House of Representatives Passes Bill Ensuring Security of Israel 404-2...Ron Paul Votes "No"

Your typical RonPaulistinian will call Rep. Ron Paul's "No" vote for a new bill in the House designed to commit to the security of Israel as just an example of Paul's stance of not meddling in foreign affairs but the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is simply just consistent in his wish to see Israel overrun by Muslim and Arab minions.  With Israel the target of dozens of Muslim countries, with Iran working towards nuclear weapons and an avowed desire to destroy Israel, America's House of Representatives, the Peoples' House, decided to make it clear as hell to anti-Israeli folks like Ron Paul and Barack Hussein Obama that America will commit to the defense of Israel.

And there was Ron Paul and John Dingell, the only two Congressmen to vote against the measure.  Now, we all know Ron Paul hates Israel and loves anyone wearing a burqa or a turban and Dingell probably doesn't want to offend his pals in the Nation of Islam or all of the sharia compliant folks in Michigan but let's get real...can't Ron Paul even for once just admit that as a human being he's willing to stand up for a friend, an ally? I consider myself lucky that I don't live next door to Ron Paul and experience hard times....my family would probably starve waiting for the Pauls to stop over with a casserole.

The story comes from CNS News.

Rep. Ron Paul Votes Against ‘One-Sided' Bill to Boost US-Israel Ties


(CNSNews.com) – Reinforcing his standing as a political maverick, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul was one of just two House members to vote Wednesday against a bill to strengthen the relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

The libertarian lawmaker from Texas called the measure “another piece of one-sided and counter-productive foreign policy legislation,” charging that it would likely to lead to war with Iran, Syria or both.

The United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act attracted overwhelming bipartisan support, attracting 304 sponsors, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), and passing by a 404-2 vote.

A Senate version of the bill, introduced by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 33 senators from both parties, has been referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Joining Paul in voting against the House bill was liberal Democrat Rep. John Dingell (Mich.), the longest-serving member of the House. Nine members voted “present.”

The bill they declined to support calls for the U.S. to provide Israel with “the military capabilities necessary to deter and defend itself by itself against any threats,” to veto “one-sided anti-Israel resolutions” in the U.N. Security Council, to expand military and civilian cooperation, to help in a “peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states living side by side in peace and security,” and to encourage Israel's neighbors to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.

A “sense of Congress” section lists various specified actions to assist in Israel’s defense, including missile defense cooperation, expanded joint military exercises, and encouraging an “expanded role” in NATO for Israel, “including an enhanced presence at NATO headquarters and exercises.”

(Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an outspoken critic of Israel, has been working to hamper Israel-NATO cooperation.)

Paul took issue with several elements of the bill, including the call to help Israel preserve its qualitative military edge and the references to NATO.

“While I absolutely believe that Israel – and any other nation -- should be free to determine for itself what is necessary for its national security, I do not believe that those decisions should be underwritten by U.S. taxpayers and backed up by the U.S. military,” he said.

As for NATO – an institution he has long advocated is anachronistic and should be shut down – Paul charged that the legislation was looking for a new mission for the alliance – the defense of Israel.

The call for an expanded role for Israel at NATO, he said, “reads like a dream for interventionists and the military industrial complex. As I have said many times, NATO should be disbanded not expanded.”

Paul concluded that the bill would “implicitly authorize much more U.S. interventionism in the region at a time when we cannot afford the foreign commitments we already have. It more likely will lead to war against Syria, Iran, or both.”

‘Making Israel and America more secure’

In her speech in support of the bill, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a leading critic of the U.N., said the legislation “seeks to counter the Israel-bashing that has become common place in international forums such as the United Nations.”

“The United States must not allow Israel to be isolated and demonized in international organizations, and must work together to withdraw U.S. participation in and funding from organizations that do so,” she added.

“There needs to be a clear understanding by all those who would threaten Israel that the United States stands with her, because it is in our – the United States’ – security interest to do so, and because it is morally and ethically the right thing to do as well,” said Hoyer.

“The House has always demonstrated a bipartisan commitment to the U.S.-Israel relationship and today we say we refuse to send mixed messages when it comes to America’s support for Israel,” said Cantor. “Today we demonstrate congressional support for important steps to make Israel and America more secure.”

In the midst of the bipartisanship on display during the debate, politics did make an appearance.

“It’s a maxim in history, it’s a truth that when a nation’s enemies see their strongest ally turning against them, that is when their enemies move against that nation,” said Rep. Louie Gomert (R-Texas).

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) took issue with what he considered an implication that the Obama administration does not share Congress’ strong support for Israel.

“The president of the United States has indicated that these bonds are unbreakable,” he said. “Any implication to the contrary is unfounded and seeks to undercut the very bipartisan nature of the support that is so essential to this relationship.”

