Ron Paul in 2012

The Real Abraham Lincoln in his own words - Ron Paul on Lincoln

The Choice Between the Democrats and the Republicans

Why The Neocons Hate Ron Paul

Why are Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East? Why are the right wing media mouthpieces in overdrive sliming Ron Paul? I found this talk by Wesley Clark from 2008 about the cynical manipulation of American foreign policy by the Neocons and the flackery in the so-called right-wing media. Pay attention to the last 45 seconds of Wesley Clark’s speech. How do you answer his questions?




Here is the “Dangerous" Ron Paul:

Ron Paul - A Decent Man and Human Being

Nothing New on the Menu

 This week the Republicans under the House leadership of John Boehner made Barack Obama look sensible and presidential. The candidates were telling us   how awful all the other candidates are. The Republican establishment is playing the race card on Ron Paul, always a sign that a candidate or party is nervous.

 I agree. They are. All  awful.

Ron Paul on Iran

Please identify which part shows Ron Paul to be wrong.



HAT TIP: AIPAC

The Senate on Dec. 1 voted by a unanimous vote of 100-0 to pass an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would sanction the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), a key facilitator of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The amendment, offered by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Mark Kirk (R-IL), seeks to dramatically escalate the pressure on Tehran by targeting the CBI, virtually the only Iranian financial institution capable of conducting international financial transactions for the regime. Iran’s ability to sell its crude oil—from which it derives 80 percent of its hard currency—is dependent on transactions through its central bank.

The National Defense Authorization Act also passed the House on Dec. 14 and the Senate on Dec. 15, and now goes to the president for his signature.

Ron Paul Banned for Not Following His Israeli Minders in the Republican Jewish Coalition

Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Presidential Debate, Saying He's Too "misguided and extreme"

Matt Welch REASON | December 1, 2011

On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forumfeaturing Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:

Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.

"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."

Link via the Twitter feed of an approving Jamie Kirchick.

Brooks gave a more detailed critique of Ron Paul back in May:

"As Americans who are committed to a strong and vigorous foreign policy, we are deeply concerned about the prospective presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While Rep. Paul plans to run as a Republican, his views and past record place him far outside of the Republican mainstream. His candidacy, as we've seen in his past presidential campaigns, will appeal to a very narrow constituency in the U.S. electorate. Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world. He has been a virulent and harsh critic of Israel during his tenure in Congress*. Most recently Paul gave an interview in which he voiced his objection to the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Brooks added, "We certainly respect Congressman Paul's right to run, but we strongly reject his misguided and extreme views, which are not representative of the Republican Party."

Weird punctuation in the original.

So what are these "extreme views"? Over at The Huffington Post, Dovid Efune, the director of The Algemeiner Journal and Gershon Jacobson Foundation, offers an explanation:

Paul's positions on Israel have been almost uniformly derided. Whilst claiming to be non-interventionist on the issue, he has routinely adopted Arab talking points on Israel, evencomparing Gaza to 'a concentration camp.' His Isolationist mantra may appeal to fiscal conservatives, but in the real world its implementation would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies.

Anti Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman has a perhaps unintentionally interesting take about Paul, U.S. politics, and Israel:

with the exception of Ron Paul, there is not much difference between the parties

And no orthodoxy-definition would be complete without David Frum:

Of the 8 candidates competing for the Republican presidential nomination, 7 declared themselves intense supporters of the State of Israel, the sole exception being crank no-hoper Ron Paul.

I'm no expert on Ron Paul's Israel views, and I reserve the right to be outraged later by what I don't know now, but what I find interesting here is the namecalling-to-content ratio. Here, let's count it out:

Name-calling: 1) "misguided and extreme," 2) "so far outside of the mainstream," 3) "like...Barack Obama," 4) "will appeal to a very narrow constituency," 5) "dangerous isolationist vision," 6) "uniformly derided," 7) "claim[s] to be non-interventionist," 8) "Isolationist," 9) "differen[t]," 10) "crank."

Content: 1) "virulent and harsh critic of Israel," 2) "voiced his objection to the...killing of Osama Bin Laden," 3) "routinely adopted Arab talking points," 4) "compar[ed] Gaza to 'a concentration camp," 5) "would create a global power vacuum that would likely be filled by supporters of Israel's enemies."

Looking at the five content items, 1) is supported only by 4); 2) intentionally left out the phrase "legal method of," 3) is a general and largely contentless insult, 4) is a discrete piece of hyperbole that rubs my literalist heart the wrong way, too (though the full quote contains two qualifiers: "Palestinians are virtually in like a concentration camp"); and 5) is the Transitive Property run amok, though it does at least hint at the real-world question/critique of what, exactly, replaces hegemonic American responsibility for world affairs, and which bad actors are more likely to do badder things.

