Teabaggers, turn your knives on the DHS!

If budget-cutting Tea Partyers could only harness their negative energy for good, then they would surely be protesting in Washington and raising a ruckus at town hall meetings in order to abolish the Department of Homeland Security.

Think about it. They are deathly afraid of Big Government tyranny. They routinely make up non-existent threats like Obama's private army and FEMA concentration camps. Meanwhile, right in front of their faces is this enormous, amorphous DHS and they ignore it. Why? Because it was Dubya's monster?

Kramer and Hellman are right to point out the DHS's' similarities with the Department of Defense -- verily, the Department of Offense. They call the DHS another rabbit hole down which billions of taxpayer dollars disappear with scant oversight.

Teabaggers, get your act together and do something useful for a change!  P.S. -- Here's a 2002 op-ed by proto-teabagger Ron Paul entitled "The Homeland Security Monstrosity."  Enjoy.

'Homeland security': The trillion-dollar concept that no one can define

By Matte Kramer and Chris Hellman

March 14, 2013 | Al Jazeera

URL: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/2013313132824288582.html

The (international) battle for RonPaul.com

Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters? Nope, not if you're Ron Paul. Then you go whining to the United Nations like a hypocritical little bitch.  

Forget what I wrote earlier about Ron Paul's consistency. 

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com

By Max Rivlin-Nadler

February 9, 2013 | Gawker

In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com, a Ron Paul fan-site that became one of the leading sources for information about and support for the perennial Libertarian presidential candidate. The creators of the site "put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012." His presidential campaign fell short, but the enthusiasm lived on as supporters continued to rally around this free enterprise Messiah.

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul repaid their support by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of Paul's much-reviled United Nations, seeking the expropriation of both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his supporters without any compensation.

The editors of RonPaul.com explained the situation,

Last month, after Ron Paul expressed regret on the Alex Jones show over not owning RonPaul.com (in an interview titled "Ron Paul: The Internet Is Our Last Chance to Awaken America"), dozens of supporters urged us to contact Ron Paul to work out a deal.

We sent Ron Paul the following respectful offer [View/Download PDF File], explaining that we'd prefer to keep RonPaul.com due to reasons explained in our letter.

At the same time we offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift so we could keep using RonPaul.com and he wouldn't have to use something like RonPaulsHomePage.com.

Ron Paul rejected their offer. They then told Paul exactly how much their site was worth:

Our offer went on to explain that in case Ron Paul insisted on obtaining RonPaul.com, we would prepare a complete liberty package consisting of RonPaul.com and our 170k mailing list.

The value we put on the deal was $250k; we are getting our mailing list appraised right now but we are confident it is easily worth more than $250k all by itself.

Their offer is consistent with their beliefs: In Libertarianism, nothing is free, except Freedom, which isn't really all that free anyway. What happened next is outstanding: instead of engaging in Free Market bargaining, Ron Paul (RON PAUL) appealed to an international governmental organization for help.

The editors of RonPaul.com have reprinted some very choice words that Paul had to say about the United Nations while he was in office:

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Down is up. Cats are doing dogs. Ron Paul has asked the United Nations for help.

Left & Right agree: NRA is calling for a police state

It's not often that lefty liberals and far-right libertarians agree -- and in opposition to the NRA, no less!  

Robert Parry sees even farther than Ron Paul: he asks if armed police are what's needed in our schools to "meet a gun with a gun," then why stop there, why not put federally funded police in shopping malls, toll booths, you name it?

NRA Suggests a Police State

By Robert Parry

December 23, 2012 |  Consortium News

URL: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/23/nra-suggests-a-police-state/

Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school

December 24, 2012 | FoxNews

URL: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/24/ron-paul-rips-nra-plan-for-officers-in-every-school/

GOP gold bugs, rejoice

Gold: It's gonna work this time, trust us!

I'm sure this addition to the GOP platform has absolutely nothing to do with convincing Ron Paul's delegates not to wreak havoc from the floor of the Republican convention in Tampa. Nope, no siree.

US Republican platform said to eye return to gold standard

August 23, 2012 | Reuters

URL:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/24/usa-campaign-gold-idUSL2E8JNHD420120824

Obama fights injunction against NDAA to keep unlimited detention

I admit I haven't been following this case or the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  It looks sinister.  The plaintiff said she voted for Obama.  

Certainly I don't demand this much security from my government, if this is how they choose to "defend" us from terrorists.

For his part Mitt Romney said during a GOP primary debate on FOX that he would also sign NDAA.  (Ron Paul, not surprisingly, is against NDAA.)  So on yet another issue, voters this November are presented with no real alternative.

What makes our NDAA lawsuit a struggle to save the US constitution

By Tangerine Bolen

August 10, 2012 | Guardian

URL:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/ndaa-lawsuit-struggle-us-constitution

'Mullet libertarianism' is bunk

Penn Jillette: The original "mullet libertarian?"

