Ron Paul is a true leader. Here he is on the floor of the House yesterday denouncing the militant calls for blockading Iran and asking how Americans would feel if our ports were blocked. He notes that Iran’s missile-testing followed Israel’s war exercises demonstrating that its planes could reach Iran.
“There is nothing wrong with talking to people. We talked to the Soviets, in the midst of the Cold War… How many countries have nukes around them? Pakistan has them. India has them. Israel has them. We have them. China has them, the Soviets have them.”
Paul has an intellectual manner and a gracious way of speaking. He reaches out to American Jews. He quotes Congressmen Barney Frank and Robert Wexler saying that a blockade goes too far. He cites this beautiful statement by J Street– the new Israel lobby, he calls it–saying that Israel should not attack Iran, and the U.S. should not help Israel attack Iran.
I’m a cockeyed optimist. My country is gaining awareness day by day. Paul or his advisers Leon Hadar and Robert Pape will have a place in the Obama Administration.
(Thanks to Peter Voskamp for the headsup.)
Related Posts
- ‘J Street’ Stopped AIPAC From Getting Congressional Signatures on Anti-Iran Napkin
- Israel Believes Obama Will ‘Deprive’ It of Political Support for Iran Attack
- Jews for Ron Paul
- Hark, Obama: ‘For the last 30 years the most important issue of my life has been peace in the holy land’ (Jimmy Carter)
- Will Rising Political Temperature over Iran Compel Journalists to Look at the Israel Lobby?
{ 32 comments }
Thankfully we have Obama running rather than Paul.
Re: Israel. Obama will act for mutual security, whereas Paul would have been likely to just abandon obligations.
Re: Economy. Obama will restore to a status of responsible and enforced regulation, and rational tax policy.
Paul proposed to de-regulate nearly everything, and pursue the policy of tax reduction/elimination as somehow fiscally responsible.
Is Paul more like Obama or like McCain? As the economy is a FAR more significant area of issues in the current, Paul is republican dyed and true, supertrue to a dying and killing thesis (less taxes is by definition better taxes).
Unfortunately, the JPost reports that Israeli planes are practicing over Iraqi air space.
This can only mean that an attack will occur very soon.
We're f—ed.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330937574&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Obama has regularly voted for funding the Iraq war, how can you be against the war when you vote for its continuation?
Obama (a Con Law teacher) just recently help put another nail in the Constitution with the FISA bill. We can be spied on and tapped for any "suspicious" reason.
Obama is not fighting against the banking cartel and our federal reserve system, which has caused so much harm to us as a people. The fed funds wars, and massive entitlements here at home.
Obama voted against a bill that would require doctors to save an aborted baby, if it comes out alive. He voted AGAINST! Heartless.
I would suggest reading up on the effects of government intervention in the economy (Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt) and around the world (Blowback by Chalmers Johnson)
What is the lifeblood of any economy? Money. What is our dollar? Paper.
Our dollar is collapsing, unemployment is up, productivity is at a low. More government intervention will only prolong this.
Obama's change will not address this. He is more of a socialist it sounds like than a Constitutional Law professor.
Mcbama.
Richard, that's a terribly flawed understanding of Ron Paul's platform or political positions.
You completely misunderstand Paul's economic policy. His first line of attack, is to cut spending, not to just cut taxes. In case you haven't noticed, the dollar is tanking and the country is insolvent. Long term projections see our entire future taxes paying almost exclusively the interest on Chinese and Japanese debt, enriching those nations and impoverishing our own. Our future social security and medicare obligations are unfunded to the tune of 10s of trillions of dollars over the next 2 decades.
No country ever taxed itself to prosperity. Paul intended to, and keeps fighting to free up the creative energy of small business, to restore rational spending (not rational taxing which is an oxymoron ), and to promote individual liberty.
Your understanding of fiscal and monetary policy seems only surface deep. I advise you to understand and consider, that the government has no limit on debt spending, and will continue spending regardless if taxes are 10% higher or lower. They are totally unconstrained by revenue, and that is why attacking taxes only, either cutting as Paul would, or increasing as Obama claims, is pointless. There has to be spending cuts, and Paul was the ONLY candidate running this primary, who advocating cutting back government, killing waste and restoring accountability.