Does this, plus Paul's principled rejection of all foreign aid, his relentless espousal of the "blowback" theory of terrorism, and his negligence in allowing to appear under his name during the first Clinton administration some newsletter conspiracy theorizing about (among other things) the 1993 World Trade Center bombing being a "setup by the Israeli Mossad" enough to disqualify him for the grownups' table on foreign policy?

Well, I'm neither Republican nor Jewish nor a member of a Coalition, so the immediate event is not my call (though I do believe that dissonance is more illuminating than seven-part harmony). That said, this seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. The fact that he is a political outlier on an effectively bipartisan U.S. foreign policy that has become increasingly expensive and unpopular strikes me as a count in favor, not against. And nothing Paul said at last month's largely grotesque American Enterprise Institute foreign policy debate struck me as more objectionable than Mitt Romney's grovel that his first overseas trip as president would be to Israel.

Some other bullet-pointed observations and gratuitous commenter bait:

* The New York Sun editorial board, not known for its unfriendliness toward Israel, defended Paulboth from charges of anti-Semitism and foreign policy insanity last year.

* Here's how quickly Paul's anti-interventionist rhetoric can be turned into charges of "anti-Semitic arguments," courtesy of Ben Stein. (Slightly less inflammatory accusations from David Horowitzcirca March 2007. UPDATE: And, thanks to commenter Ken E., a considerably more inflammatory accusation from the Horo show this February: "Ron Paul Is A Vicious Anti-Semite and Anti-American and Conservatives Need To Wash Their Hands of Him.")

* Some Republicans tried to bar Paul from all debates back in May 2007 on grounds that his overall foreign policy views were "just so off the wall and out of whack."

* Here's Paul himself talking to then-Reasoner David Weigel in May 2007, in response to charges of old newsletter "anti-Semitism."

Reason on Ron Paul here, including his candidate profile as part of our Presidential Dating Game.

Congress is so Good, We Need a Super Congress

Ron Paul on Libya, Unintended Consequences and Hiding Behind UN

US foreign policy is the same as it has been and will only force us into bankruptcy sooner rather than later. The Republicans and conservative bloggers are uncertain which way to go. I am not. We have far bigger problems and this adventure into Libya will make them worse.
___________________________

Libya and the Zone of Twilight
by Chad Pergram | March 21, 2011
FOX

One issue and two words comprised the debate at Philadelphia's Constitutional Convention on August 17, 1787.

The Founders struggled with whether they should grant war authority to the legislature or the executive. And the Founders also wrestled with what verb they should use when entering into war: "make" or "declare."

Charles Pinckney of South Carolina worried about vesting war power with the legislature. Pinckney argued that legislative proceedings were "too slow" to respond to something as critical as war.

Meantime, Virginia's George Mason expressed concern about depositing war powers in the lap of the executive. Mason didn't think the executive branch could be "trusted" with such a broad prerogative.

Pierce Butler of South Carolina indicated the president would never "make war" unless the nation backed him.

Butler's use of the word "make" apparently caught the attention of Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and Virginia's James Madison. They moved to strike "make" and inserted "declare" instead. But Connecticut's Roger Sherman resisted Elbridge and Madison. Sherman fretted that the word "declare" narrowed "the power too much."

Finally, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut stated that "there is a material difference between the cases of making war and making peace. It should be more easy to get out of war than into it."

In the end, the Founders agreed to "declare." And in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, they granted Congress the power "to declare war." Right in between authorizing the legislative branch the ability "to end and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas" and to write "Letters of Marque and Reprisal."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On March 2, Defense Secretary Robert Gates appeared at the witness table before a meeting of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) queried Gates about the chances of the U.S. patrolling a no-fly zone over Libya while simultaneously committed to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gates minced no words about what a Libyan mission might require.

"A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses. That's the way you do a no-fly zone. And then you can fly planes around the country and not worry about our guys being shot down," Gates replied. "It also requires more airplanes than you would find on a single aircraft carrier."

Frelinghuysen noted he wasn't "endorsing" that the U.S. implement a Libyan no-fly zone. But the New Jersey Republican worried that some factions in Africa could interpret what it takes to build a no-fly zone as "a war, aggressive action on our part."

Gates responded that up to that point, the United Nations had not authorized the use of force in Libya.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A few weeks later, the U.N. changed its tune when it came to a no-fly zone in Libya. And on Friday, President Obama summoned key Congressional leaders to the White House or had them dial in to brief them about U.S. involvement in Libya.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) was one of the few lawmakers who attended the session in person. Afterwards, Rogers fully backed the action, describing it as a "support role." But Rogers added this caveat:

"If this is going to go long or if there is going to be a mission change, I think (the president) has to come back to Congress for an affirmative vote," Rogers said.