You recall I posted about this recently, you know, the supposed shift of young Americans toward unfettered free-markets and no welfare state combined with social liberalism.  Or, as Connor Kilpatrick labels it, mullet libertarianism: "business up front, party in the back."

Mr. Kilpatrick gives the lie to that baloney that "the kids have all gone Galt"  Actually, he doesn't doubt it's real in a certain sense, it's just overblown.  Drill down issue by issue, and today's young American libertarians sound a lot like European social democrats.

What's worse is that 79 percent of Millenials don't consider themselves politically engaged, i.e., their views don't count for s**t until they decide to get their white hands dirty in our filthy-corrupt political system.  The ones that do join the Occupy movements, not the Young Republicans.

And here's the kicker.  When these so-called libertarian kids -- who aren't politcally engaged, mind you -- are polled about a hypothetical matchup between Obama and libertarian hero Ron Paul, 41 percent pick Obama and only 27 percent pick Paul.

It's hip! It's cool! It's libertarianism!

By Connor Kilpatrick

July 31, 2012 | The Exiled

URL:  http://exiledonline.com/its-hip-its-cool-its-libertarianism/

Robert Parry: Founders couldn't have stopped Obamacare

All you "strict constitutionalists" out there better make sure you're not reading revisionist history. Robert Parry quotes the Founding Dudes and a Reagan-appointed conservative judge. It's case closed.

Ron Paul's False Founding Narrative

By Robert Parry

January 13, 2012 | Consortium News

Exclusive: Rep. Ron Paul and other right-wingers have lured many average Americans into their camp by creating a false narrative about America's Founding, claiming that the drafters of the Constitution wanted a weak central government. But that's not the real history, Robert Parry writes.

URL: http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/13/ron-pauls-false-founding-narrative/

Ron Paul's campaign mgr. couldn't afford medical care

Can't afford health care? Join libertarian Ron Paul's presidential campaign! Up to $400,000 for loyal idiots! It's that easy. (No guarantee you'll survive, though. Ayn Rand is an angry God.)

Ron Paul's Ex-Campaign Manager's Death Backdrop For Health Insurance Position

By Sam Stein

September 14, 2011 | Huffington Post

URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/14/ron-pauls-health-care-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html

Poor comedian Ron Paul: 'I get no respect, I tell ya!'

It's an interesting journalistic conundrum: Should the MSM give Ron Paul "equal time," when they, Republicans, and everybody else knows Ron Paul is a joke candidate with a reckless ideology sprinkled with a few good ideas (like, end the trillion-dollar wars -- doy!) that even most libertarians are afraid of realizing 100% but don't care because they know their worldview never will accepted, and who doesn't have a shot in hell at getting nominated by the GOP, much less get elected President?

My first response is, No, the media should not give Ron Paul equal time. Contrary to what some people think, the media's job is not to act as human dictaphones relaying to us the talking points of famous and powerful people. Instead, journalists are charged with providing us facts in their proper context, with analysis where appropriate. And the facts that Ron Paul does well in early primaries, has a small but rabidly loyal fan base, and raises lots of small contributions on the Internet are not the whole story; his repeated pathetic failure to attract his own party's attention despite having lots of chances is the real story.

I digress, but: If Ron Paul is so hardcore about being a libertarian, why doesn't he run as a libertarian anymore? At a certain point, don't you get the message that your party doesn't want you? Ralph Nader got that message a long, long time ago. Is it because Ron Paul likes being a 13-time Congressman from Texas a little too much? Even worse than ignoring him though, his party took the Tea thing that Paul invented before there was astroturfing, and then not so politely told Little Ronnie to go back to the kids' table empty-handed. His party shamelessly stole from him, and then refused to give him any credit, and continued to roll its eyes at him like a lunatic. I mean, his son, who was elected to the Senate from Kentucky for the first time by watering down his dad's nutty speeches, instantly became more famous and influential than Ron. What a slap in the face that must have been for dad!....

Upon reflection, however, perhaps there is an important place for the perennial losers like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, who, one could argue, act as the party's conscience, and who tug more electable candidates back in the correct ideological direction. Another way to spin this is, they give us voters a chance to see how far the front-runners are willing to go, how much they are willing to pander to the ideological fringes just to get nominated -- all the while sweating how they're going to take it all back in the general election when faced with moderate/independent voters who want bland oatmeal.

In the end it doesn't really matter. In any case, Ron Paul supporters will blame the lib'rul media for Paul's "invisibility cloak," -- the same invisibility cloak that liberal Ralph Nader wears, courtesy of the same lib'rul media -- although it was lib'rul comedian Jon Stewart who busted FOX and the MSM for going out of its way to make Paul the veritable "13th floor" of the GOP Hotel. Watch it:

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Corn Polled Edition - Ron Paul & the Top Tier
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Rep. Ron Paul debates 'Obama' on FOXMustache -- DWTF?!

