A strong national defense is essential to America. Our Founders believed in the importance of a strong national defense so much that they included the right to “provide for the common defense” in the preamble of the Constitution. National defense is a primary responsibility of our federal government. During last night’s GOP debate Ron Paul asserted “that a war with Iran would be an absurdly dangerous undertaking and an overreaction to the apparent threat Iran poses.” The problem with this assertion is that Ron Paul consistently underestimates and even underreacts to the point in which he has dismissed the fact that Iran is a threat. He even asserted that there is “no evidence” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear device. That assertion is false.
No responsibly sane person wants to engage another country in war or thinks that war is a good thing but rather sees war as being a necessary option used as a last resort for our common defense when a legitimate threat is posed against the United States. A war can be a mechanism used for freeing a people from a tyrannical, brutal dictator and the outcome can be good but the war in and of itself is not good. Is it possible for the war to be just? Yes. But even if a war is considered just that doesn’t mean that the war is good.
A responsible commander-in-chief needs to be willing to have all options on the table, even war as a last resort. For Ron Paul to dismiss Iran as a threat and believe that we should extend our hands in friendship like our relationship with Iran is on a firm footing is absurdly naive thinking for a possible future commander-in-chief.
Having war as an option in case the U.S. needs to respond to a threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to Israel, the West, and the United States if Iran attained nuclear weapons capabilities is not an “establishment” position but rather is a position which is consistent with our constitution.
Ron Paul has claimed that the IAEA report is war propaganda and outright dismissed the report’s accuracy. That’s really quite ironic since he didn’t dispute the accuracy of their findings in 2003 when the IAEA claimed that there was no evidence that Iran was building a bomb, even though that claim turned out to be erroneous.
The facts indicate that the “IAEA, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, issued a report in November that concluded that Iran has acquired the technology to design a nuclear weapon and would require about six months to enrich uranium to the quality needed for a bomb.” In addition the report points out that “intelligence provided to U.N. nuclear officials shows that Iran’s government has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon, receiving assistance from foreign scientists to overcome key technical hurdles, according to Western diplomats and nuclear experts briefed on the findings.” A nuclear physicist, named David Albright who is a former weapons inspector, has stated that at the current rate it “would likely take Iran till the end of 2013 to enrich enough 20 percent uranium to be further processed for use in one bomb. If Iran could get three sets of new generation centrifuges working at two sites, it “could produce enough material by the end of next year that could be further enriched to weapons-grade.”
This is not something to be dismissed with an “if we were nicer to them they’d be nicer to us” attitude. That is ignoring the reality of the situation. That type of attitude exudes a dangerous naiveté. The method Paul advocates has been tried under the Obama administration and has failed. Iran’s rhetoric has only gotten more vitriolic toward the U.S.
Michele Bachmann did exaggerate a bit when she claimed that Iran is “just months away from getting a nuke.”
Ron Paul even dismisses sanctions as an option to deter the Iranians from seeking nuclear weapons capabilities. In this exchange with Chris Wallace Ron Paul claims that the United States needs to extend a hand in friendship to Iran. The problem with Ron Paul is that he is ignoring reality, the pure unadulterated hatred that Iran has for the U.S. because of our support for Israel. He is ignoring the fact that this madman Ahmadinejad does not want to negotiate with the U.S., does not want to coexist with the West and does not want to avoid war but rather wants to escalate tensions and start a war.
Rick Santorum understands the reality of the threat that Iran poses to not only the United States and Israel but the whole world should they attain nuclear weapons capabilities.
As a candidate gains in the polls they are scrutinized more and more, and rightly so. Candidates are scrutinized about their present political positions and the positions they held in the past, especially if those positions differ from one another. The candidates personal lives and other beliefs even come under fire. The fact that this happens is very healthy for the process of choosing the candidate who would be best qualified for the job of President.
Recently, Ron Paul has been gaining in the polls so one should expect that some of his political positions and past controversial statements or writings would come under increased scrutiny more so than before. Now he has come under fire for Ron Paul Newsletters which contained inflammatory comments on race in them. Here are a couple of examples from an article posted on Reason:
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
…we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks”
In 2008 Ron Paul repudiated the derogatory racist comments.
But there is a mystery behind who actually wrote these derogatory statements. There is no definitive knowledge as to who actually wrote these letters because no person has admitted doing so. But, the fact that Ron Paul’s name was on these letters and the probability that he didn’t have knowledge of what was stated in these letters is likely low concerns me. Some Paul supporters are up in arms that he is being scrutinized just like the other candidates. I think that the content of the Ron Paul Newsletters is fair game for the media. Whether Ron Paul has racist tendencies I am not sure one way or the other. But, I do think certain questions need to be answered with regards to the Ron Paul Letters.
