Category Archives: Ron Paul
The US 2016 presidential race is mass entertainment orchestrated by the media, three-time presidential candidate and former congressman Ron Paul told RT, as he discussed frontrunner Donald Trump, the government and the bubble-making US economy.
Paul told RTs Ameera David that billionaire presidential hopeful Trump, who earlier vowed to build a massive border wall and end birthright citizenship for babies born to undocumented immigrants, is nothing but an authoritarian.
He is an authoritarian and he brags about it: I’m the boss, I tell people what to do. The government happens to be a little different than that. The only thing that you want to do if you believe in the market is you want to get rid of the government. But he is talking about having strong taxes on imports, he wants to punish people, he is the boss. So I think hed be very dangerous to the economy.
He is getting a lot of attention right now, but he is an authoritarian. He wants to run peoples lives and run the world and run the economy, because thats the way he lives his life. On occasion he comes up with the correct idea, but an authoritarian is the opposite of a libertarian. A libertarian wants to release creative energy to the individuals. We want to get the government out of our lives, out of the economy, and out of all these places around the world. It’s quite a bit different from the way an authoritarian would approach our problems, Paul said.
READ MORE: All wars paid for through deficit financing, debasing the currency Ron Paul to RT
The US economy is set to grow 0.9 percent in the third quarter after a bigger-than-expected widening of the trade gap for goods in August, accordingto the Atlanta Federal Reserves GDPNow. This appeared to be a much slower rate from the regional Fed bank’s prior estimate of 1.8 percent last week, the Atlanta Fed noted.
Its just the beginning of a downturn, nothings really happened yet, Paul said. Everything is misdirected because of the price of money. There are bubbles every place. You have a stock market bubble, you have still bubblemaking in housing when you see houses selling for $500 million, and you have a bubble in student loans.
The bubbles are all over the place. This is the problem. I dont see an easy way out. I think the markets are going to go down a lot more when you realize how serious this is. Actually we are doing better than the rest of the world but were in for trouble too because the world has never had a situation like this where a whole world endorsed a paper currency and had pyramiding of debt around the world by the reserve currency which is the dollar.
Its the biggest bubble ever, so its going to big the biggest crash ever, but it remains to be seen exactly when that’s going to hit.
The source of the trouble is the Federal Reserve System, which simply cannot work in a real market economy, Dr Paul said.
In a true free market economy you have to have people work, use what they need to live on and then save money, and that dictates interest rates and tells businessmen what they should do. Well, that isnt the way it works any more. The so-called capital comes from the Fed and they create it out of thin air. So everything is a mistake and everything is going to be volatile. You can do this for a while when the country is very very wealthy, and a currency is very very strong.
But eventually people mistrust the government. They dont pay interest, they have a huge amount of principal to pay, and corporations are deeply in debt, they borrow a lot of money practically for free and they buy up their stocks. Its a mess. Its artificial. It has nothing to do with freedom, has nothing to do with free markets, and the sooner we realize this, the sooner well get rid of central economic planning and especially look into the serious problems we get from the Federal Reserve System.
Read more from the original source:
Bubbles are all over the place: Ron Paul speaks to RT on …
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., seeks to expand his father’s base. The plan, some Ron Paul supporters say, has backfired.
Preaching peace, drug legalization and getting government out of people’s lives, libertarian champion Ron Paul won more than 20 percent of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire during the 2012 Republican presidential primary contest,as his impassioned campaign supporters swamped state parties and gave him a majority of convention delegates in several states.
These are things the former Texas congressmans son, Sen. Rand Paul, and his presidential campaign staff know well. In fact, they reckonedthe Kentucky lawmakercould build upon his father’s respectable showings four years later by tactically assuaging the GOP mainstream.
They gambled that activists deserting the younger Paul over his endorsement of establishment Republicans, or for opposing the Iran nuclear deal and proposing war on the Islamic State group, or for crafting nuanced stances on whistleblower Edward Snowden and drug legalization, would be few.
But now, the Paul family ishaving toreassure jittery members of the so-called liberty movement. RandPauls brother, Ronnie,said earlier this year that father and son have the same beliefs. And last month, Ron Paul said even where Rand and I do have minor differences of opinion, I would take Rand’s position over any of his opponents’ in both parties every time.
