Ron Paul appeared on Larry King Live tonight following Michael Moore to refute (and agree) with some of what Moore said. It was a very good appearance by Paul. He spoke about health care, foreign policy, and the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Ron Paul participated in a House Foreign Affairs committee today regarding Iran and a bill that would “enhance” energy sanctions on Iran put in place in a 1996 bill.
Ron Paul uses his 5 minutes quite well as he declares that sanctions are an act of war and attempts to educate his peers on the unintended consequences of these types of sanctions.
Ron Paul participated in a House Committee of Foreign Affairs hearing on the U.S. policy in Afghanistan yesterday. To say he was a bit passionate and animated about his views is an understatement.
“It’s time to end the whole mess!”
When watching it one gets the impression he’s made these same arguments a few too many times. Judging from his demeanor he may be getting sick of replaying the same arguments and not have anyone really listen to him. Well, a few of us are listening, and agreeing.
Summary: As Congressman, I will drive for a rapid, immediate and orderly withdrawal from Iraq. Under no circumstances will I approve spending to extend this unconstitutional, preemptive war of aggression.
Besides the creating new dollars to debase the currency and spending taxpayer funds to fund war during adverse economic times, my justification for the position is the following:
First and foremost, without a declaration of war, the Iraq War is an unconstitutional and illegal war as it conflicts with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. In dereliction of their duty and oaths of office, the House voted down by unanimous vote a motion in committee to follow the Constitution and declare war in H.R.J. 114, the bill that authorized Bush II to invade with attack in March 2003. (1) (2)
A year ago when the Presidential election was in full swing the main buzzword we heard out of the Obama camp was “change”. In fact, “change you can believe in”. At the time we were pretty sure it was all hogwash and his first year in office has proven that assessment to be true.
A piece by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com a few weeks ago points out many examples how so much of Obama’s talk of change was just that: talk.
“When it comes to uprooting (’changing’) the Bush/Cheney approach to terrorism and civil liberties — the issue which generated as much opposition to the last presidency as anything else — the Obama administration has proven rather conclusively that tiny and cosmetic adjustments are the most it is willing to do.
“They love announcing new policies that cast the appearance of change but which have no effect whatsoever on presidential powers.
“With great fanfare, they announced the closing of CIA black sites — at a time when none was operating.
“They trumpeted the President’s order that no interrogation tactics outside of the Army Field Manual could be used — at a time when approval for such tactics had been withdrawn.
“They repudiated the most extreme elements of the Bush/Addington/Yoo ‘inherent power’ theories — while maintaining alternative justifications to enable the same exact policies to proceed exactly as is.
“They flamboyantly touted the closing of Guantanamo — while aggressively defending the right to abduct people from around the world and then imprison them with no due process at Bagram.
“Their ‘changes’ exist solely in theory — which isn’t to say that they are all irrelevant, but it is to say that they change nothing in practice: i.e., in reality.”
“Isn’t it so interesting how the phrase ‘Patriot Act’ was the symbol of everything Democrats claimed to find so heinous during the Bush years, but now that there’s a Democratic President, Senate and Congress, it’s absolutely certain that the Patriot Act will continue, and civil libertarians are reduced to hoping that there may be some tiny modifications to it, and even that’s highly unlikely?”
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.
Liberty Maven
Follow LM on Twitter