Paul is a true Statesman. And yes some things do need deregulating. And No Income tax was on Paul's Agenda, but he knew it couldn't happen overnight. Its the only way to force government to be fiscally responsible. If they can't live within a 800 billion dollar budget (that's what they would have without income tax) then they need to learn to go without. And Israel is not our responsibility, IRAQ isn't our responsibility. Read the constitution once in a while, we have no authority unless we are directly attacked or one is imminent.
Nathan,
And you embellish Paul's proposal.
What would he cut? That is the proper area of legislative power. If the legislature enacts a program, that is its power unless expressly unconstitutional (most of which is undefined one way or another).
Bush stated that he wished to cut spending as well, as does McCain (without naming ANYTHING)
And why did he not oppose the tax cuts in 2001 – 2003, without reductions in government spending?
How is his view different than that old con?
Nathan,
And you embellish Paul's proposal.
What would he cut?
-One is easy, foreign Policy, we are an empire all over the world.
That is the proper area of legislative power. If the legislature enacts a program, that is its power unless expressly unconstitutional (most of which is undefined one way or another). – Constitutionally sound money would put things in perspective mighty fast. If we were directly taxed for all of these programs (whatever they are) there would be a revolt. Inflation eases the feeling of hardship and spreads it out. Sound money is the opposite of inflation. The constitution explicitly condemned bills of credit.
Bush stated that he wished to cut spending as well, as does McCain (without naming ANYTHING)
- Department of Ed (how has that helped), Department of Energy (Free markts are far more efficient) many more.
And why did he not oppose the tax cuts in 2001 – 2003, without reductions in government spending?
- He represents people who want some of their money back, any way to keep money that we earn in our pockets, he will do.
How is his view different than that old con?
- He is principled.
It is a cockeyed world when an erratic state with dangerous nuclear weapons, Israel, can assume the moral high ground and claim the right to attack a neighbour, Iran, which has zero nuclear weapons, and, by all accounts, doesn't want any.
As far as I know, the NIE assessment of last year is still current.
"WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 — A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/world/middleeast/03cnd-iran.html
Ron Paul is to be commended for adding a touch of reality to the US political scene.
Ron Paul has more integrity in his little finger than the rest of Zionist occupied Washington combined. It’s really too bad that the so called opposition is so craven and cowardly, but what should one expect from a generation with zero moral principles? The makings of this current Iraq war disaster and pending Iran war one have been laid down for decades, brick by brick, by Zionist Jews and the army of Baby Boomer useful idiots more interested in money, Viagra, and the “if it feels good do it ethos” than in contributing minimal effort to protecting the interests of the country and future generations.
Only in the coming times, when their country has been long since bankrupted by the wars for Zionist Jews, will the Boomers fully comprehend the folly of their ways. It will happen as they have been wheeled outside and dumped, as they lay face down in a snow bank and are left to die on the sidewalk outside the crumbling old folks home that no longer receives their maintenance checks from the broke federal government. And younger generations walking by won’t lift a finger to help, understanding that they are only now, finally, getting their just deserts.
Real Issue of Nuclear Iran discusses the nuclear Iran issue by citing a review of the political documentary film Farewell, Israel.
More coolaid.
Math is finite. It adds up or it doesn't.
You can't really claim integrity of the man if his actual proposals (his voting comprehensive voting record) put the future generations of Americans in debt, while the current generation gets a free ride.
On economy, it is similar to McCain's (theoretically cut spending, actually cut taxes and only for the rich), and to Bush's.
And, similarly proposing to violate the Constitution by threatening to renounce the enforcement of regulations that ARE legislated.
Witty is a national socialist. He wants to maintain selected enemies for Israel, its continued regimes soaked in social Darwinsim. Hitler would understand him.