[READ: Second GOP Debate to Feature Foreign Policy Test]
As Rand Pauls once-promising campaign registers as low as 1 and 2 percent in national polls, a survey of his fathers 2012 state-level leadership reveals continued cause for concern among the passionate base that was crucial for Ron Paul, with some of those leaders having utterly lost faith inthe younger family member as a candidate and a bearer of their message.
Ron had paved a path that was ripe for a continuation, says Marianne Stebbins, a small businesswoman who chaired Ron Pauls 2012 campaign efforts in Minnesota. If [Rand Paul] had a little more of his dad’s background, philosophy and demeanor, he would be doing much better.
Ron Paul at the 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa
Stebbins and her compatriots won for the elder Paul 32 of 40 Minnesota delegates to the GOP national convention in 2012. Their commitment to game the system and flood the state party brought their candidate victory, even though he came in second in the states caucuses.
Stebbins soured on the younger Paul over some of his positions, including his signing of a Senate GOP letter that aimed to undermine the Iran nuclear deal and what she calls his not standing up for Edward Snowden. Though Paul sued to end one of the mass surveillance programs Snowden exposed, hes avoided a full-throated endorsement of the exiled whistleblower, suggesting he share a cell with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who allegedly perjured himself when speaking about the scope of dragnet data collection.
[ALSO: Ben Carson’s Quiet Charm Offensive]
At this point in the game, Stebbins says, Rand needs to go back to the Senate and emulate his father there. A vast change now wouldn’t be taken as sincere.
At the opposite end of the MississippiRiver, Ron Pauls 2012 campaign teamsnagged him a majority of Louisianas national convention delegates (before furious pushback and a deal reducing the haul). That state teams co-chairman, businessman Charlie Davis, doesnt share Stebbins frustration.
When the Iowa caucus finally arrives, it is very likely that liberty-leaning Republican activists will pick Sen. Rand Paul as the candidate that is most ideologically aligned with them, Davis says. Ron surged at the end and I think that Rand will as well.
The stark difference in opinion among veterans of the 2012 campaign is also seen between leaders of the Paul team that year in Iowa and New Hampshire.
[EARLIER: Rand Paul Could Win Libertarian Nomination, Too]
New Hampshire state Sen. Andy Sanborn, co-chairman of the 2012 campaign in his state, where RonPaul placed second, supports Rand Pauls campaign strategy and believes he ultimately will surge.
Unlike the race between Dr. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney, this race with its 17to18 candidates combined with the individual narrativesis resulting in temporary wide swings in support and polling, but no question there continues to be one common thread: that voters are just fed up with the establishment, Sanborn says. No candidate has been fighting the Washington machine with more passion than Sen. Paul [and] I fully expect that when the race begins to settle down from these expected summer flings, that Sen. Paul will continue to consolidate both his base, as well as those new, disaffected voters.
But in Iowa, where Ron Paul supporters took over the state Republican Party and won their candidate22 of 28 convention votes, despite his coming in a close third in the state caucuses, longtime campaign leader Drew Ivers has become disillusioned.
Ivers served as Ron Pauls Iowa campaign chairman in both 2008 and 2012 and isnt endorsing Rand Paul this year. He says the senatorhas ruined a golden opportunity for the liberty movement.
Updated on Sept. 16, 2015: Comment from Sergio Gor was added to this article.
See the original post here:
Ron Paul’s Most Ardent Fans Split on Sagging Rand – US News
Blame America? No, Blame Neocons!
Is the current refugee crisis gripping the European Union all Americas fault? That is how my critique of US foreign policy was characterized in a recent interview on the Fox Business Channel. I do not blame the host for making this claim, but I think it is important to clarify the point.
It has become common to discount any criticism of US foreign policy as blaming America first. It is a convenient way of avoiding a real discussion. If aggressive US policy in the Middle East for example in Iraq results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it blaming America to point out that blowback like we saw on 9/11 can be the result of unwise US foreign policy actions like stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia?
In the Fox interview I pointed out that the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad US foreign policy actions. The US government decides on regime change for a particular country in this case, Syria destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the US government that makes such foolish policies?
Accusing those who criticize US foreign policy of blaming America is pretty selective, however. Such accusations are never leveled at those who criticize a US pullback. For example, most neocons argue that the current crisis in Iraq is all Obamas fault for pulling US troops out of the country. Are they blaming America first for the mess? No one ever says that. Just like they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the US demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors and the Iraqi government refused.