By Saturday, the U.S. had already lobbed more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at targets near Tripoli and Misrata to help establish the no-fly zone. These Tomahawk missiles cost $600,000 apiece. Later, B-2 bombers and Harrier jets executed additional strikes on Libyan soil.

On Saturday afternoon, House Democrats convened a conference call with many expressing concern that the president didn't have the power to authorize such strikes without consulting Congress.

And by Sunday afternoon, it wasn't just Congressional Democrats who were skeptical about how the president involved the U.S.

"Before any further military commitments are made, the admnistration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved," said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

"I am concerned that the use of military force in the absence of clear political objectives for our country risks entrenching the United States in a humanitarian mission whose scope and duration are not known at this point and cannot be controlled by us," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) in a statement. "A United Nations' Security Council resolution is not and should not be confused for a political and military strategy."

Lawmakers typically lodge two types of reservations when the U.S. intervenes in conflicts like Libya.

For starters, liberals are usually concerned about whether the president, Democrat or Republican, is usurping the Constitution by deploying U.S. forces or other military assets overseas. Furthermore, Republicans express disquiet about whether the president is using the military the "right" way.

After last fall's purge at the polls, there are few moderate Democrats left in the House. Nearly all Democrats who remain are liberal. Thus, it's natural that those ranging from Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) to Jerry Nadler (D-NY) would express reservation about not only whether the U.S. should deploy the military but if the president followed the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The resolution requires the president to tell Congress within two days of commencing military action and prohibits the use of force for two months without a Congressional declaration of war.

But the electoral makeup of this Congress is a little different than in years past. Last November, voters dispatched dozens of conservative lawmakers to Washington with the backing of the tea party. Many of these newly-minted members ran on a platform of sticking strictly to the Constitution. Moreover, few of these lawmakers have yet to weigh in on any foreign policy issue at all. Nearly all of the debate in Washington this year has focused on spending and repealing the health care law.

So this begs an interesting question. After Friday's White House consultation, most Republicans were mum about the Libya operation.

But Sunday's comments from Boehner and McKeon suggested there was more than a little concern among Republicans. And no one quite knows where these new, conservative members will come down on this issue.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) isn't a neophyte lawmaker. But he is one of the most conservative voices in the House and is closely aligned with the tea party movement. King says he favors the U.S. mission "if this is to be a limited engagement" and that he didn't "quibble with Obama not going to Congress." But King added he would have concerns if the operation expanded.

"Republicans don't want to handcuff the commander-in-chief but we have to be willing to handcuff the president," King said.

Which is precisely the crux of the Constitutional debate as to which branch of government has the power to "declare" war. And whether U.S. action in Libya constitutes "war."To hearken back to the debate at the Constitutional Convention, it's pretty clear in this case which branch of government "declared" it was going to intervene in Libya and which branch didn't have a say in the process.

That could stir up many of the constitutionalists on Capitol Hill because it runs afoul of Article I, Section 8.

There isn't too much out there on how the Congressional newcomers feel about this. On his website in November, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) stated that "when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates."

But perhaps an even more intriguing example of where freshmen could drive this debate rests with Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI). Amash has already made a name for himself on Capitol Hill by voting "present" on several issues this year. That's where a lawmaker votes, but doesn't weigh in with a "yea" or "nay."

Late last week, Amash took the rare step of casting back-to-back "present" votes on wildly diverse issues. One vote asked lawmakers whether they should yank federal dollars from NPR. The other resolution would have required the U.S. to withdraw from Afghanistan.

At the start of the year, Amash stated he would vote "present" if he supports a bill, but believes the legislation "uses improper means" to accomplish its goal and violates the Constitution.

"I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I take that oath seriously and I consider the constitutional implications of every action I take as a representative in Congress," Amash said on his Facebook page.

On the NPR measure, Amash believed Congress was "picking one viewpoint over another." He suggested that violated the Constitution's equal protection clause. When it came to Afghanistan, Amash argued that the resolution was unconstitutional because it created a "legislative veto."

By Sunday night, Amash again invoked the Constitution over the president's decision to join the international effort against Libya.

"It's not enough for the president simply to explain military actions in Libya to the American people, after the fact, as though we are serfs," Amash wrote on Facebook. "When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from the American people, through our elected representatives in Congress. No United Nations resolution or Congressional act permits the president to circumvent the Constitution."

It will be interesting to see how many freshmen question this intervention on Constitutional grounds.In short, the debate over which branch of government can "declare" war dates back to that August day in 1787. And it's even murkier now than it was then.

Many of you have heard of Rod Serling and "The Twilight Zone." Fewer have heard of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson and the "zone of twilight." In a 1952 decision about presidential powers, Jackson wrote that "there is a zone of twilight" where the executive and legislative branches may have "concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain."