The nine lawmakers who voted “present” on Wednesday were Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison (Minn.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Betty McCollum (Minn.), Pete Stark (Calif.), Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), Andre Carson (Ind.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Lynn Woolsey (Calif.); and Republican Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.).

Ron Paul Deep In It After Praising Traitor Bradley Manning

I don't have to tell anyone here at this blog how much I detest Ron Paul - simply put, Ron Paul is one of the most dangerous men in America and quite frankly makes some on the left appear like war mongers. If Ron Paul had his way, half of America would be a wasteland after a nuclear holocaust as Paul, as President, would then decide to loose the wooden ships with sails from his new American navy.

The fact that Ron Paul, many months ago, hailed Bradley Manning as a possible hero for leaking government and military data to Wikileaks fits him perfectly. Now, some Ron Paul supporter will happen upon this site today or tomorrow or the next and spout "but Holger, Ron Paul is a veteran of the military!" ....and he was...but what that supporter won't tell you is that Ron Paul was DRAFTED into military service. Now, many Americans were drafted into the service of our country and performed as heroes but it's pretty apparent that Ron Paul felt it was an affront to his liberties.

The fact that a man running for President of this country would stand on the side of this traitorous puke Manning is beyond me - Bradley Manning should hang from a military gallows for his action. He is a modern day Benedict Arnold. And Ron Paul saw fit to praise the action of a U.S. soldier that sold out his unit, sold out the U.S. Army and sold out his country.

You're a disgrace, Rep. Paul.

The story is from Family Security Matters.

Ron Paul Under Fire for Praising Accused Traitor


Fox News is the latest news organization to pick up on the revelation, first reported by AIM, that Ron Paul had praised WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning as a hero and patriot. Directly referring to WikiLeaks and Army soldier Bradley Manning being held in detention, Paul said, “Should he be locked up in prison or should we see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot—who reveals what’s going on in government.” The comment drew strong applause from Paul supporters.

Video of the event, officially posted by Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty organization, also shows the Republican presidential candidate, now rising or perhaps leading in the polls in Iowa, attacking the CIA and its treatment of terrorists.

Paul “let his mask of semi-respectability fall when he praised Bradley Manning, accused traitor,” wrote Washington Post “Right Turn” blogger Jennifer Rubin.

A conservative view of Manning, who had been an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq, was expressed in strong language by columnist Deroy Murdock. He said Manning “should be court-martialed for espionage and treason.” He added, “If convicted, he should be placed against a wall and executed by firing squad” He said the same goes for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, if he is extradited to stand trial here.

Manning, a homosexual Army soldier with “gender identity” problems, has just undergone a preliminary hearing which could lead to a court-martial, where evidence was produced showing his collaboration with Assange and WikiLeaks. The charges against Manning include aiding the enemy in violation of Article 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, the prosecution team has announced that it is not seeking the death penalty.

Assange is being represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and its president emeritus, Michael Ratner, who has co-authored a book in honor of communist revolutionary Che Guevara. The New York Observer reported that a party to celebrate the book’s publication was held at the Cuban Mission to the United Nations. “Guests passed by a giant portrait of Fidel and a smaller photograph of Che speaking at the United Nations on their way to check their coats,” the paper said.

The CCR, which works hand-in-glove with the National Lawyers Guild, a communist front, is fearful that Assange will be charged by a grand jury with conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S.

Murdock and others have been critical of WikiLeaks for posting diplomatic cables detailing critical infrastructure and installations, such as pipelines, cable locations, satellite communications sites, and vaccine factories, whose loss could critically affect U.S. national security. “What a perfect target list for those who want to see ‘infidels’ sick or dead,” he wrote.

WikiLeaks also posted technical details of radio frequency-jammers used in Iraq by American soldiers to cut off signals to remotely detonated explosives and roadside bombs. The information released by WikiLeaks could help terrorists figure out better ways to bomb and kill more Americans.

The improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were responsible for many of the 4,287 deaths and 30,182 injuries suffered by American soldiers in Iraq.

An estimate published by McClatchy newspapers in March of this year said that in Afghanistan alone, 617 troops had been killed and 5,752 wounded by IEDs. By this point, it said, the U.S. had spent $17 billion to find ways to disable the bombs.

The Pentagon said it had information from intelligence reports and Taliban public statements “that our enemy is accessing the WikiLeaks website for the purpose of exploiting WikiLeaks’ illegal and irresponsible actions, to pursue their own terrorist aims.”