If Congress had been inhabited by 535 Ron Paul’s for the last two decades, our military would be minimalist, our federal government would be minimalist, the essentials (ie infrastructure, schools, public hospitals) would be well oiled and properly maintained, our debt would be zero, and America would NOT be stretched all over the globe, trying to play God. But then, Ron Paul is a Christian who wants to let government be government and religion be religion. The Witty types want the State to replace religion (except their own) so that it can coerce and engineer the world away from its naturally contempt for Judeofascism and its usurious, murderous ways. Maybe Jews should just start proselytizing, too. Wouldn’t that be a more humane response? Oh, I forgot, you want to keep the bloodlines pure. Never mind.
"Math is finite."
Mental!
Charles.
Is that really you posting such bullshit.
Charles, don't use the same sick polemical weapons used against you. Why don't you bring forwards counterarguments.
It feels like a too elementary change.
I can see that Paul's tax ideas–at least theoretically–could stop the Empire. But I am somehow with Richard, tell us about his ideas beyond. As Richard, I am slightly suspicious, but I am open to learn.
Obama is absolutely clueless when it comes to foreign policy, and is tried and true left of Teddie Kennedy on economics. He won't bring change, it'll be a classic….New boss same as the old boss. One big gubbermint phony substitued for another.
Witty, get a clue about Ron Paul's stance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Nonintervention
.
"Obama (a Con Law teacher) just recently help put another nail in the Constitution with the FISA bill. We can be spied on and tapped for any "suspicious" reason." – TPMalone
And this, after pledging last year to FILIBUSTER any bill which gave the telecoms retroactive immunity for carrying out George Bush's multiple felonious violations of the FISA Act. As Glenn Greenwald pointed out in his Salon column, Obama then turned around last week and voted for cloture — that is, to BREAK the filibuster — and give Bush a retroactive "get out of jail" card.
Professional courtesy, as it were. Obama is just returning the favor that Bush did for the Clintons eight years ago, by declining to prosecute them for the $400,000 sack of cash which Hillary's brother Hugh passed through her to the president for corrupt, bribed pardons. The pardons stand, and the Clintons remain at large. As will Bush.
I had serious doubts about Obama after he told Cleveland Jewish leaders that he will continue Bush's policy of executive-ordered assassinations. Obama said there are thirty, forty, maybe fifty thousand terrorists who need to be murdered, Mafia-style, by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies under his imperial decree.
Now Obama has broken his promise and voted to give the Destroyer of the Constitution, George Bush, retroactive immunity for his confessed multiple felonies (each count of which carries a five-year prison term).
Yes, I am angry. What is Obama? Bush in blackface. Mister Steppin-Fetchit for the Republican Party. George and Laura's house niggah. Fuck Obama … and fuck him good. Lyin', shiftless mothuh fuckah …
Richard,
You're asking what he would cut, then that means you have not read his platform, and you are unaware of his books, his voting record or his speeches. I believe I indicated that you might not have a background on the statements you are making about Paul.
You seem to be unaware of past Presidents, not in recent history, who were quite generous with the veto pen, exercising the responsibility of their office, by stopping legislation that was not expressly authorized by the Constitution. It's the notion of checks and balances, not that the veto pen should be politicized, but rather to check political power.
I'm not sure why you mention Bush and McCain. Paul is nothing like either of them. Again, are you sure you know very much about Paul?
Paul opposes every unbalanced budget, which is virtually every budget. Paul opposes every tax increase, every pay raise and every pork laden spending bill.
If you had read his economic policy plan, which was incredibly detailed, and consisted of already written and ready to implement legislation by both himself and other House members, you would see a rational and plan for true economic (non)intervention, and a return to a free market economy based on sound economic principles.
The joke at the end of the day, are on his detractors, who think that Saint Obama will provide everything and anything the people desire. That he will feed the many with only 7 loaves of bread and 7 fish.
Here is Paul's economic plan.
http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/6977/ro58779wc9.png
It's open, honest and precise. Can Obamaphiles and McCainians say the same?
The best part is, even if Ron Paul is not elected, the plan can still be implemented.
Why don't you summarize where he would cut.
The current year's deficit is estimated at $400 billion and promising to get worse.
Where specifically would that come from?