Iraq was not a stable country when the US withdrew its troops anyway. As soon as the US stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the US attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran and the Sunnis could not live with that! It was not the US withdrawal from Iraq that created the current instability but the invasion. The same is true with US regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before US support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? Is pointing out this consequence of bad US policy also blaming America first?
Last year I was asked by another Fox program whether I was not blaming America when I criticized the increasingly confrontational US stand toward Russia. Heres how I put it then:
I dont blame America. I am America, you are America. I dont blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.
In short, I dont blame America; I blame neocons.
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity
Read the rest here:
Blame America? No, Blame Neocons! by Ron Paul — Antiwar.com
After serving in the US Air Force as a flight surgeon, I started an Ob/Gyn practice in Brazoria County, Texas and have since delivered over 4,000 babies. I decided to enter politics when President Nixon broke the last link between the dollar and gold, thus starting the inflation that continues to destroy the value of the dollar and undermine the earnings of all Americans.
I have served ten terms in Congress and have never wavered from my commitment to the Constitution and the principles of a free society. In 1976, I was one of four sitting GOP Congressmen to endorse the upstart Ronald Reagan in the Republican primaries. But I also spoke out against the unprecedented deficits incurred by Reagan’s administration.
For my relentless opposition to unconstitutional legislation, I have been called: “Dr. No” The “Taxpayers’ Best Friend” by the the National Taxpayers Union The “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill by former Treasury Secretary William Simon.
I have worked tirelessly for limited constitutional government, individual rights, low taxes, free markets, a peaceful foreign policy and sound monetary policies. I am running for President as a Republican to bring the Grand Old Party back to its roots as the party of the 1994 Revolution, President Reagan, Sen. Goldwater and Sen. Taft.
My Google interview is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
Specialties:Obstetrics, gynecology, Austrian economics, monetary theory, the U.S. Constitution, American history, civil liberties, political activism.
Ron Paul | LinkedIn
Ronald Ernest Ron Paul was born on August 20th, 1935 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Howard Caspar Paul and Margaret ne Dumont. He is of strong German ancestry from both sides of his family. His paternal grandfather was an immigrant from Germany. His mother had both German and Irish blood.
Paul grew up in Pittsburgh, helping out in his fathers simple dairy business, maintaining a paper route, and serving in the local drug-store. He was encouraged to save his wages to help fund his college education. Paul showed a strong interest and aptitude for athletics, joining the track and wrestling teams of his school. He won the state championship for the220-yard dash in his junior year in high school. He was also active in the student council, showing strong leadership qualities and charisma early on as president of the high school student council.
He is a graduate of Gettysburg College with a B.S. degree in Biology, 1957. He pursued a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke Universitys School of Medicine, graduating in 1961, then went on to complete his medical internship (Henry Ford Hospital Detroit) and residency in obstetrics/gynecology (Magee-Womens Hospital, Pittsburgh). Demonstrating his strong respect for military service, Paul proudly served his country as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force after which followed his enlistment with the United States Air National Guard, all in the 1960s. He then established his private practice in Texas. He was known to decrease his professional-fees, and even sometimes to waive them altogether, in order to steer clear of Medicare or Medicaid payments.
Paul joined politics in 1971, becoming a delegate to the Texas Republican Convention. He ran for US Congress as a candidate for the Republican Party in 1974 against Democrat Robert R. Casey but failed in his bid for a seat. A couple of years later, when Representative Robert Casey received his appointment as head of the Federal Maritime Commission from President Gerald Ford, special elections were conducted to fill the post Casey vacated. Paul won the special election to fill that seat but was not able to hang on to his post when he lost the general election afterwards to Democrat Robert A. Gammage.
Paul won the seat again on his subsequent bid in 1978, in a rematch against Gammage. He was just as successful for re-elections in 1980 and 1982. Notching a first, he proposed term limit legislation for the House of Representatives. He cited this proposal when he refused to run for re-election later on. He did run for the US Senate in 1984 against Phil Gramm, was defeated, and went back to his practice as an obstetrician/gynaecologist on a full-time basis.
Running for President
But politics beckoned strongly. In 1988, Paul left the Republican Party and ran as the presidential candidate representing the Libertarian Party. His bids to lower taxes and reduce the size of the federal government ran parallel to the interests of the Libertarians. Differences in beliefs focused on issues of abortion as the party was strongly in favour of personal liberty, opposing restrictive laws on actions/lifestyles of individuals. Despite these differences, though, Paul earned the respect and support of the party.