This stunt was pretty weak. I never had any respect for John Stossel, but I lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul today, with whom I disagree but at least he "keeps it real" compared to other Republicans whose worldview is hopelessly muddled & self-contradictory.


John Stossel Moderates A "Debate" Between Rep. Ron Paul And ... An Obama Impersonator
April 28, 2011 | Media Matters

URL: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201104280046

Frank and Ron Paul: Cut Pentagon by $1 trillion

Why haven't the Tea Parties picked up Ron Paul's banner? He was teabagging before it was hip and cool. Is it their ignorance? Are they afraid of accusations they don't "support our troops?" Or is that they're not against Big Government, per se, just against a government that spends on butter instead of guns?

Whatever the reason, the teabaggers can't be taken seriously on fiscal responsibility until they face the issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the hundreds of U.S. military garrisons circling the globe. Moreover, their intentions will be suspect until they start crying just as loudly to cut defense spending as they do to cut spending on health care, unemployment benefits, alternative energies, and other federal stimulus measures. In other words, until they stop acting exactly like Republicans.

For more on the Frank-Paul "odd couple" and just how badly we need to cut military spending check out NPR's interview with Barney Frank yesterday.

Why We Must Reduce Military Spending

By Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul

July 6, 2010 | Huffington Post

As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.

By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion -- more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.

It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.

We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.

Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."

When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.

We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers' money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes.

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President's National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.

In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our nation's top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now.

Original teabagger Ron Paul explains 'limited gov't' to GOP

Ron Paul chastises at GOP conference: Conservatives 'like the empire'
By Andrew McLemore
April 10, 2010 | Raw Story

Texas Rep. Ron Paul proved once again Saturday that his politics continue to divide the Republican Party.

He was met with both disapproval and applause during the Southern Republican Leadership Conference for describing conservatives as hypocritical when they call for a return to Constitutional values while supporting foreign wars.

"The conservatives and the liberals, they both like to spend. Conservatives spend money on different things. They like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.

"Don't you think it's rather conservative to say, 'Oh it's good to follow the Constitution. Oh, except for war. Let the President go to war anytime they want.' We can do better with peace than with war."

While most of the other speakers at the event used plenty of rhetoric for "easy applause," as Washington Post reporter David Weigel put it, Paul stuck to the outrage over American foreign policy that has defined his platform.

Whenever the boos grew loud enough, Paul returned to his "humble" foreign policy stance.

"It's been 60 years since we went to war in Korea," said Paul. "Why do we have to have troops there?"

Ron Paul: Tea Party infiltrated by 'neocon influence'

The original teabagger when it wasn't cool, Ron Paul, summed up what's happened to the scatterbrained Tea Party movement: "Everybody likes to join what looks like a popular movement, then they want to come in and influence that movement."

In other words, a bunch of natural Republicans got all excited about being "activists," so they glommed onto this astroturfed movement started by FreedomWorks, Dick Armey, and the billionaire Koch brothers, which then became something like a real grassroots movement when it added thousands of natural Republicans, but in doing so became just an outlet for white Republican anger. Now it's nothing new. It's just re-branding.

Want proof? Here's the teabaggers' big effort coming down the freedom pipeline: the Contract From America. Gee, sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?

Their issue areas support Ron Paul's assertion that the Tea Party has been infiltrated by neoconservative ideology: there is not one reform initiative related to National Defense, although defense makes up 20 percent, or $738 billion, of the FY 2011 federal budget, and would seem to be a prime target for spending cuts.

Here's my analysis: the Tea Party movement is Palin's bargaining chip for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination; she'll threaten to run as a third party candidate and split the conservative vote if she doesn't get the GOP's backing.


Ron Paul: 'Neocon influence' is infiltrating tea parties
By Stephen C. Webster
February 9, 2010 Raw Story

URL: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/paul-cautions-neocon-influence-infiltrating-tea-parties/

Tea Party candidates target...Ron Paul?! DWTF?

Somebody steeped in teabagging please 'splain this to me, 'cos it makes no f-ing sense. The Tea Party is... what? Sarah Palin's personal sandbox? Glenn Beck's ratings Viagra? An excuse for retirees to get out of the house? Something to talk about during those few minutes a day when FOX broadcasts actual news without any opinion?

If anybody should be the Tea Party's messiah, it's Ron Paul. What the heck do these confused morons stand for anyway? This just goes to show me that these angry dupes have no clue. They are being used as hand puppets by Republican-conservative bigwigs.