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell had said in October 2010, “Potentially what one could mine from a huge data base like this are vulnerabilities in terms of how we operate, our tactics, our techniques, our procedures, the capabilities of our equipment, how we respond in combat situations, response times—indeed how we cultivate sources. All of that, [given the] thinking and adaptive enemy we’ve been facing in Iraq and Afghanistan, can be used against us.”

Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor and prominent conservative thinker and activist in Canada, said Assange should be assassinated because of the damage done to international relations. He later said his remarks were “thoughtless” and “glib” and added, “I never seriously intended to advocate or propose the assassination of Mr. Assange. But I do think that what he’s doing is very malicious and harmful to diplomacy and endangering people’s lives, and I think it should be stopped.”

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich called Assange “an active enemy combatant who is engaged in information warfare against the United States. What he is doing is going to have incalculable damage to this country. It is going to have a number of innocent people killed, a number of our allies killed. It is going to put Americans at risk and he has dramatically crippled our ability to gather intelligence because why would any foreigner share with the Americans when they know that their information might immediately show up in some kind of leaked cable. This is an act of war against the United States.”

Even Bob Beckel, a liberal personality on the Fox News Channel, has called Assange a “traitor” who should be shot.

Revelations about Ron Paul publishing racist material in his newsletters is also receiving more media attention. But Paul’s supporters in the John Birch Society, a one-time anti-communist organization, are playing down this revelation, saying that “…the newsletter controversy only demonstrates that Paul exercised poor management over employees’ statements in a relatively minor part of his career (he focused upon his medical practice during this time period), a managerial mistake he hasn’t repeated in the 15 years since he returned to Congress. It’s a genuine negative for Paul, but it’s a small negative.”

The writer of this New American article is ardent Ron Paul supporter Thomas Eddlem, who describes himself as “a life member of the John Birch Society” who “formerly served on the staff of the organization for 13 years.” He once described himself as an advocate of a “Left-Right Alliance” against the George W. Bush Administration and contributes to the left-wing progressive website, OpEdnews.com. His Facebook page lists foreign-funded channels Al-Jazeera and Russia Today (RT) as among his favorite sources of television news. The section on his activities and interests includes WikiLeaks.

His article in The New American, however, did not address the controversy over Paul praising WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning as a “hero” and “patriot.”

However, Eddlem had previously written an article for the magazine insisting that while some Americans see Manning as a traitor, “others see Manning as a whistleblower who has exposed the U.S. government’s absurd and unnecessary over-use of secrecy as well as a number of scandals.”

This seems to be the view held by Ron Paul and The New American/John Birch Society.

The New American has also published a controversial article taking issue with conservative websites such as RedState.com and TrevorLoudon.com that referred to Paul as “Al-Qaeda’s favorite member of Congress,” and highlighted Paul’s collaboration with the Moscow-funded RT channel. RT is a cover for Russian intelligence operations and serves as a mouthpiece for the Vladimir Putin regime.

The RedState article had noted the WikiLeaks disclosure of classified information about possible terrorist targets.

The collaboration with RT apparently ended when one of the channel’s hosts, American Adam Kokesh, was fired after being caught raising money for Ron Paul on the air.

It is illegal for foreign entities to interfere in U.S. political campaigns and the Federal Election Commission is currently investigating the controversy.

The Isolationist Delusion

What an incredible article that Frank Gaffney has offered up here from Family Security Matters! In this day and age when Congressman Ron Paul continues to preach the idea of isolationism to his herd of followers and we see more and more people across this country taking the bait, a voice of reason and fact is heard in this debate....right here, right in this article.

I have pulled no punches in the past nor will I now in regards to Ron Paul. He is certifiably nuts when it comes to the defense of this country, when it comes to dealing with the threats to America in this world and when it comes to explaining how enemies of our country came to hate America.

Hopefully, some newcomers to the faulty philosophy of Paul will read this article and be saved from his poisonous message.

The Isolationist Delusion


I had an unsettling flashback last week listening to two of the Republican presidential candidates talk about foreign policy. Representative Ron Paul of Texas and former Utah Governor Jon Hunstman espoused isolationist stances that called to mind one of the most preposterous public policy debates in decades.

As I recall, the occasion was a Washington, D.C. event sponsored in the early 1990s by a group of libertarians. A colleague and I were invited to rebut the following proposition: “Resolved, the Constitution of the United States should be amended to prohibit the use of military force for any purpose other than defending the nation’s borders.”

Our side of the debate pointed out that, however superficially appealing such an idea might appear, it was ahistorical, irrational and reckless.

After all, if history teaches us anything, it is that wars happen – as Ronald Reagan put it – not when America is too strong, but when we are too weak. In the run-up to World Wars I and II, we followed more or less the libertarians’ prescription, and disaster ensued.

By contrast, for over six decades, the world has been spared another global conflagration because the United States military has been both formidable and forward-deployed. Do we really want to try our luck and once again indulge in a “come home America” posture?