His candidacy was seen by many to be more of an interest to put forward his libertarian ideas and thoughts than to in fact seriously pursue the presidency. He did not win, running behind George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in the final results. This prompted him to return to his medical practice and other business enterprises.
In the middle of the 90s, Paul reunited with the Republicans. He sought to be nominated by the party for a seat in the House of Representatives. He ran against Greg Laughlin, who had the support of mainstream Republicans. Laughlin parted ways with the Democrats to join the Republicans amidst the Republican takeover of Congress. Laughlin tried to represent Pauls beliefs as extremist and unconventional. In spite of his slim chances, considering Laughlins strong hold over the Republicans, as well as the strong support coming Laughlins way from rich and influential groups the likes of the National Rifle Association, Paul defeated Laughlin. He won the primary and proceeded to win the 1996 general election.
People at the forefront of the Texan Republican Party made like efforts to dislodge Paul when he ran for re-elections in 1998. He remained undefeated. He ran for re-elections in 2000 and 2002, winning both bids. Nobody opposed him when he ran in 2004 for his ninth term in the Congress.
In 2006, the Democratic Party fielded Shane Sklar against Paul in his bid for re-election. Paul was able to retain his seat.
Second Attempt at the Presidency
In 2008, Paul decided to run for the presidency again but failed to make it to the finish, ending his run somewhat early in the game. Again, people thought Paul was more interested in using the campaign to endorse the issues close to his heart rather than seeing it as a passionate battle for the top office in the land. John McCain won the Republican nomination soon after. Some of his peers thought that Paul would pursue his bid, running either as an independent candidate or with the Libertarian Party but Paul thought otherwise. His support went to Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
Post contributed by Simon Greenwald. Apart from being a political writer, Simon is a part time ticket broker, built an iPhone app development company and is an avid surfer. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul lays out a national security strategy for the United States in his book, Swords into Plowshares, which Carl von Clausewitz , the author of On War, would have approved. Clausewitz, a Prussian general in the early Nineteenth Century, is considered perhaps the Wests most insightful strategist, and On War is his classic work on the interrelationship between politics and war.
A close reading of On War reveals a book far more on the strategy of statecraft, that is Grand Strategy, than it is on the mere strategy of warfare. Unfortunately, very few readers have understood that. Indeed, Clausewitzs target audience may have been principally civilian policy makers with his view that the political perspective must remain dominant over the military point of view in the conduct of war.
Whether or not Ron Paul ever read Clausewitz, Swords into Plowshares restores a proper understanding of statecraft as Clausewitz understood it and todays American leaders fail to.
Helmuth von Moltke, who became Chief of the Prussian General Staff in 1857, almost immediately misappropriated and reinterpreted On War for his own militaristic purposes. (Clausewitz died in 1831.) Moltke was followed in this in 1883, when Prussian General Count Colmar von der Goltz, later known as the Butcher of Belgium in World War I, while paying homage to Clausewitz, wrote The Nation in Arms, a revision of Clausewitzs On War and its complete opposite.
Moltke and Goltz twisted Clausewitzs arguments in the interests of the Prussian military class that had come into full flower after Clausewitzs time. For one, they self-servingly distorted On War by reversing the principle of civilian control to argue civilians must not interfere with military decisions. Also, their reinterpretations of Clausewitz as an advocate for total war became the stereotype which most people then accepted as Clausewitzs thinking.
Most odiously, US Colonel Harry S. Summers, Jr. would later present to a post-Vietnam War audience Goltzs version of Clausewitz. In doing so, Summers reversed Clausewitzs position, which was that defense was stronger than attack, an argument against engaging in aggressive war. But Summers was collaborating with neoconservative Norman Podhoretz who shared Goltzs militarism.
These distortions of Clausewitzs principles and that of Americas Founders who even earlier had established the idea of civilian control over the military continue to the present day with US civilian policy makers now regularly deferring to the narrowly focused point of view of military leaders to the detriment of a sound national security strategy.
In Swords into Plowshares, Ron Paul offers a correction to this and a return to a civilian-directed national security strategy for the US to adopt which would restore a proper understanding of national interests and would be consistent with Clausewitzs own strategic theory.