The Tea Parties are about trying to re-brand the GOP, yet it's still the same old shitty product that 70% of Americans refuse to buy.


Tea Party movement takes aim at Ron Paul
By David Edwards and Daniel Tencer
February 9, 2010 | Raw Story

URL: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/tea-partiers-fighting-against-ron-paul/

And the GOP's 2012 contenders are...

I know it's almost obscene to talk about the 2012 election already, but... I couldn't resist sharing this Rasmussen poll of Republicans, because it's great news for Obama: none of the top 5 GOP candidates holds any public office, therefore they will get almost no attention from non-GOP voters; and Mike Huckabee is the frontrunner with 29% support, including "huge support" from Evangelical Christians, who hold veto power over the GOP nomination. (The 6th-ranked candidate is Rush Limbaugh, if you count the 11% of Republicans who consider him the leader of their party.)

Note that Rep. Ron Paul, whose bill to audit the Fed is quickly become this year's most popular piece of bi-partisan legislation, is not even in the running. But don't expect that to last. He has retained his huge netroots support and his Internet fundraising infrastructure. And unlike the rest of the pack, who spend their time writing books about themselves and then doing the speech circuit, Ron Paul is actually doing stuff. But he'll never win, regardless -- the Evangelicals and neocons will make sure of that.

I almost feel sorry for the GOP, because they're in such a rut: The contenders can't get their party's nomination unless they win over the Jesus freaks and the rabid anti-immigration mob, but in doing so, they shock and alienate the rest of the electorate. Meanwhile, there is a niche candidate who "owns" each important issue (religion, anti-immigration, small government, etc.) who can out-flank anybody, like Romney, who tries to fight on all fronts at once.

All this is adding up to a repeat of 2008, when everybody and their grandma ran for the GOP presidential nomination and nobody cared. The difference in 2012 is that there looks to be no "establishment" candidate whom everyone can grousingly get behind after all the internecine blood has been spilled. The Republicans will divide and conquer themselves again; and meanwhile Obama, even if he is a mediocre sellout as President, will coast to re-election.

Huckabee Leads 2012 Poll

October 17, 2009 Newsmax.com

URL: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/huckabee_rasmussen_poll/2009/10/17/273522.html?s=al&promo_code=8D4B-1

Spitzer on MSNBC: The Fed is a Ponzi scheme

This bit on MSNBC's Morning Meeting show starts with a very nice, simple, prop-aided explanation of the U.S. banking and financial crisis.

What follows is overdue analysis and criticism of the Fed and Ben Bernanke.

Sure, Spitzer slept with hookers, but he asked all the right questions here about the $12 trillion the Fed has pledged to risky U.S. banks. "This begs and cries out for hard examination.... This is a Ponzi scheme, this is an inside job," said Spitzer.

Then host Dylan Ratigan responded: "I feel as if America has suffered the greatest theft and coverup ever... Where banks created a pile of garbage that they paid themselves billions themselves billions of dollars in personal compensation and then stuck the trillions of dollars of garbage with the American taxpayer. That to me is stealing."

Watch this video!

http://dailybail.com/home/eliot-spitzer-the-federal-reserve-is-a-ponzi-scheme-inside-t.html

Then tell your Congressmen that you support Rep. Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed! Just follow the link to Paul's site and type in your ZIP code:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

Ron Paul en fuego in S. Carolina!

Congressman Ron Paul was on fire in last night's GOP debate in South Carolina, winning big applause every time FOX allowed him to speak. Here are some of his greatest hits:


Paul on the GOP losing its way:

PAUL: No, I would like to address the subject about whether or not we've lost our way and whether there's a coalition building or whether it's gone. I think it's gone. I don't think we're fiscal conservatives anymore. Look at what we've done over these 10 years. We finally got control of the government and we became big-government people.

Our deficit's out of control and we no longer are opposed to new entitlements. We are entitlement people. And then we turn around and we talk about liberty and we've undermined the Fourth Amendment and personal liberty and personal privacy. In the year 2000, we won the election by condemning the Democrats for nation-building and policing the world, and now, what are we doing?

We're policing the world, we're involved in all of these countries around the world and threatening going into Iran and Pakistan and on and on. At the same time, our economy is suffering to the point where we can't even finance what we have here today. We have to borrow from the Chinese and the dollar is crashing.

So no wonder our coalition is breaking up. We actually have lost our way. Now, over the years, I've never voted to spend one penny of the Social Security fund, because I'm a fiscal conservative. If you want the Social Security system to work, get people who will vote against robbing the Social Security fund.

Paul on alleged Iranian provocation:

PAUL: I would certainly urge a lot more caution than I'm hearing here tonight. It reminds me of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin . We went to war there, then, later on, found out there was a lot of false information.

