January 7, 2013
If you thought Rand was different then Ron then you need medication. There is no equivalence between countries the U.S. buys allegiance to and countries that fight Islam for us. There is a difference between your friends and your business dealings.
“CHANGE” – U.S. senator calls for gradual cut in aid to Israel
) By Aron Heller. JERUSALEM (AP) – U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on Monday called for a gradual reduction of American foreign aid, delivering the message in an unlikely venue – since Israel is among the top recipients of American assistance. Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, told reporters that the U.S. can’t afford to keep borrowing money and then handing it out to others, even to allies like Israel. “It will harder to be a friend of Israel if we are out of money. It will be harder to defend Israel if we destroy our country in the process
,” he told the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies, an Israeli think tank. “I think there will be significant repercussions to running massive deficits … you destroy your currency by spending money you don’t have
.” Paul, a longtime opponent of foreign aid, acknowledged he was expressing a “minority opinion” and doubted Congress would end foreign aid in his lifetime. “It’s unlikely anything changes, but I think it is worth discussing,” he said during his first trip to Israel. Israel gets about $3 billion a year in military aid from the U.S. Paul insisted Washington should first cut aid to countries with strained ties to America, such as Pakistan and Egypt, and only later wean Israel off aid. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has previously stated he was interested in doing that. Paul said the aid, used in large part by Israel and Egypt to buy U.S. weapons, was creating an arms race in the Middle East that could ultimately harm Israel, not help it. “I’m concerned that some of the weaponry that we are currently giving to Egypt may one day be used against Israel,” he said.
Most American military assistance to Israel must be spent on U.S.-made equipment, providing a boost to the military industry there. Paul suggested Israel would actually benefit from less aid, saying it would enhance its sovereignty by not having to approach the U.S. “on bended knee” when making its own decisions. “I don’t think you need to call me on the phone to ask permission for what you want to do to stop missiles from raining down on you from Gaza
,” he said.Read the full story here
Did anyone not see this coming?
February 27, 2012
(American Thinker) It is becoming increasingly obvious that an alliance has formed between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. This alliance probably has been in effect for several months, but only now has it become blatantly obvious. Paul has viciously bombarded virtually the entire Republican field via attack ads with one exception: Mitt Romney. Instead, Paul focuses like a laser on any conservative alternative who moves up the ladder.
At first, I believed this was merely a strategy to politically assassinate the Romney alternative so that Paul himself could fill the void; however, I am thinking there is much more going on behind the scenes than initially meets the eye. Here’s my theory (and it’s just that — a theory): Mitt Romney has informed Ron Paul that he will be selecting his son, Rand Paul, as his VP should he become the nominee.
But wait, you say — Romney is a politician’s politician: he will say and do just about anything to get elected. He’s flip-flopped on every major issue, accused his opponents of such outlandish things as supporting China’s one-child policy, and managed to tick-off and isolate virtually all of his former competitors via his well-coordinated political Death Star smear machine (see Giuliani, Thompson). How, therefore, could Ron Paul trust Romney on this speculative promise?
Easy: Ron Paul has taken out an insurance policy. Mitt Romney has guaranteed Paul Senior that Paul Junior will be his nominee because he knows that if he stabs the Pauls in the back, Ron will simply run third party and torpedo any chance Mitt may have at the White House. This way, Ron is guaranteed that Mitt won’t back down from his promise, and Mitt is guaranteed Ron won’t spin-off and run as an independent. It also gives Ron the only thing he ever really wanted: influence in the party.
Several people–including the Santorum campaign–have suggested that Mitt may have made a deal to make Ron his running mate. There’s about a snowball’s chance in hell that this will happen. Let’s face it: these two men are polar opposites when it comes to policy and their overall worldview. Should Ron Paul sign on with the establishment’s favorite candidate, he will have eliminated his currently impenetrable perception of authenticity among his base of supporters.
Plus, let’s be honest, Ron Paul hasn’t been vetted by the mainstream media. If he were on the ticket, the media would have a field day digging up all his past writings and associations. Hell, the guy warned of a “coming race war” and suggested that the Oklahoma City bombing was an “inside job.” Not to mention the support he’s garnered from individuals such as white separatist David Duke, a man Ron praised back in 1990.
The Paulites can complain all they want about how his old newsletters are just a conspiracy (like everything) against their candidate, but let’s face it: if stories like these were plastered on every news network in America throughout the entire month of October, the campaign would be toast. And they both know it. Ron knows that he doesn’t have a legitimate shot at the White House, and Mitt’s intelligent enough to understand that placing Ron on the bottom of the ticket would be political suicide.
Enter Rand. The admission by Rand that “it would be an honor to be considered” as Romney’s veep is a bizarre thing to say considering he’s currently campaigning for his father, who is supposedly running against the man.
The junior Paul already is a rising star among Tea Party activists and shares most of the same libertarian-leaning principles of his father. Rand doesn’t have his father’s baggage and is a young and articulate spokesman for limited government. He walks the line between conservatism and libertarianism — often bridging the two philosophies — and is viewed as the more pragmatic and levelheaded of the Pauls by people like, well, me.
This alliance would essentially kill three birds with one stone and guarantee Republican content in November. First, it would give the “establishment” beltway types their guy, pleasing the old bulls in the party and the Karl Roves and Ann Coulters of the world. Second, those conservatives reluctant to support a wishy-washy mush candidate like Mitt, who has thus far successfully managed to divide the party with his bombardment of character assassination attacks on “fellow” limited-government office seekers, will hold their noses and vote for the guy if a “true conservative” like Rand were also on the ticket. Conservatives will believe (wishfully) that Rand will hold Mitt’s feet to the fire when it comes to policy implementation. They will also see this as an opportunity to have a Tea Party member in a position of significant power and influence, a potential launching pad for Rand’s young political career should he pursue the office himself one day.
Lastly, with Rand on the ticket, Ron now has cover to support Mitt — a candidate almost diametrically opposite him — due to his son (a much more moderate libertarian conservative). This brings over not just the Ron Paulites (who, caught up in a cult-like swirl, would never support anybody but Paul or his son no matter who was running) but also independent-minded libertarian voters. I could foresee libertarian publications endorsing the ticket, claiming that their philosophy is on the rise, and with the younger Paul only one step below the presidency.
With moderate Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians united behind a Romney-Paul ticket, the party should have no trouble launching a legitimate shot at the White House come November.
it’s a theory that works… how often did Ron Paul attack Romeny? Not much
January 27, 2012
Ron Paul representative Michael Scheuer on Judge Napolitano: “Israel’s man power has ever been used to do anything?” “There are no resources?”
Is this the policy of Ron Paul? To belittle Jewish workers? Is this the kind of interview we can expect from Napolitano?
Michael Scheuer depicts bin Laden as a rational actor who is fighting to weaken the United States by weakening its economy, rather than merely combating and killing Americans
In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka “Alec Station”), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004.
No wonder we didn’t get Bin Ladin till this guy was gone!
January 25, 2012
(Dondero)It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any b…usiness getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust. “He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.” In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”
note the reason for terrorism is because we have military bases in places where we do business.