Now, in fairness, an argument could have been made (and was) in the aftermath of President Reagan’s successful use of all instruments of national power to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War, that we were without serious peers or adversaries. Even then, however, the unlikely durability of such an assessment made it a poor basis for U.S. disengagement from the world.

But no one in their right mind would mistake today’s strategic environment as one in which we are unchallenged – or even as one that is stable, let alone tranquil.

Indeed, virtually everywhere one turns, there are rising threats to our interests and security. The Chinese, Muslim Brothers and other Islamists, Russians, Latin American Chavistas, Iranians and North Koreans are among those who increasingly sense weakness on our part. They are responding as thugs everywhere do to such vacuums of power – by becoming more assertive, aggressive and dangerous. Ditto erstwhile “allies” like Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt.

Unfortunately, such behavior is only likely to become more of a problem as the perception takes hold that Barack Obama’s abandonment of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to strategic defeats for America. Add to the mix a U.S. military that is being eviscerated by arbitrary and deep cuts in defense spending and it is a safe bet that the so-called “international community” will only become more inhospitable to freedom.

If this is so obvious, though, why do Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and their libertarian and other supporters not get it? Some of these partisans may simply know nothing of the world. That explanation certainly does not apply to a former U.S. ambassador to China like Gov. Huntsman, however.

Then, there’s the “we can’t afford to be ‘the world’s policeman’” argument. Its corollary is that we face grave economic difficulties and must remedy them before we can bear the costs associated with having a military second to none.

Again, hard historical experience teaches otherwise. The costs associated with maintaining armed forces that deter aggression are vastly less than those involved in waging wars, particularly on a global scale. And our economy depends critically on our ability to maintain access to markets and resources, open sea lanes, etc.

For his part, Ron Paul maintains that the defense budget is not being cut, just its rate of growth. In fact, the roughly half-a-trillion dollars in reductions to which President Obama agreed will result in actual cuts. Add on another $600 billion and you have what the Pentagon calls “negative real growth.”

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of the isolationist delusion is the idea that we have angered others by our policies and our presence in distant lands, which they regard as provocative interference. It follows that, if only we stop engaging in such behavior, they will leave us alone.

The truth of the matter is that adherents to the Islamic doctrine of shariah and Chinese and Russia nationalists have aspired to rule the world – or at least large stretches of it – for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. In other words, they have been hostile long before the United States was founded, let alone the last century when it started exercising power on the global stage.

That being the case, the isolationists’ siren song must be rejected: Were it to become national policy (either in the form of the extreme position of a long-ago debate or the less obviously absurd one advanced by Messrs. Paul and Huntsman in the recent candidates’ forums), we would confront the prospect of fighting in due course these (or other) adversaries on our own soil, rather than elsewhere.

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that by a 50-36% margin, the American people have more confidence in Republicans than Democrats when it comes to national security matters. That is a potentially decisive advantage. It must not be compromised – either by picking candidates who will not enjoy and do not deserve such trust, or by the GOP running to the left of President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who is correctly warning of catastrophe if our armed forces are denied the funds they need to do their abidingly important job around the world.

Quote of the Day: See, I Told You He Was An Asshole

With 14 days to go before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks by islamic terrorists upon the nation of America and its innocents, Rep. Ron Paul said this in Iowa yesterday:

At a campaign stop on Saturday in Winterset, one man asked Paul how terrorist groups would react if the U.S. removed its military presence in Middle Eastern nations, a move the candidate advocates.

“Which enemy are you worried that will attack our national security?” Paul asked.

“If you’re looking for specifics, I’m talking about Islam. Radical Islam,” the man answered.

“I don’t see Islam as our enemy,” Paul said. “I see that motivation is occupation and those who hate us and would like to kill us, they are motivated by our invasion of their land, the support of their dictators that they hate.”

from the Des Moines Register.


Perhaps Dr. Paul would like to explain to me and my readers what the people of Europe did to offend Muslims before the invasion in the early 700's A.D. Perhaps Dr. Paul would like to explain what the north Africans did to offend the Muslims that inspired the take over of that part of the African continent. Perhaps Dr. Paul would like to enlighten us all on just what those dying at the Gates of Vienna did in 1683 to piss off the Muslims way back then.

Oh, and one more thing, Dr. Paul. I, personally, would like your explanation of why islamic terrorists have murdered over 500 Buddhist monks in Thailand in the past 10 years ... I mean other than the fact that those monks don't worship allah and Mo. I'm sure my readers would like to see the Ron Paul insight of what truly inspires the followers of Islam in every instance of islamic conquest since 655 A.D.


(Hat tip: Pat Dollard)
--