Peace as a Goal
Clausewitz would have heartily agreed with Ron Paul that Having peace as a goal is both a key component of sensible foreign policy and crucial to economic prosperity and equal protection of all peoples liberty.
Clausewitz would also have agreed with Paul that it is not sound national strategy when the result of having the most powerful military in history means to have Americans continue to die in a series of wars, the treasury is bare, and the US is the most hated nation in the world.
Clausewitz made his bones, so to speak, in fighting Napoleonic France which had a similar foreign policy in the early 1800s as the US has in the Twenty-first Century using warfare and other means to achieve regime change with the same negative results. France finally met its Waterloo (the original Waterloo coming to mean a decisive defeat) in 1815.
The question for the US isnt if it will reach its own Waterloo, but when. Military solutions to geopolitical problems will inevitably exhaust even the most powerful nation, depleting its resources and manpower. Only by reversing imperial overreach and achieving peace can a sustainable prosperity become possible.
Clausewitz fully understood that reality, which is why he was an advocate of diplomacy and of restoring peace as soon as costs exceeded the benefit of whatever political object the war was being fought over. Clausewitz would be aghast at arguments that a war must be continued to show resolve or other such nonsensical purposes.
An expert on Clausewitz, Michael Howard, wrote that Clausewitz was a scholar as well as a Field General and knew and respected the works of political philosopher Immanuel Kant. Accordingly, Clausewitz would no doubt have been aware of and influenced by Kants 1795 tract entitled Perpetual Peace. Pauls Swords Into Plowshares is in that tradition and applies the lessons to today.
Defense, Not Offense
In Clausewitzs time and place, he had to fight a war of national survival against Napoleon, who could be viewed as the predecessor of todays American neoconservative idea of using war as the means of imposing political change on other countries.
Clausewitz first fought France for his native country, Prussia, and when Prussia was defeated, he volunteered his services to Russia, serving until Napoleons final defeat. Clausewitz then began compiling what he had learned of statecraft and warfare with the experience he had gained.
But this was not for the purpose of encouraging aggressive war but only as recognition that war was used as a political tool which had to be addressed in a book of statecraft. Subordinating the political point of view to the military would be absurd, for it is policy that has created war, he wrote.
Ron Paul demonstrates a full understanding of that principle as he challenges the neoconservative euphoria for what they claim is now a perpetual war. But Paul does not write as a pacifist and Swords into Plowshares is not a pacifist tract.
As Paul writes, When a people are determined to defend their homeland, regardless of the size of the threat, they are quite capable. Americans can do the same if the unlikely need arises. That is not the voice of a pacifist but rather of one who has drawn the same lesson as Clausewitz had.
Clausewitz was surely not a pacifist either. His profession was the military. But he wasnt a militarist, unlike what the Prussian officer class would later become. Clausewitz would not have called for civilian control over military decision-making if he had been a militarist. That was a key point that von Moltke would later repudiate (or ignore) as he ushered in German militarism.
But the purpose of Clausewitzs profession as a soldier in the early 1800s in central Europe was to defend his native land, Prussia, against a foreign attacker. When he later joined with Russia to fight Napoleon, it was to fight a common enemy, France, which was not a prospective enemy but an actual foreign invader on their respective territories.
Along those lines, Ron Paul suggests that the US model its foreign policy after Switzerland, which has a military to defend itself but not one to wage offensive war outside its borders.
Switzerland has done rather well with its streak of independence, Paul writes. Reasonable fiscal and monetary policy, along with the rejection of foreign intervention, have been beneficial to her.
Perpetual War and Militarism
The only flaw in Clausewitzs view that civilian policymakers must prevail over the military is that Clausewitz did not foresee the development of hyper-militarism, or what was called Fascism in the last century. Under Fascism, a sufficiently large number of militaristic civilians took over policy in Germany and Japan in the 1930s, paving the way to World War II.
An analysis of militarism prepared for the U.S. Office of Strategic Services in 1942 by Hans Ernest Fried, entitled The Guilt of the German Army, describes three types of militarism which had developed in Germany. They were characterized as glorification of the army, glorification of war, and the militarization of civilian life. Frieds book is disturbing because it could be describing the United States of today with the prevalence of the same three features.