So here we have -- let's put it in perspective. We have five small speedboats attacking the U.S. Navy with a Destroyer? They could take care of those speedboats in about five seconds. And here we're ready to start World War III over this?

And now, guess what, today, the Navy commander of the Fifth Fleet was on ABC and announced that, you know, that voice might not have come from those vessels. So what does that mean? Was there a rush to judgment on this, ready to go to war?

And you know there are people in this administration and in Washington, D.C., that are looking for the chance. They were so disappointed with the national estimate on intelligence. And they were disappointed that there's no attempt to build weapons in Iran since 2003.

HUME: Congressman...

PAUL: So what -- I just don't see this rush to judgment.

HUME: Well, wait a minute. All of these people I've asked this question to so far have said they supported the decision to be passive. What are you responding to?

PAUL: I'm very sorry, I can't hear a word you said.

(APPLAUSE)

You'll have to speak up.

HUME: Every one of these -- of your fellow candidates have said they supported the commander's decision to respond passively. I just wonder what you're reacting to.

PAUL: Well, I didn't hear that. Of course we want caution. But I'm worrying about the policy of why we're looking for a justification. Now there are no weapons, actually people are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran.

I mean, we're already, with our CIA, being involved in trying to overthrow that government, and we don't need another war. And this incident should not be thrown out of proportion to the point where we're getting ready to attack Iran over this.

Paul on U.S. interference in the Mideast:

GOLER: Congressman Paul, can we go back to the Middle East? You have said the United States should not be trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Should the president even be there today, sir?

PAUL: Well, if he followed my advice, yes, we wouldn't be there. We've been doing that for a good many years, and it hasn't seemed to come to success.

No, I think if we weren't there, there'd be more incentives to come to a peaceful agreement. But we support both sides. You know, not only with the Palestinians, but the Lebanese and all the Arab nations.

We support Israel, and we try to have this balance. But I think it would be much better to have a balance by being out of there. And I think it would be a greater incentive for Israel and the Palestinians and all the Arab nations to come together and talk because I think we get in the way too often of these. And besides, it's costing us a lot of money and it's costing us lives now.

And it's time that we come to the point where we believe the world can solve some of their problems without us. And also, we're out of money. We can't do it any longer.

We're going bankrupt. And the empires of the world have always ended badly through economic terms.

PAUL: So whether there are peace agreements over there, I mean, for instance, if we would stop all aid to over there, we would stop three times as much aid as Israel gets through the Arab nations.

Why do we arm the Arab nations and they're the enemies of Israel? But we continue to do that. So why don't we trade with everybody and talk with them, and there's a greater incentive to work these problems out.

I think if we'd have been out of there a lot sooner, there may well have been a much different settlement after the Kuwait invasion, because Israel was quite capable of working with moderate Arab nations. They tried to. None of the Arab nations wanted Saddam Hussein in Kuwait and I think they could have taken care of Saddam Hussein back then and saved all the mess that we have now, because I think there are so many unintended consequences and way too much blowback.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: I thank the gentleman.

MCCAIN: Could I just make a comment? I'm not interested in trading with Al Qaida. All they want to trade is burkas. I don't want to travel with them. They like one-way tickets.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Governor Huckabee, can you...

PAUL: May I answer that? May I answer that?

GOLER: Yes, Congressman.

PAUL: I'm talking actually about that, because that's what we have been doing. We used to support Saddam Hussein and we used to be allied with Osama Bin Laden, and what I want to do is stop that.

Who are our friends one day turn out to be our enemies. Right now, we finally got rid of Saddam Hussein. And what are we doing now? We're re-arming the Sunnis, the old henchmen of Saddam Hussein.

And what are they going to do with it? There's all those weapons we're giving the Sunnis in Baghdad. So look out, believe me, that war is not over and right now they're demanding more troops in Afghanistan and we're -- some people, like the Senator, he thinks we should be there for 100 years if necessary.

How can he commit the young people of this world, five more generations, to be in Iraq if it's necessary? I say it's time to come home.

(APPLAUSE)

Paul on U.S.-Israel relations:

PAUL: In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don't let them design their own peace treaties with their neighbors. And then we turn around and say that, when you want to do that or you want to defend your borders, they have to check it out with us.

I think Israel would be a lot safer. I made the point earlier. We give three times as much money to the Arabs. Why do we arm their enemies? So if you care about Israel, you should be against all the weapons that go to the Arab nations.

(APPLAUSE)

And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they'd be a lot better off.

I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time.

But we need to recognize they deserve their sovereignty, just as we deserve our sovereignty.

PAUL: I believe that if they assumed more responsibility, there would be more peace there and that there would be a lot less threat to us. Besides, we don't have any money to do this.

(APPLAUSE)

Paul on his electability:

CAMERON: Congressman Paul, yet another question about electability.

