Ron Paul published a video answering the question, “What do you think about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price?”
Ron covers many of the same points critics have made already, but he interestingly points out that the anti-war Left is AWOL now that Obama is in office. Projecting a bit into the future I’m curious what will become of these “Tea Partiers” if another big-government neo-conservative Republican wins the White House in 2012. Will they go AWOL too? I fear they will. Can we please, for the love of liberty, break this vicious cycle?
Partisanship is an evil drug and too many Republicans and Democrats are addicted. The Constitution was not created for convenience or whim. It was once the “supreme law of the land”, but now it really has become “just a god-damned piece of paper” for far too many people.
I expect there are many people out in the world today, some of them even Obama’s most staunch supporters, wondering why Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Saying that I’m incredulous is an understatement. He just bombed the moon. He has continually bombed and killed civilian innocents in Pakistan. We are not out of Iraq. We are not out of Afghanistan.
Louis Armstrong’s famous song “What A Wonderful World” is now officially satire.
Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee was afraid of being called racist?
The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.
Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.
Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.
Perhaps Obama winning this award is not surprising after all. The only other two sitting U.S. Presidents to win the award were Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. Hmmm, do I detect a pattern here? Perhaps it should be renamed, “The Nobel Progressive Prize”. It certainly has nothing to do with peace.
What if this obvious political move has the unintended consequence of spreading more resentment for America overseas than less? In effect this would be using the prize as a strategic chess piece for wishes that will never come true.
“I don’t think Obama deserves this. I don’t know who’s making all these decisions. The prize should go to someone who has done something for peace and humanity,” said Ahmad Shabir, 18-year-old student in Kabul. “Since he is the president, I don’t see any change in U.S. strategy in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Maybe we all should be asking ourselves what is the purpose of our interventionist foreign policy? What makes us think we can help (I use that term loosely) Afghanistan where others have failed miserably?
We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” said Specialist Raquime Mercer
The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban, because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see
The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” said Captain Masengale.
I saw a bumper sticker today that said, “I Love Sarah”. I assumed it meant Sarah Palin and not Sarah Jessica Parker, but I can’t be sure. Last month Palin was echoing Ron Paul on the role of the Federal Reserve in America’s economic crisis. I encouraged her (not that she gives one moose about what I think) to echo Ron Paul on foreign policy as well.
Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.
Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.
“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”
Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.
“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”
She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.
It is certainly true that Glenn Beck has been a rather vocal “warmonger” when it comes to America’s interventionism overseas. I made a comment during Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign that Beck and Paul are in 100% agreement when it comes to economics, but Beck had some work to do in order to “come around” to Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy views.
While Beck may not be there yet, there is a noticeable difference in his rhetoric when it comes to foreign policy and war. This could certainly be attributed to the fact that Obama is now in the White House instead of George W. Bush who used to get endless praise from Beck on foreign policy. Or is this evidence of a core transformation in Beck toward a more non-interventionist approach?
I shamefully admit that I once supported an interventionist foreign policy but that has changed over time as I investigated and became more informed on the issue. It took months, not days. Could Beck be going through a similar transformation? Only time, and maybe another Republican President will tell.
Does it really matter what Glenn Beck thinks? I argue that it does. He has some of the highest ratings of all the political talk shows. Like it or not many people care what he says and thinks. If Beck can make the transition to non-intervention then any formerly devout neo-conservative can too. Don’t shun them with charges of distrust. Welcome them and help them along their path.
For evidence of the Beck transformation-in-process I submit the video below.
Ron Paul has been making the media rounds this week delivering his no-nonsense wisdom and promoting his new book, “”. Of course a few of them aren’t exactly main stream media outlets. Here is a rundown of his recent media appearances.
Hard facts. 150 countries. 380,000+ soldiers abroad. Over 46,000 veteran suicides and 5,100+ combat troops dead during the War of Terror.