There has been much controversy among both liberals and conservatives on the blogosphere over whether or not the Awlaki killing is constitutional or not. First, I think justice was served as in an enemy of the United States was killed and I am not going to lose any sleep over his being slain but was it constitutional for the U.S. to kill Anwar Al-Awlaki?
At one point in time I said that I was against the targeting of Awlaki but there was one caveat to my position, that I think it is perfectly legal if he was killed on the battlefield. Now, the definition of battlefield has expanded since Vietnam or is of a non-traditional nature nowadays. Ground Zero became a battlefield on 9/11. It may or may not be that any longer, that would ultimately depend on our enemy. Hopefully it isn’t. So the second question is, was Awlaki killed on a battlefield?
Fuzzy of Fuzzy Logic has expressed concerns over the constitutionality of the killing of an American citizen while Silverfiddle of Western Hero has outlined what he believes to be the legitimate constitutionality of the kill. Fuzzy believes that is dangerous for us to give unchecked authority to the President to issue death warrants on American citizens. This does trouble me. But is this really unchecked authority? Wouldn’t it have been possible for either Ron Paul or any other representative in Congress to object and pass an amendment which would have some type of checks and balances on the President’s authority to kill an American who was considered an enemy combatant? Did Congress abandon it’s responsibility or did Obama in fact have legitimate authority to kill an enemy citizen? Especially since this kill order was declared about a year ago?
I do worry about the fact that if the American people just lay down and accept the killing of an American citizen that we are indeed relinquishing our Constitutional rights and whether this could lead to the Obama administration (or any other admin) declaring any one of us U.S. citizens as terrorists.
But…. Was Awlaki really an American citizen?
Silverfiddle points out:
Loss of nationality, also known as expatriation, means the loss of citizenship status properly acquired, whether by birth in the United States, through birth abroad to U.S. citizen parents, or by naturalization. As a result of several constitutional decisions, §349(a) of the current Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) provides that U.S. nationality is lost only when the U.S. citizen does one of the specified acts described in INA §349, voluntarily and with the intent to give up that nationality. “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.”
“entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or (B) such persons serves as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;”
“performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship.”
“committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of Title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of Title 18, or violating section 2384 of Title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
Based on this information it would seem that it is safe to conclude that Awlaki was no longer an American citizen.
But, if he still was an American citizen has there been any precedence in American history for killing an American combatant?
What about Lincoln ordering the Union troops to fire upon the Confederates? The Wall Street Journal points out that …”Lincoln concluded, the laws of war must allow the United States to treat its own citizens as enemies when they take up arms in rebellion.”
The WSJ goes on to say:
“Supreme Court opinions have upheld Lincoln’s principle. During World War II, the FBI caught eight German saboteurs trying to sneak into the U.S. and at least one of them was a citizen. On reviewing their military trial and death sentences, the Justices declared: “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences” (Ex Parte Quirin, 1942). “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents.” A nation at war has the right to kill enemy belligerents in war.”
I tend to agree with Silverfiddle on this one but I do have mixed feelings on the constitutionality of the killing of an enemy combatant who may or may not have been an American citizen – this is very much in question today.
Here is an interesting article on Ron Paul and his supporters which I found on the net. This goes into the nuttiness of many Ron Paul supporters. Now, I don’t think that all Ron Paul supporters are extreme in their views but many do espouse certain unconventional or utopian views with regards to certain political positions.
By Jeffrey Lord:
To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education. — Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul
Sigh.
Somebody needs to say this.
Does Ron Paul have a lot of interesting ideas he puts forward as a presidential candidate?
Yes. From his honestly libertarian views (he was the 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee, so he’s been at this a long time) to his willingness to challenge the status quo on economics (questioning the role of everything from sugar subsidies to the Federal Reserve) to his emphasis on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, Congressman Paul has been fearless in sticking with his principles. And in bringing new ideas — or old ideas — to an American electorate that has been staggered by the far-left reality that is the Obama Administration.
But as complaints surface in the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll, complaints from Paul supporters and candidate Paul himself that he is not receiving the attention that is his due — someone should say the Congressman and his supporters are correct. There should be — must be — more attention paid to the Paul campaign.
Why?
Because the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign — a serious campaign — to re-educate the American people to an alternate universe of reality. A campaign that goes far beyond whatever will happen at the polls in 2012.
And sorry to say, this re-education campaign does not present a pretty picture of itself.