Do you have any, sir? There's always the question as to whether or not...

(LAUGHTER)

... you are, in fact, viable. Your differences with the Republicans on the -- with the rest of the Republicans on this stage has raised questions about whether or not you can actually win the Republican nomination, sir.

PAUL: Well, we've only had two little primaries so far. So it's pretty premature to decide which one is going to be the candidate. But, you know, when you think about it, if you measured everything I've ever said, every vote I've ever taken against the Constitution, you know, I'm a strict constitutionalist.

Are you suggesting the Republicans should write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I'm the most conservative member here. I have voted, you know, against more spending and waste in government than anybody else.

(APPLAUSE)

So you're suggesting that I'm not electable and the Republicans don't want me because I'm a strict fiscal conservative, because I believe in civil liberties? Why should we not be defending civil liberties and why should we not be talking about foreign policy that used to be the part of the Republican Party?

PAUL: Mr. Republican Robert Taft didn't even want us to be in NATO and you're saying now that we have to continue to borrow money from China to finance this empire that we can't afford?

Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to Musharraf, who is a military dictator, who overthrew an elected government. And then we go to war, we lose all these lives promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean, what's going on here?

(APPLAUSE)

And you're saying that this isn't appealing to Republicans? Where did this come about? I think this is the Republican message. I defend the platform. It used to say we'd (inaudible) the Department of Education. It doesn't say that now.

We, as Republicans, went and doubled the size of the Department of Education, so where have we gone? I think we've lost our way. And then the insinuation that I am less Republican because of that?

Paul on illegal Mexican immigration:

GOLER: Congressman Paul, is denying a path to citizenship for people now in the country illegally important enough that Republicans are willing to concede the Hispanic vote to Democrats in November?

PAUL: Well, I don't know that, but I don't know if that's necessarily true, but I do think we should enforce the law. And the law says that illegals shouldn't be here and that we shouldn't have amnesty.

But I think this whole thing should be thought of more in economic terms. Maybe I think about economics too much. But there is something said in economics that, if you subsidize something, you get more of it.

And this is what we do. We encourage it by giving free medical care, and free education, and the promise of amnesty. And no wonder more will come.

PAUL: We have a weakening economy and now immigrants, especially the illegals, are seen as a threat because they come and they undermine our tax system. And some of our hospitals are being closed and some of our people won't work because of the welfare state.

You can't solve this problem if you don't deal with the terms of welfarism. And, besides, you know, some of our border guards are over in Iraq. I think they would be better off on our borders, you know, protecting our borders, not in Iraq.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: So, yes, I think we have to deal with it. And if we don't deal with it carefully, yes, we're going to lose some votes on it. But quite frankly, the law is the law and we should enforce the law.

Ron Paul: It's lonely being right on the right

The GOP's Lonely Anti-War Candidate

Meet Congressman Ron Paul -- staunch libertarian, outspoken critic of American hubris, and Republican presidential contender.

Zack Pelta-Heller | June 11, 2007 | The American Prospect

Surely one of the highlights of the presidential primary debates held so far occurred back in mid-May, during the Republican debate in South Carolina: Ten-term Texas Congressman Ron Paul stood in front of a patriotic field of white stars on a blue backdrop and told Fox News correspondent Wendell Goler that the attacks of 9/11 occurred primarily as a response to U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades. "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us?" he asked incredulously. "They attacked us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for ten years!"

When Goler asked for clarification that the United States invited the 9/11 attacks, Paul, with his arms folded, replied coolly, "I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it. They are already delighted that we're over there, because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad that you're on our sand, because I can target you so much easier.' They have already … killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary."

The last comment caused GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani to become unhinged. "That's an extraordinary statement -- as someone who lived through the attack on September 11th -- that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq," Giuliani seethed. "I don't think I've ever heard that one before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." The audience erupted in applause, and Giuliani then asked the congressman to withdraw his comment. Paul instead discussed the blowback from CIA operations in the Middle East and elsewhere since the 1950's. Uproar ensued. Goler quickly changed the subject.

Congressman Paul is the only Republican presidential contender who opposes the war in Iraq; in 2002, he was one of six House Republicans who voted against authorizing the use of military force. And he opposes our military involvement with such vehemence -- both on the campaign trail and on the House floor -- that critics have suggested he ought to run as a Democrat. (Paul was unbowed in the second Republican debate last week, using the word "empire" to describe American engagements abroad and invoking his training as a doctor in offering up his assessment: "If we made the wrong diagnosis, we should change the treatment … We're not making progress there and we should come home.") While it's true that many of Paul's positions seem out of step with the current Republican Party (he also voted against the Patriot Act and Internet regulation), Paul's no lefty; his positions are in keeping with his libertarian small-government principles and his own austere interpretation of the Constitution.

