i.e. "corporate welfare" and anti-competitive regulations that limit the entry of new players into the market.

2. It has a truly dangerous product that the market or the government has failed to regulate. In the age of the instantaneous global communication, vigilant safety advocacy groups and an increasingly educated public, the market is usually quick to punish companies that produce truly dangerous products. China's loss of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the lead scare improved the safety of its products to a degree and at a speed far greater than any corrupt regulatory body could hope to do. And those that provided lead free products from the beginning gained a competitive advantage, profited and grew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nODyj8H68TA