Looming over the interesting and appealing ideas of the Paul campaign is a veritable political tornado of allegations involving anti-Semitism, racism, pacifism, far left-wingism and, at the edges, a tiny flicker of intimidation.
So let’s spill it all out on the table and take a look.
Neoliberals and Quasi-Cons:
When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives.
This is important to understand when one realizes that Paul’s views are, self-described, “non-interventionist.”
The fact that he has been allowed to get away with pretending to conservatism on this score is merely reflective of journalists who, for whatever reason, are simply unfamiliar with American history. Ironically, it is precisely because the Paul campaign has not been thoroughly covered that no one pays attention to the historical paternity of what the candidate is saying.
There is no great sin in Paul’s non-interventionist stance (or “isolationist” stance as his critics would have it). There have been American politicians aplenty throughout American history, particularly in the 20th century, who believed precisely as Paul and his enthusiasts do right now. (Paul touts his admiration for the Founding Fathers, but even that is very selective. James Monroe of Monroe Doctrine fame was a considerable interventionist, Washington as a general invaded Canada, and Alexander Hamilton gave rise to Paul’s idea of evil spawn — the Federal Reserve. Interventionists of all types have been with us right from the start.)
The deception — and it is a considerable deception — is that almost to a person those prominent pre-Ron Paul non-interventionist “Paulist” politicians of the 20th century were overwhelmingly not conservatives at all. They were men of the left. The far left.
From three-time Democratic presidential nominee and Woodrow Wilson Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to powerful Montana Democratic Senator Burton K. Wheeler to FDR’s ex-vice presidential nominee Henry Wallace to the 1968 anti-war presidential candidacy of Minnesota Democratic Senator Eugene McCarthy to 1972 Democratic presidential nominee (and Henry Wallace delegate in 1948) George McGovern, non-interventionists have held prominent positions in the American Left that was and is the Democratic Party.
But of particular interest, and here is where the deception by Paulists is so considerable, the Ron Paul view of foreign policy has been the cornerstone of Republican liberals and progressives. Those who, using current political terminology, would be called the RINOs (Republican In Name Only) of their day.
Specifically this included the following prominent leaders of the non-interventionist/isolationist camp:
• Liberal Republican William Borah, the Senator from Idaho • Liberal Republican George Norris, the Congressman and Senator from Nebraska • Liberal Republican Gerald Nye, the Senator from North Dakota • Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Sr., the Senator from Wisconsin • Liberal Republican Robert LaFollette Jr., the Senator from Wisconsin
To go back and re-read the arguments of these prominent GOP liberals as to why America should not intervene in World War I or World War II, striking dated references, and one would think one were reading the latest Ron Paul press release. George Norris and LaFollette Sr. were both vocal opponents of World War I, for instance, blaming “greed” (LaFollette) and “munition” makers, the early 20th century version of Paul’s attacks on “neoconservatives” or the military-industrial complex.
The one prominent exception on this score was the decided anti-New Dealer, Ohio Senator Robert Taft. Senator Taft was viewed as the pre-eminent conservative in his time in the U.S. Senate (elected in 1938, he died as the new Senate Majority Leader in 1953). But even Senator Taft ran straight into a part of the problem that Congressman Paul is encountering. While he was known as “Mr. Republican,” Taft’s non-interventionist streak — which was considerable and thoroughly cloaked in the language of constitutionalism — was seen by conservatives in the day as a confounding break with his conservatism. Snapped Taft’s thoroughly conservative Uncle Horace Taft (brother of Taft’s presidential father William Howard Taft) to conservative friends over his nephew’s unwillingness to understand the danger posed by Adolph Hitler: He (Robert Taft) was “one of the best fellows in the world [but] dead wrong on foreign policy.” As if to prove the point, Taft refused an endorsement request from Joe McCarthy — supporting the liberal Republican and McCarthy primary opponent LaFollette, Jr. McCarthy won anyway.
Why is this important now?
Because Ron Paul, as noted, has deservedly developed a reputation for fiscal conservatism. Just as all of those Liberal Republicans from days long gone by were able to run and get elected as Republicans by developing enough of a conservative reputation for something seen as the conservative position in the time — support for a tariff here or a government reform over there. All the while carrying the liberal flag for Bryan’s left-wing Populism or Wilson’s Progressive New Freedom or FDR’s New Deal.
So if Ron Paul is conservative on domestic issues, but of a like mind with liberal non-interventionists of both parties, what precisely is Ron Paul?
The right term is certainly not conservative.
From liberal Republicans Borah, Norris, and Nye to the liberal Republican father and son LaFollettes, not to mention non-interventionists on the Democrats’ side from Bryan to Burton Wheeler, Wallace, McCarthy and McGovern, some version of out-and-out liberalism was the order of the day for all. Liberal Republican LaFollette Sr. and liberal Democrat Senator Wheeler even teamed up to run on the Progressive Party presidential ticket in 1924, supported by no less than the Socialist Party.
The proper term for Paul and his followers, then, would take into account this political half horse/half man philosophical creativity. Conservative on domestic policy, a staunch advocate of historically liberal views on foreign policy.
Ron Paul is what might be called a “Neo-Liberal.” Or even a “Quasi-Conservative.”
A precise political book-end to those hated “Neo-Conservatives” Paul and company love to fantasize as everyone else in the political world who doesn’t support Congressman Paul.
So what?
While one is free to disagree with his views, taken alone there’s nothing off the tracks here. But unfortunately, Paul’s views are not a stand-alone. If, to get right to the point, one is a self-described “non-interventionist” in foreign policy, history shows non-interventionists have been historically incapable of resisting what they clearly see as the next step after making the non-interventionist case. That next step?
Finding someone to blame for the calls to intervene in this or that war or international situation.
And right here is where Paul and his neolibs, in the style of his neolib predecessors, begin going off the rails.
• Anti-Semitism
Disturbingly, the history of Neoliberalism is replete with charges of anti-Semitism.
While this is a charge in today’s political dialogue that has been thrown repeatedly at Paul and his neolib followers (more of which shortly), it has reared its ugly head with earlier neolibs long before Paul was on the political scene. It is a charge that appears to be inevitable when the core premise of non-interventionism is that some dark force somewhere is pushing America into an unconstitutional interventionist war.
All too often that dark force for the Neoliberals turns out to be the scapegoat of hard-leftists everywhere in the world: the Jews.
A story from history.
Before Pearl Harbor, as the war in America over going to war in Europe raged, the once fierce opposition by the American people to taking on Hitler and the Nazis began to change as Hitler’s relentless march through Europe picked up speed. This opposition also began to change in Hollywood, and soon a small raft of anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi films began to appear. These included Confessions of a Nazi Spy starring Edward G. Robinson (1939), Alfred Hitchcock’s 1940 Foreign Correspondent and, hilariously, Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator (1940).
Here is a video which came in my Youtube inbox that I though that I would pass on. Is our U.S. Congress, Judicial System, and our state and local governments on their way to only existing as a facade so that when the American people vote we can feel like we have a say in our political system when we citizens really don’t have a say? It seems like the U.N. is getting close to achieving their stated goal to rule the world. We need to reverse course or the United States is going to be subservient to the United Nations. The United Nations is toxic for America. We need to get out of the U.N.
While I agree with him on most (but not all) other issues, when it comes to foreign policy I am definitely not on board with Ron Paul. Now, I wouldn’t go as far as Levin does and call Ron Paul supporters nuts. I think many of his supporters are quite lucid and intelligent.
During the last Fox GOP debate, Ron Paul said that Iran has a right to have a nuke and isn’t a threat. For a Presidential candidate to suggest that Iran isn’t a threat to the World, or at least Israel and/or the U.S. when there is evidence to the contrary is nonsensical. Ron Paul suggests that the U.S. should treat Iran like we did Russia during the Cold War. Both Russia and the United States had an understanding – MAD (mutually assured destruction) - but can the United States rely on something similar to that when their leader Ahmadinejad is mad? As pointed out by Sean Young of the Associated Press, Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and said that the Middle East would be better off ”without the existence of the Zionist regime.” Ahmadinejad has also said that Israel ”is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence”. The leader of Iran has also stated ”Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented”. Does this honestly sound like a man who can be reasoned with?
When it comes to foreign policy, we need to do what is in America’s best interests, not what is in Iran’s best interests.
While Ron Paul is not my first choice for President, if he were to win the GOP nomination and go up against Obama, I would definitely vote for him.
This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.
Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.
Ron Paul voiced extreme concern over the “Super Congress” in thisstatement:
“The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments,” said Paul. “Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase. This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases. This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.”
Then Ron Paul conveyed that the committee represents“Nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform. It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership.”
This “Super Congress” appears to be unconstitutional IMO. I don’t understand why Rep. John Boehner requested this “Super Congress”. It seems to me that he played right into Obama’s hands. Obama not only likes committees but loves committees. This “Super Congress” is one more step towards tyranny. I fear that there won’t be a check on this committee and all its doings.
evidence” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear device. That assertion is false.