“If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and see further than other countries into the future…” – Madeleine Albright while serving as Secretary of State, 1998
As I wrote earlier this year, one of the sticking points I encounter in conversation is when someone challenges me that America does not have, as I allege, a military empire. However, they never seem to be able to rattle off any facts or statistics to the contrary. This updated article is my attempt to document those facts. The Department of Defense last issued information on troop deployment in March 2009. (photo)
There are 194 states in the world, so therefore we have troops in 77% of all countries on the planet.
The size of America’s armed forces is 1,412,529 soldiers.
380,011 of these troops, or 27% are stationed on land overseas. (Included in this figure is an estimate 25,000 in South Korea.) 16% of our troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
54,043 soldiers are based in Germany, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
34,544 soldiers are based in Japan, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
Although figures were not available (and reported as zero), 24,655 soldiers were reported last quarter as based in South Korea as technically this “police action” that resulted in the deaths of 36,516 Americans and the wounding of 92,134. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to peace with North Korea is the presence of these soldiers.
We have only 15 troops and 0 bases in Vietnam, and get along with their nation fairly well, considering 58,159 were killed and 303,635 wounded during that “police action.”
America’s DoD is “one of the world’s largest “landlords” possessing 545,714 buildings, 5,429 bases, spanning 29.8 million acres of land. (p3/205)
761 bases, or 14%, are located on foreign soil. (p23/205)
12 of the 111 bases designated as “large” are located on foreign soil. (p33/205)
However, reading the remainder of the report reveals that bases in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel are not listed, so both number of bases and “large” bases are too low.
Over 5,100 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the War of Terror. (source)
Furthermore, CBS and the military revealed that 18 veterans commit suicide per day during the 8-year Global War on Terror, resulting in an estimated 46,000 deaths. (source)
Glenn Beck had Ron Paul on his radio show this morning to discuss Paul’s new book “End the Fed“. The discussion turned toward predicting what America will look like within the next 3-5 years. Unsurprisingly both Beck and Paul do not have a rosy prognostication. In fact their discussion was downright scary.
The discussion lasts about 14 minutes. Following the interview Beck reiterates that he doesn’t agree with Ron Paul on some things, but when it comes to the Fed Glenn says he is “Dead Right.” Following that Beck goes into a discussion on foreign policy as it relates to Afghanistan.
Listen to the audio below.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Daniel Hannan was one of the guest speakers at the Ron Paul sponsored Campaign For Liberty regional conference in Philadelphia over the weekend. In light of that it appears that Daniel Hannan has Ron Paul on his mind. Hannan wrote a piece profiling Ron Paul on his Telegraph UK blog yesterday.
Ron Paul is an unusual phenomenon: a politician who always answers questions fully and honestly. This tendency often gets him into trouble: although people say they want straight-talking representatives, they often react with horror when they get one.
Dr Paul’s ruthless application of his convictions – minimal government, localism, personal freedom and adherence to the letter of the US Constitution – alienates many of the conservatives who might have been expected to back him.
For example, although he doesn’t agree with abortion – as a GP, he says, he delivered thousands of babies, and never came across a case where a termination was necessary for the mother’s physical or psychological well-being – he insists that abortion law ought not to be a federal prerogative and, during his 2008 presidential bid, resolutely refused to give the Pro-Lifers the assurances they wanted.
Similarly, when almost every conservative legislator, including a great many Democrats, supported a law to prevent gun-shops being sued for crimes committed with weapons they had sold legally, he voted against the measure on grounds that it represented a usurpation of jurisdiction from the 50 states
You can read the rest of it here. I don’t think many can argue with Hannan’s assertions about Dr. Paul in the piece. While there is some obvious disagreement on specific issues Hannan is obviously a Ron Paul fan.
Here is the video from MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” of Peter Schiff officially announcing his bid for Senate in Connecticut. Everyone seems to be focused on his potential opponent Chris Dodd and overlooks the fact that he must win the GOP primary first. He’s not even the front runner in the primary…. yet.
Liberty Maven
As I wrote 
“. The discussion turned toward predicting what America will look like within the next 3-5 years. Unsurprisingly both Beck and Paul do not have a rosy prognostication. In fact their discussion was downright scary.
Follow LM on Twitter