Clausewitz did not anticipate the rise of a civilian political class in the 1930s which was as narrowly militaristic in its attitudes as was the military, another pattern that is repeating itself in the United States of the Twenty-first Century. We are seeing the political dominance of neoconservatives and like-minded progressive interventionists who are eager to advocate war, often more so than the US military.
One reason for this reality is that many of these ideological advocates for perpetual war are far removed from the actual killing and dying, i.e., they are chicken hawks generally from privileged classes and dont even know many real soldiers.
These chicken hawks follow in the footsteps of former Vice President Dick Cheney whose physical safety was sheltered by five deferments from the draft but who still celebrated when other men of his generation were marched off to the Vietnam War. Cheney was again eager to send a new generation of men and women off to the strategically catastrophic Iraq War on the basis of lies that he and President George W. Bush spread.
A Wider Audience
Gaining an understanding of US foreign policy and American militarism by reading Swords into Plowshares is important for the future of the United States and should not be confined to Ron Pauls usual libertarian audience. Instead, it should be studied by those seeking to understand why it is that the more wars we fight and the more Muslims we kill, the more attraction groups like ISIS have.
ISIS and similar militant groups maintain their ability to recruit because they are resisting what they call US imperialism, a war against Islam. This appeal is even reaching into the US and Western Europe as the continuing bloodshed in the Middle East increases the anger and enmity of its victims and their sympathizers. Killing more Muslims does not resolve these hatreds, it exacerbates them, strengthening the political will to resist, as Clausewitz would have understood.
Similarly, Paul understands that US policy is a combat multiplier for groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda.
And, as if ISIS and Al Qaeda arent trouble enough, the US has now identified a new enemy, nuclear-armed Russia. Neoconservative militarists led by Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and her war enthusiast Kagan family in-laws have revived the Cold War through their nefarious machinations in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Furthermore, foolish US Generals such as NATO Commander Philip Breedlove, with a name and military policy suggesting he is a real-life character straight out of Dr. Strangelove, seems to be doing all in his power to create a hot war with Russia, even at the risk of a nuclear exchange.
But Paul explains that this incitement to perpetual war has been achieved without an actual threat to our security. We have not engaged in hostilities with any nation since 1945 that was capable of doing harm to us . . . . Our obsession with expanding our sphere of influence around the world was designed to promote an empire. It was never for true national security purposes. To keep hatred and thus war alive, the propagandists must stay active.
Clausewitz would have understood Ron Pauls reasoning as expressed here: The more US interventions caused deaths, incited and multiplied our enemies, imposed extreme costs, and jeopardized our security, the greater my conviction became that all foreign intervention not related to our direct security should cease as quickly as possible. The neoconservatives want an open license to go anywhere, anytime to force our goodness on others, even though such actions are resented and the beneficiaries want no part of it.
Clausewitz not only theorized against interventions of that type; he helped defeat Napoleon, who practiced the Nineteenth Century equivalent. Knowing how Napoleons wars ended, Ron Paul sees the US as on the wrong side of history.
Paul, consciously or not, has drawn on the strategic insight of Clausewitz, which should be no surprise as it was a frequently expressed truism in the military before 2001, echoing Clausewitz, that wars were so expensive and unpredictable that they were to be avoided if possible. And if unavoidable, they were best kept short.
Cheney and other neocon hawks of the Bush-43 administration threw that wisdom overboard even before 2001. But 9/11 created so much hysteria in todays military officers, who never had to experience how wars can go sour, that those bitter lessons are being relearned the hard way by a new generation of officers. They would serve the military well by reading Swords into Plowshares and reacquiring that wisdom.
What might turn out to be the tragedy of this book is that its readers will be limited to self-identified libertarians. But Paul has shown himself capable of joining liberals such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich in opposing the transformation of the US into an advanced form of militaristic state and resisting the wars which make that possible.
But every attempt at forming antiwar coalitions between libertarians and other political groupings or even co-sponsored forums, in the experience of this writer, go no further than about five minutes before one side or the other insists that before militarism is discussed, the other side has to concede to their respective economics ideology. More times than not, that comes from the libertarians who insist that any taxation is as repressive as military rule. Its reminiscent of the early 1930s when the Nazis political opponents were happiest squabbling amongst themselves, while the Nazis were preparing Dachau and other prisons for members of each of the non-Nazi political parties.
