Monday, December 26, 2011

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy: "Most Assuredly an Isolationist"

More from senior aide Eric Dondero:

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist
. He denies this charge vociferously.


Not the most surprising thing you'll read all year, but refreshing to hear a little honesty on the matter.

But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay" (sic)...


Paul's isolationism would have extended to us not entering WWII, according to his aide. If that is the case, he certainly would have viewed FDR's Lend/Lease program as interventionism, which would have weakened Britain's ability to resist Hitler. Danke Gott, Paul wasn't in the Oval Office at the time, or far too many of you would have understood that phrase perfectly!

I have been trying, since the last debate, to try to get someone from the Paul side to tell me the difference, in principle, between the Israeli arms blockade that he condemned as an act of war and the blockade put in place by JFK, whom he praised for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis. (Without mentioning JFK's pesky blockade, that Paul, were he consistent, would have considered an act of war without a declaration of war.)

Paul is all over the map when it comes to lunacy on his foreign policy. It appears that those closest to him recognize that as well. Most of them are just keeping quiet.


H/T Memeorandum
Cross posted at Say Anything

5 comments:

  1. all of this really just begs the question: why "should" America be involved in preventing crimes around the world? please give me a reasoning for this. God never allowed Israel to do things like that in the old covenant. in fact, God's foreign policy is strikingly similar to Ron Paul's view. Please watch this video series, esp. segments 8, 9, and 10. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16

    also, saying Paul was completely against "any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11" is an outrageous lie and should be removed from this website immediately if you wish to maintain any integrity. please read Paul's anti-terror bills for yourself: HR 2896, HR 3074, HR 3076, HR 4797, HR 3216, HR 3835, HR 3023, HR 2616, HR 3305.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "all of this really just begs the question: why "should" America be involved in preventing crimes around the world?" We could start with the parable of the Good Samaritan and work our way out from there? I guess Paul could fill the shoes of those who crossed over to the other side of the road to avoid the victim. (BTW, that's in the New Covenant!)

    Unless you've bought into the whackadoo notion that things like the WTC bombing are "crimes" and not acts of war, then we have a vested self interest in maintaining a certain amount of peace and order in the world, so long as it is in our power to do so.

    I understand that Paul has only had one piece of legislation that he authored that ever got signed into law, and it had nothing to do with terrorism.

    As far as "removing" anything from my website, what I have posted is the account of someone very close to Paul, who has the courage to sign his name to it as well. I'll not be lectured to by anonymous sources as to what will maintain the integrity of my website.

    But, thanks for playing!

    ReplyDelete
  3. The parable of the Samaritan is an example of charitable actions by free individuals. The Samaritan didn't find the nearest Roman guard and demand he take care of him with taxpayer coins. No, he did it himself - with his own resources. Any government is morally obligated to its own tax-paying citizens. Otherwise, what argument do you have against one-world, centralized, international empire? Answer me this: what if a nation other than the USA decided to sanction, bomb or invade our borders because we slaughter one million children every year? In their country, they told their citizens: "It is our godly duty to stop the massacre of innocent children. We are Good Samaritans to the unborn." Would you, then, applaud and support the actions of that government on your own soil? If not, then your argument for America-intervention is self-refuting and irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The parable of the Samaritan is an example of charitable actions by free individuals." Missed my point I see. And as far as I can tell, the rest of your "arguments" are merely irrelevant. I'm sure it made sense in your head while you were typing it, but it loses something in the translation to English.

    "Any government is morally obligated to its own tax-paying citizens" and if it is a government of the people, are those individuals morally obligated to do nothing, so long as it does not fall inside their national borders?

    "Otherwise, what argument do you have against one-world, centralized, international empire?" I have plenty, but it may be too complex for you if you think those are the only two alternatives.

    Your world view is rather simplistic. I think you have found your perfect candidate.

    Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No, it is you who have missed my point. Whenever the government does ANYTHING it is by the tax dollars of US citizens. Therefore, any and ALL actions by the government should represent/benefit all American citizens. The Good Samaritan is analogous to free Americans (missionaries, private organizations, etc.) going into dangerous territories to preach the gospel and help liberate oppressed societies. God never gives civil governments the authority to use its citizen's tax dollars for adventurism around the world, for the benefit of people in other countries. When governments start using tax dollars for things God hasn't given them the authority to delegate it is theft. Seeing the solution to foreign policy as "all government or nothing at all" is a flawed position. Please look into God's wisdom for foreign policy in the Bible... Did you not view the youtube series I linked?

    Again, please: What if a nation other than the USA decided to sanction, bomb or invade our borders because we slaughter one million children every year? In their country, they told their citizens: "It is our godly duty to stop the massacre of innocent children. We are Good Samaritans to the unborn." Would you, then, applaud and support the actions of that government on your own soil?

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails