Ron Paul Yes blog is a pro-Ron Paul blog highlighting the principles and integrity of Dr Ron Paul. His assertion in the inviolable Liberty of each individual American is simply truthful and honest. As President of the United States, Ron Paul will change the history of the world. He will be the Leader of the Western world. His policies of no wars and peaceful trade with all nations will bring prosperity to America through peace and Liberty. He is the one who will restore Liberty in America
Ron Paul surpassing all expectations, making a joke of the media
Submitted by Jimmy Liberty on Mon, 12/19/2011 - 18:18
It became a bit of a joke among conservatives when every time a jobs report came out, the media reported it was "surprisingly" negative. The media couldn't seem to see what was going on, even when it was obvious to those in the know.
My friends, we are in the know.
When this campaign started, many GOP establishment cheerleaders said Ron Paul will get his 2% of the vote, and that'll be that.
Then some polls came out, and they had to move the bar.
"Ron Paul will get his 8% of the vote, and that'll be that."
We kept working and they came out with something new.
"Ron Paul's ceiling is about 10%. There's no room for him to grow."
Laughably when the polls started to show him at 18%, that was the new ceiling... that's a pretty high ceiling! And 18% is famously known as the tipping point.
Now that Paul is the favorite to win Iowa, where nearly 1 in 4 voters plan to caucus for Paul, IOWA is the supposed new ceiling.
The GOP establishment laughably keeps moving the marks. Being in total denial, they just can't quite see what's going on.
Iowa is the beginning, not the ceiling.
American Majority Favor Ron Paul's Foreign Policy.
In poll after poll the majority of the American people agree with Ron Paul’s non-interventionist foreign policy. Most Americans want an end to the foreign wars; they want our troops home and they want to stop spending money in foreign countries. This foreign policy stance of Ron Paul’s aligns him with thoughtful, peace-and-prosperity-loving-people in the United States and across the world. These people in America are in every party and political affiliation and they have the desire for Liberty, Peace and Prosperity as the one thing they have in common and they are seeing that Doctor Ron Paul stands squarely at the crossroads of Liberty and Peace, speaking to all of us under his sworn oath to champion the United States Constitution as the one and only “Rule of Law” in America.
One of the misconceptions about Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the idea that he is anti-Israel. This misconception is on the same level of stupidity as the misconception that Ron Paul is an isolationist. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist which is the exact opposite of an isolationist. Ron Paul's foreign policy is to be friendly towards all nations and engage in free trade with them. His foreign policy is similar to the foreign policy of George Washington which was to have no entangling alliances which means to play no favorites among nations by not giving any non-humanitarian aid to any nation.. These misconceptions about Ron Paul's foreign policy are fostered by the war-mongering crowd in the government who are under the pay of the military-industrial complex, whose agenda is obviously to sell as much weaponry to as many customers as possible and so they want to keep all wars going throughout the world. Their primary tactic is to spread fear and division in our society so that we will hate our enemies enough to kill them with weapons that are provided for on all sides by the worldwide corporate military-industrial complex. The elite individuals that control the banks and corporations behind the military-industrial complex also control most of the United States politicians and most of the mainstream media outlets. If all non-humanitarian foreign aid was stopped immediately it would cause an extreme drop in sales of weapons. In recommending the stoppage of non-humanitarian aid to Israel, Ron Paul is accused of being anti-Israel and abandoning Israel but he is not just recommending stoppage of aid to Israel but also stoppage of non-humanitarian aid to all of Israel's neighbors. So he is not anti-Israel, but rather he is pro-Israel because he supports Israel's autonomous sovereignty and does not condemn any action that Israel takes to defend it's national sovereignty.
Ron Paul is against all foreign aid, not only to Israel but to anybody else. Ron Paul is against interfering in the affairs of other nations so he wants to leave Israel to handle their own sovereignty Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to mind our own business and be friendly with all nations who want to be friendly with us. Ron Paul believes that the only presence that we need in the world outside of our national borders is our Navy and most importantly our submarine fleet. With our nuclear weapons and our submarine fleet we don’t need bases in any country in order to maintain maximum national defense. A foreign policy that brings prosperity and peace is preferable to a foreign policy that keeps us at war indefinitely. The wealthy elite of America profit off of the foreign wars and don’t feel the pain of a defeated American economy. The majority of Americans are suffering from the strangulation of our economy by the military-industrial complex and in their pain the people of America have come to see that Ron Paul offers real Constitutional solutions because he understands the problems. The problems are from not obeying the Constitution; the solution to all the problems is to have Ron Paul as leader. Electing Ron Paul as President will bring about the greatest change to American policy in American history and thus will bring about the greatest change in world history. Peace and Prosperity is what will come to the whole world through Ron Paul's leadership.
War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."
Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.
This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."
However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."
Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."
While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."
Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.
The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.
At the debate in Las Vegas both Romney and Perry came out in complete agreement with Dr Paul’s States’ Rights position in regards to dumping nuclear waste. I feel that both Romney and Perry would agree with Ron Paul on everything if they thought from a strict Constitutional Liberty viewpoint like Dr Paul. Some day everyone in America will agree with Ron Paul’s obedience to the Constitution through the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. Isn’t it Liberty defined in the Declaration of Independence as an endowment from our Creator? Doesn’t Liberty supersede government? If you see that the two “self-evident” truths are the touchstone for understanding the Constitution then you can see things through Ron Paul’s eyes.
Everything that Ron Paul is talking about can find the root of truth in the fact that our rights come from God – not from the government or anyone else for that matter. The fact that we are created by God (in his image and likeness, both male and female alike) is the cornerstone of our national democracy and the Constitution is the embodiment of our endowment of rights from God. The simple understanding that we are born in complete ownership and position of our lives is the basis of Liberty. I own me and no one else does. I am free to do whatever pleases me as long as I neither harm nor steal from another.
I have taken the video excerpts of Romney and Perry agreeing with Ron Paul by name and I have interleaved them in between foreign policy statements by Ron Paul at different debates. I do this from a serious viewpoint based upon the idea that if Romney and Perry were mature grown-ups they would understand Ron Paul and support him.
Ron Paul Addresses the U.S. House of Representatives
"Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleagues.
What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests?
What if we wake up one day and realize that the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous?
What if propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel?
What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan--and bombing Pakistan--is directly related to the hatred directed towards us?
What if some day it dawns on us that losing over 5,000 American military personnel in the Middle East since 9/11 is not a fair trade-off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens--no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani, and Afghan people are killed or displaced?
What if we finally decide that torture--even if called 'enhanced interrogation techniques'--is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world nation is just as evil?
What if it is finally realized that war and military spending is always destructive to the economy?
What if all wartime spending is paid for through the deceitful and evil process of inflating and borrowing?
What if we finally see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?
What if conservatives, who preach small government, wake up and realize that our interventionist foreign policy provides the greatest incentive to expand the government?
What if conservatives understood once again that their only logical position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world?
What if the American people woke up and understood the official reasons for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests?
What if we, as a Nation, came to realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?
What if Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq?
What if a military draft is being planned for the wars that will spread if our foreign policy is not changed?
What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and it never changes from one administration to the next?
What if war and preparation for war is a racket serving the special interests?
What if President Obama is completely wrong about Afghanistan and it turns out worse than Iraq and Vietnam put together?
What if Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression?
What if diplomacy is found to be superior to bombs and bribes in protecting America?
What happens if my concerns are completely unfounded? Nothing.
But what happens if my concerns are justified and ignored? Nothing good."
Ron Paul Analysis: Mutually Assured Destruction vs. Mutually Assured Respect
The Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949, leading to the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, shared by both the USA and the Soviets. The unwritten agreement by the two super powers deterred nuclear war with an implied threat to blow up the world, if need be, to defend each of their interests.
I well remember the Cuban missile crises of October 1962, having been drafted into the military at that time. Mutually Assured Destruction had significant meaning to the whole world during this period. This crisis, along with the escalating ill-advised Vietnam War, made me very much aware of the problems the world faced during the five years I served as a USAF flight surgeon.
It was with great pleasure and hope that I observed the collapse of the Soviet Empire between 1989 and 1991. This breakup verified the early predictions by the free market economists, like Ludwig Von Mises, that communism would self-destruct because of the deeply flawed economic theories embedded in socialism. Our nukes were never needed because ideas are more powerful than the Weapons of War.
Many Americans at the time were boldly hopeful that we would benefit from a generous peace dividend. Sadly, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity wasted. There was to be no "beating their swords into plowshares," even though history shows that without weapons and war there's more food and prosperity for the people. Unfortunately, our leaders decided on another course that served the special interests who benefit from constant wars and the arbitrary rearrangement of national borders for control of national resources.
Instead of a peace dividend from ending the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction, US leaders opted for a foreign policy of American world domination as its sole super power. It was all in the spirit of Woodrow Wilson's idealistic goal of "making the world safe for democracy" by pursuing a war to end all wars.
The mantra became that American exceptionalism morally required us to spread our dominance world-wide by force. US world dominance, by whatever means, became our new bipartisan foreign policy. There was to be no peace dividend, though our enemies were virtually non-existent.
In many ways America had been "exceptional" but in an opposite manner from the neo-con driven foreign policy of the last 20 years. If America indeed has something good to offer the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty it must be spread through persuasion and by example; not by intimidation, bribes and war.
Maintaining world domination is based on an intellectually and financially bankrupt idea that generates dependency, war, loss of civil liberties, inflation and debt, all of which contribute to our economic crisis.
Saddest of all, this policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting pre-emptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.
To continue to believe the fiction that the militants hate us for our freedoms and wealth may even result in more attacks against us -- that is, unless our national bankruptcy brings us to our knees and forces us to bring our troops home.
Expanding our foreign military intervention overseas as a cure for the attacks against us, tragically, only guarantees even more attacks. We must someday wake up, be honest with ourselves, and reject the notion that we're spreading freedom and America's goodness around the world. We cannot justify our policy by claiming our mission is to secure American freedoms and protect our Constitution. That is not believable. This policy is doomed to fail on all fronts.
The policy of Mutually Assured Destruction has been gone now for 20 years, and that is good.
The policy of American domination of the world, as nation builder-in-chief and policeman of the world, has failed and must be abandoned—if not as a moral imperative, then certainly out of economic necessity.
My humble suggestion is to replace it with a policy of Mutually Assured Respect. This requires no money and no weapons industry, or other special interests demanding huge war profits or other advantages.
This requires simply tolerance of others cultures and their social and religious values, and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resources. Many who disagree choose to grossly distort the basic principles shared by the world's great religions: the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, and the cause of peace. Religions all too often are distorted and used to justify the violence engaged in for arbitrary power.
A policy of Mutually Assured Respect would result in the U.S.:
Treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us.
Offering friendship with all who seek it.
Participating in trade with all who are willing.
Refusing to threaten, bribe or occupy any other nation.
Seeking an honest system of commodity money that no single country can manipulate for a trade advantage. Without this, currency manipulation becomes a tool of protectionism and prompts retaliation with tariffs and various regulations. This policy, when it persists, is dangerous and frequently leads to real wars.
Mutually Assured Respect offers a policy of respect, trade and friendship and rejects threats, sanctions and occupations.
This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.
Mutually Assured Respect may not be perfect but far better than Mutually Assured Destruction or unilateral American dominance.
The Palestinian Authority's recent announcement that it would seek UN recognition as an independent state dominated the news and the political debate in the United States last week, though in truth it should mean very little to us. Only a political class harboring the illusion it can run the world obsesses over the aspirations of a tiny population on a tiny piece of land thousands of miles away. Remember, the UN initiated this persistent conflict with its 1947 Partition Plan. Unfortunately the debate is dominated by those who either support the Israeli side in the conflict, or those who support the Palestinian desire for statehood. We rarely seem to hear the view of those who support the US side and US interests. I am on that side. I believe that we can no longer police the world. We can no longer bribe the Israelis and Palestinians to continue an endless "peace process" that goes nowhere. It is not in our interest to hector the Palestinians or the Israelis, or to "export" democracy to the region but reject it when people vote the "wrong" way. I have reservations about the Palestinian drive for UN recognition. Personally I wish the United States would de-recognize the United Nations. As most readers already know, in every Congress I introduce legislation to end our membership in that organization. The UN is a threat to our sovereignty-- and as we are the main source of its income, it is a threat to our economic well-being. Increasingly over the past several years, we see the United Nations providing political and legal cover for the military aspirations of interventionists rather than serving as an international forum to preserve peace. Neoconservatives in the US have grown to love the United Nations as they co-opt the organization under the guise of endless "reform." Under the sovereignty-destroying doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect," adopted at the 2005 World Summit, the UN takes it upon itself to intervene in internal conflicts of its member states whenever it believes that human rights are being violated. Thus under "Responsibility to Protect," the UN provides the green light for a kind of global no-knock raid on any sovereign country. If asked, I would personally counsel the Palestinians to avoid the United Nations. UN membership and participation is no guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. We see what happens to UN members such as Iraq and Libya when those countries' leaders fall out of favor with US administrations: under US and allied pressure a fig leaf resolution is adopted in the UN to facilitate devastating military intervention. When the UN gave NATO the green light to bomb Libya there was no genocide taking place. It was a purely preventative war. The result? Thousands dead, a destroyed country, and extremely dubious new leaders.
A Palestinian State?
While I do not see UN membership as a particularly productive move for the Palestinian leadership, I do not believe the US should use its position in the UN Security Council to block their membership. I believe in self-determination of peoples and I recognize that peoples may wish to pursue statehood by different means. As we saw after the Cold War, numerous new states were born out of the ruins of the USSR as the various old Soviet Republics decided that smaller states were preferable to an enormous and oppressive multi-national conglomerate. The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily. In others words, follow Jefferson's admonition: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