Consequently, American militarists probably need not fear that Swords into Plowshares will interfere with their militaristic plans and war profiteers need have no concerns for their future profits. But perhaps my prognostication is incorrect. Maybe Americans will realize that our militarists are leading us to the strategic abyss and that were already close to the edge.
Americans should find that Pauls national security strategy is sound regardless of whether they agree with other aspects of his libertarian ideology. There is surely common ground among Americans who recognize that perpetual wars will also mean the suppression of constitutional rights and other encroachments on liberty.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions.
Reprinted with permission of the author from Consortium News.
President, 2012-05-29 Lost with 11.94% U.S. House District 14, 2010 General Election Won with 75.99% U.S. House District 14, 2010 Republican Party Primary Election Won with 80.77% U.S. House District 14, 2008 General Election Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 2008 Republican Party Primary Election Won with 70.43% U.S. House District 14, 2006 General Election Won with 60.19% U.S. House District 14, 2006 Republican Party Primary Election Won with 77.64% U.S. House District 14, 2004 General Election Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 2004 Republican Primary Election Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 2002 General Election Won with 68.09% U.S. House District 14, 2002 Republican Primary Election Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 2000 General Election Won with 59.71% U.S. House District 14, 2000 Republican Party Primary Election Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 1998 General Election Won with 55.25% U.S. House District 14, 1998 Republican Primary Won with 100.00% U.S. House District 14, 1996 General Election Won with 51.08% U.S. House District 26, 1996 November Special Election Lost with 0.00% U.S. House District 14, 1996 Republican Party Primary Runoff Election Won with 54.06% U.S. House District 14, 1996 Republican Party Primary Election Went to runoff with 31.97%
The rest is here:
Ron Paul | The Texas Tribune
Hello readers, in this article you can get information about Ron Paul. Here we will discuss about The silencing of ron paul. Return to updates the silencing of ron paul by miles mathis the ron paul campaign has been rocked by a onetwo punch this week, in the form of ron paul. Introduction americas history and political ethos are all about liberty the declaration of independence declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Lesson # _____ repentance by ron boatwright 1) jonah 3:110 what showed the people of nineveh repented? _____ 2) matthew 12:41 in the.
Ron paul, liberty defined – portal libertarianismo
Repentance by ron boatwright – net bible study
Miac report pdf – constitution society
Public act 188 of 2009, michigan’s smoke-free air law
Here i will explain about Ron Paul. Many people have talked about Ron paul on the issues. But in this post i will explain Ron paul on abortion : click here for 39 full quotes on abortion or other candidates on abortion or background on abortion. morning-after pill same as birth control more clearly than another blog.
Ron paul is america’s leading voice for limited, constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, honest money, and a proamerica foreign policy. Ronald ernest “ron” paul (born august 20, 1935) is an american physician, author, and politician, who is a former republican congressman, twotime republican.
The political positions of ron paul (r tx), united states presidential candidate in 1988, 2008, and 2012, are generally described as libertarian, but have also been. Read more on Ron paul wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Ron paul on abortion : click here for 39 full quotes on abortion or other candidates on abortion or background on abortion. morningafter pill same as birth control.
Ron paul on abortion : click here for 39 full quotes on abortion or other candidates on abortion or background on abortion morningafter pill same as birth control. Voices of liberty libertyminded multichannel network . the voices of liberty network keeps you up to date on libertarian news including big government civil. Content of posts and comments on the daily paul represent the opinions of the original posters and are not endorsed approved or otherwise representative of the. You can find more explanation in Political positions of ron paul wikipedia, the free.
See the original post:
Ron Paul | Download PDF
Ronald Ernest Paul (born August 20, 1935) is a 10th-term Congressman, obstetrician (M.D.), and a 2008 presidential candidate from the U.S. state of Texas, seeking the nomination of the Republican Party.
As a Republican, he has represented Texas’s 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and represented Texas’s 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.
Paul advocates a limited role for the federal government, low taxes, free markets, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has earned the nickname “Dr. No” because he is a medical doctor who votes against the bills that he believes conflict with the Constitution.1 In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535″ on Capitol Hill.2 He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay, and refuses to participate in the congressional pension system.3 He has consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.
Person 2: “HAHAHA!! Everyone knows no such person exists anymore, they all died with our freedoms and liberties.”
Person 1: “Actually, there is one person left who represents those characteristics– his name is Ron Paul, and he’s running for president.”
Read the original here:
Urban Dictionary: Ron Paul