Jackson noted that presidential power plummets to "its lowest ebb when he takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress."

It's hard to assess what the "expressed or implied will of Congress" is on Libya. There are definitely concerns. And Congress certainly didn't "declare war" as prescribed by the Constitution.

Which is why the U.S. now resides in Jackson's "zone of twilight" when it comes to military action in Libya.

Brernanke's Nightmare, Ron Paul, Chairman

Bernanke's worst nightmare: Ron Paul

By Chris Isidore, senior writerNovember 12, 2010: 8:11 AM ET

CNBC Ron Paul grills Bernanke, traders cheering 2008.02.27

CNBC Ron Paul grills Bernanke, traders cheering 2008.02.27

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ben Bernanke has had his hands full since his first day on the job as Federal Reserve chairman nearly five years ago. It's about to get even tougher.

His harshest critic on Capitol Hill, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, is about to become one of his overseers.

With the Republicans coming to power, Paul, who would like to abolish the Fed and the nation's current monetary system, will become the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy.

If you've never heard of the committee before, you're not alone. But Paul promises you'll be hearing a lot more from it.

"It's basically been a committee that's dealt with commemorative coins. I'm going to deal with monetary policy," he said.

Paul doesn't think he'll be able to move his proposal to eliminate the Fed, or to allow Americans to use gold instead of paper money as currency. But he said he does intend to use his new position as "a mini-bully pulpit" to criticize Fed policy and call more attention to what he sees as its negative consequences. And he's confident that American voters are ready to delve into those monetary policy questions.

"Five years ago they wouldn't have listened. Now they will," he said. "We've gained a lot of credibility in making the Federal Reserve an issue since the market collapse."

And Paul vows to try again to authorize Congressional audits of the Fed's decisions on the economy, a proposal that passed the House last year but was essentially gutted from the final version of the financial regulatory overhaul legislation.

"It will never be easy; the Fed has a lot of influence," he said of the audit legislation. "But there's a lot of life to it. We got further along than I ever expected."

One way that Paul will bring pressure on Bernanke and his Fed allies is to hold hearings to give greater voice to Fed members -- like Kansas City Fed President Thomas Hoenig -- who disagree with the current monetary policy.

"Just getting someone there willing to discuss their viewpoint and why they might dissent, I think that would be interesting," Paul said.

A Fed spokesman did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

Some economists worry that Paul having that kind of pulpit will hurt the Fed, and diminish its ability to fix an economy that still needs help.

"From Ron Paul's standpoint, the Fed can't do anything right," said Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor who is now senior economic advisor to the Potomac Research Group. "He can cause the Fed to lose a lot of public support. But it needs public support to do what it needs to do."

While the Fed policymakers will try to resist pressure from Paul, they won't be able to ignore it, said John Silvia, chief economist for Wells Fargo Securities. And he said there's a potential for that pressure to influence Fed policy.

"The Fed has a more balanced, nuanced position on its dual mandate to promote growth and keep prices stable," he said. "Ron Paul probably doesn't."

But other Fed watchers say Bernanke already faces plenty of criticismand doesn't have too much to worry about from Paul having control of an oversight committee.

"I think that Bernanke has been pretty cool under fire up to now. I can't imagine Ron Paul being someone who could shake him up," said Michael Bordo, a professor of economics at Rutgers University.

Paul also rejects the idea that he's Bernanke's greatest concern.

"He probably just thinks I'm a nuisance rather than a nightmare," he said.

And Paul doesn't think he'll be able to reverse Fed policy or force Bernanke to resign, as much as he would like to.

"I think psychologically, Bernanke is incapable of changing his mind," he said. "It's probably unlikely [Bernanke will resign] under today's circumstances. But you don't know what it will be like a year or two from now."

Paul argues the Fed is making a serious mistake by pumping more money into the economy to try to spur more spending and growth. He predicts it will only lead to further declines in value of the dollar, inflation and higher interest rates rather than the lower rates the Fed is shooting for.

Paul thinks that will bring about another economic crisis that will eventually force Bernanke to resign from office.

"That's more likely to happen than for Bernanke to think, 'Well, I guess I made a mistake for 35 years. I've misunderstood the Depression, and I'm going to change my policy.'"

The Roots of The Tea Party

Anyone but Obama

Why is Ron Paul Not Taken Seriously?

When Paul’s victory was announced at the CPAC convention, many in the crowd booed. Why was that?

Ron Paul knows the issues. He speaks sense. He does so with humility and lack of bravado but with the passion of a man who clearly understands the facts.

He is direct and offers positive solutions to problems other politicians consider intractable.

Maybe I just answered my own question.