First elected in 1976, Paul has long opposed government intervention abroad and within the free market system. (His libertarianism doesn't extend to many social issues: He's pro-life and adamantly opposed to amnesty for undocumented immigrants and birthright citizenship for their children.) Paul votes against spending bills and new government tasks so frequently (even when the initiatives have sweeping Republican support) that his dissents have earned him the nickname "Dr. No."

While Paul's pro-life views and some of his anti-immigration policies have garnered him criticism from the Libertarian Party (which nominated him for President in 1988), he's now enjoying the glow of the national spotlight for his public condemnation of the war. I spoke with Paul by phone prior to his appearance on The Daily Show last Monday night. We discussed some of his seemingly anomalous platforms, and I asked him how he hopes to steer fellow Republicans away from big-government conservatism.

"It's not going to be easy," Paul laughed. "I have to remind them of times when they actually supported small-government conservatism and took the position that we should be less adventuresome overseas." Paul is not surprised to be the only antiwar GOP candidate, since he feels the party has taken its cues virtually entirely from the Bush administration for the past six years. "They pounded it into us that we had to do this or we were un-American," he said. Paul believes that we cannot remain overextended abroad in part because we lack the money. "That's something that's very ironic," he added, "that conservatives are digging a big hole for us financially, as well as getting us involved in these conflicts around the world that never seem to end."

In the wake of September 11th, Paul supported the authority and the funding to go after Osama bin Laden. "What I did not support," he said, "was going into nation-building and the occupation of two Muslim countries, and then allowing bin Laden to go into Pakistan -- a country that is our ally and we send money to." At the time, what Paul actually wanted instead of war was for Congress to grant Letters of Marquee and Reprisal, a Constitutional decree that would have allowed private sources or bounty hunters to pursue bin Laden.

Paul quickly became fed up with the administration's handling of the war and congressional support for neoconservative proposals. In a speech entitled "Neo-CONNED!" which Paul delivered to the House in July 2003, he declared, "In spite of the floundering economy, Congress and the [Bush] administration continue to take on new commitments in foreign aid, education, farming, medicine, multiple efforts at nation building, and preemptive wars around the world."

Paul is acutely concerned about what our military presence has done in the Middle East, and how we are viewed in the Muslim world. "The Iranians don't forget about 1953, when we changed their leadership," he told me, "or the 1980s, when we put Saddam Hussein after them." As in the South Carolina debate, Paul can often be heard paraphrasing the words of Ronald Reagan, "We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Reagan conceded this notion in his autobiography, referring to the decision to send troops into Lebanon in 1983, which resulted in the deaths of 241 marines. Paul, who was in Congress as the time, argued against Reagan's decision then, and he quoted Reagan again to the House in 2006 when refusing to choose sides during Hezbollah's fighting with Israel.

Paul cites hard evidence found in documents like the 9/11 Commission Report to support his foreign policy claims. The 9/11 Commission concluded that numerous statements from bin Laden prior to September 11th clearly expressed anger with our military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East. Following the South Carolina debate, Paul held a press conference in which he included the 9/11 Commission Report on a recommended reading list for Giuliani regarding foreign policy. Other books included Imperial Hubris, Blowback, and Dying to Win.

Paul believes we can simply back away from our position as policemen of the world. As for humanitarian crises like the situation in Darfur, he said he feels neighboring nations have every right to be concerned, along with countries with vested interests in the Sudan, and he would ask the Red Cross to get involved and people to donate money. But he believes that that is as far as our foreign aid should extend. "I don't have the right to take money from you and make you work harder or live less productively, just because I'm sympathetic with the conditions in Darfur," he maintained. "Besides, generally speaking, we go where the oil is and not where the humanitarian needs are. And most of these dollars that go to these poor nations to help certain factions end up as weapons in these civil wars."

While Congressman Paul chose not to run as a Libertarian candidate this time around, the Libertarian Party still stands by him. Shane Cory, the Libertarian Party's Executive Director told me that although Paul strays from the party on certain issues, including abortion, Paul still represents the party's core beliefs in free-market principles and non-intervention abroad. (The sole criterion for Libertarian Party membership is certifying that you will not "advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.") Cory told me by phone, "I think Ron Paul has made several valid points on the war in the debates, and unfortunately a lot of Republicans have failed to appreciate them."

Many Democrats have taken notice of Paul, an unlikely ally across the aisle. Earlier this year, Paul joined with Democrats John Murtha of Pennsylvania, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, and John Larson of Connecticut, among others, to co-sponsor a resolution that would require the president to seek specific authorization before initiating military force in Iran. Dennis Kucinich, who is running for president and couldn't be further from Paul on most issues, told me, "Paul has true integrity. His word is good and he has the courage of his convictions."