Richard,
Ron has estimated that the costs directly attributable to the maintenance and extension of our overseas empire are in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars per year. I cannot reiterate exactly how he plans to divest of it, but it's a damn fine start. And one of the pillars of his platform was that a substantial chunk of the cash saved should go to veterans and others who have become dependent on federal programs while allowing young people to opt out of the bankrupt Social Security scheme, for example. Please read his policy prescriptions carefully before critiquing them, whether you agree with them or not they are principled, detailed plans designed above all to increase liberty.
"Paul has an intellectual manner and a gracious way of speaking. He reaches out to American Jews. "
Hmmm, the 2 marks of a true anti semite.
An intellectual manner and gracious way of speaking
AND
reaching out to American Jews.
Me and Ron Paul are big time anti-semites then…
$1 trillion a year? How is that, specifics.
How would you/he propose to affirm current treaty obligations?
And yet, he still VOTED (acted) to reduce tax cuts before reducing spending.
McCain's proposals don't add up. They are wishful thinking. Smoke.
The USA spends nearly half of the total world's expenditures on military prowness. China is next; the USA spends over 5X as much as China, if memory serves. Here's a good book on the actual on-going and future costs of the Iraq War: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393067017/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204232422&sr=8-1
The cost of the war in Iraq dwarfs all other discretionary spending, that is, spending for domestic needs over and above
entitlement spending.
Tax cuts on borrowed money.
Paul, Bush, McCain.
Actions louder than words.
Not a fair assessment, Richard.
Paul wouldn't borrow the money in the first place.
You don't know anything about him.
His record on protecting tax payers is as high as it gets.
Paul is totally against borrowing money.
You can really tell how bad things have become when you see otherwise intelligent people take comments like those made by Richard "Witty" seriously.
Chill people. It's obvious he is just trying to get a response. No one that believes the type of nonsense Dick is posting reads Phil's blog. In fact, they probably don't read at all. They just sit home watching Fox News and MSNBC.
And, even if by some miniscule chance, Dick actually believes what he has been typing, what would be the use of trying to convince him otherwise?
For Phil… based on your last sentence, I have to ask, when did "cockeyed" become a synonym for "delusional"?
In a hundred years Israel/America will seem as insane as the slavery system of the South or yes, Germany under the Nazis, or the Soviet Union. People will shake their heads in wonder. You either get it now or you don't.
In the new NY Review of Books, you can read about Kafka's very interesting take on being Jewish and Jews. Very brilliant and accurate.
People have become so inundated with lies they can't hear the truth when it comes. Just like Clinton's(either one) tears, they are taken as real. 'Dual loyalty' is a fact so obvious, and a principle so wrong (have high public officials pledged to another country), that if you can't see it it says something about you.
The whole culture has drunk deeply of a koolaid that prevents them from detecting truth.
In a hundred years Israel/America will seem as insane as the slavery system of the South or yes, Germany under the Nazis, or the Soviet Union. People will shake their heads in wonder. You either get it now or you don't.
In the new NY Review of Books, you can read about Kafka's very interesting take on being Jewish and Jews. Very brilliant and accurate.
People have become so inundated with lies they can't hear the truth when it comes. Just like Clinton's(either one) tears, they are taken as real. 'Dual loyalty' is a fact so obvious, and a principle so wrong (have high public officials pledged to another country), that if you can't see it it says something about you.
The whole culture has drunk deeply of a koolaid that prevents them from detecting truth.
Question: What does Congressman Paul believe about Israel?
Answer: Dr. Paul has taken a very consistent position throughout his career with regard to foreign affairs. He follows a policy in foreign affairs called non-interventionism. He does not believe we are making the United States more secure when we involve ourselves in conflicts overseas. The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts.
Stemming from this perspective, Dr. Paul opposes, in principle, the $1.6 trillion (and $5,700 per person) that Israel has received in foreign aid since 1973. He does so both because he does not believe that U.S. taxpayers should be subsidizing countries that they do not support (just as any opponent of abortion would never want to be required to pay money to the government to publicly fund an abortion procedure) and because he believes that U.S. aid to Israel is counter-productive to the safety and security of Jews in America and in Israel.
Dr. Paul supports Israel's right to exist and defends Israel's right to defend its borders against its enemies. He does not support U.S. intervention in Middle East affairs and he does not support U.S. foreign aid to any country, including Israel.
Comments on this entry are closed.