Representative Abercrombie also could not speak highly enough of Paul. "He's a legislator's legislator," Abercrombie said. "He's an intellectual at heart; he is just the real thing without the slightest bit of pretense or condescension." Last week, Abercrombie and Paul teamed up again to introduce a resolution that stipulates a sunset for the president's authority in Iraq. According to Abercrombie, it was Paul's idea to force a re-authorization for the war in Congress, which would render all of the political rhetoric and smokescreens about timetables moot.

"Congress has to take up its Constitutional responsibility to reauthorize this war, if that's its will," Abercrombie explained. "Paul called me and we tried to figure out a way to get past this maelstrom of legislative futility." Abercrombie can't wait for the next GOP debate, when Paul will be able to hold his fellow candidates accountable on the future of the war. Most likely, neither can Ron Paul.

Zack Pelta-Heller is a graduate student at The New School and a regular contributor to AlterNet.

FOX op-ed: GOP's Ron Paul Has a Point

Straight Talk: Paul Has a Point

By Radley Balko
May 21, 2007 | FOXNews.com

The reaction to the showdown between Rep. Ron Paul and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has been fascinating. Paul suggested that the recent history of U.S. foreign policy endeavors overseas may have had something to do with terrorists' willingness to come to America, live here for several months, then give their lives to kill as many Americans as possible.

Perhaps, Paul suggested, the 15-year presence of the U.S. military forces in Muslim countries may have motivated them. For that, Giuliani excoriated him, calling it an "extraordinary statement," adding, "I don't think I've heard that before."

Let's be blunt. Giuliani was either lying, or he hasn't cracked a book in six years.

The "blowback" theory isn't some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn't suggest that we "deserved" the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn't have retaliated against the people who waged them.

What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn't difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.

This isn't to say we should never bomb an Arab or Muslim country. Certainly, to the extent that the Taliban in Afghanistan gave Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda refuge after the attacks, we had no choice but to attack and topple them from government.

But we also shouldn't just attack any Arab or Muslim country, which is what we did with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's government was brutal, ruthless and tyrannical. No doubt. But so are a number of countries with which we're allies (read: Saudi Arabia).

Hussein's government wasn't a threat to us. It wasn't militant Islamist. It was secular. There were no WMDs. And Saddam Hussein had no connection whatsoever to Sept. 11.

But let's get back to Rep. Paul. After last week's debate, reaction to Paul from pro-war types was swift and severe. The head of the Michigan GOP demanded he be excluded from future debates.

Several activists have called for him to be purged from the Republican Party (given what the GOP stands for these days, perhaps that's not such a bad idea). One former staffer declared Paul an "embarrassment" and announced he'd challenge Paul for his seat in Congress.

This is all patently absurd. Actually, it's offensive. No one knows precisely what morbid formula inspired the Sept. 11 attacks. Most likely, it was some mix of U.S. foreign policy exacerbating radical Islamists' already deep-seeded contempt for Western values.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even consider that our actions overseas might have unintended consequences is, frankly, just ignorant. And to attempt to silence anyone who says otherwise as outside the bounds of civilized debate is doubly ignorant.

If you get stung by a hornet, it makes sense to see if there's a hornets' nest near your home and, if there is, to exterminate it. It doesn't make sense to forge out looking for hornets' nests anywhere you can find them, smacking them with sticks. You're bound to get stung again.

It also makes sense to see if there's something you're doing that's attracting hornets, like perhaps storing perfume by a window. None of this suggests you deserved to be stung; it only means you're rationally looking at what caused you to be stung in the first place and trying to prevent it from happening again.

Those who find Rep. Paul's foreign policy vision fringe-like or crazy would do well to read what other libertarian non-interventionists were saying before the Iraq war began. They were remarkably prescient. Some even predicted a Sept. 11-like attack years before it happened. For example:

— The Cato Institute's Gene Healy: "After our quick victory, and after the "Arab street" fails to rise, you're going to hear a lot of self-congratulation from the hawks. But the fallout from this war is likely to be long-term, in the form of a protracted and messy occupation, and an enhanced terrorist recruitment base."

— Ted Galen Carpenter, also of Cato: "The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America's troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems."

Now contrast those forecasts — both made before the war — with predictions from the war's architects:

— Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

— Vice President Dick Cheney: "I don't think it would be that tough a fight."

— White House economic advisor Glenn Hubbard: "Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small."

— OMB Director Mitch Daniels: "The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."

It's striking just how right people who think like Ron Paul were before the war, and how incredibly wrong those now pilling on him were. And yet Paul Wolfowitz was promoted to head the World Bank; Dick Cheney is still vice president; and Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana.

The people who were wrong were rewarded. And they go right on mocking the people who were right.

Radley Balko is a senior editor with Reason magazine. He publishes the weblog, TheAgitator.com.