-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The Republican Jewish Coalition is holding a forum this week with the GOP presidential candidates.
They have deliberately excluded Congressman Ron Paul — and they are wrong to do so. Seth Lipsky over at the New York Sun has discussed this in a piece well worth reading.
We have criticized Congressman Paul’s foreign policy views (here) and have expressed concern (here) about the all too frequent linkage his supporters seem to make between the Congressman and anti-Semitism.
With that said, deliberately excluding Congressman Paul from a serious discussion of Jewish concerns is both a mistake as well as a considerable unfairness to a presidential candidate who has a serious core following.
Mr. Paul’s views on foreign policy, as seen from here, have been repeatedly discredited in practice, not to mention deceptively presented by the Congressman. The Founding Fathers, for example, repeatedly intervened in countries outside U.S. borders, contrary to the impression Paul tries to give. And Paul’s insistence on beginning the intellectual birth of the Republican Party with Ohio Senator Robert Taft — instead of the actual history of the 1850s — should not go unexamined either.
Paul holds up Taft as his role model — but in fact Taft had a very strong bond with Ohio’s Jewish community, notably an influential Cleveland rabbi named Abba Hillel Silver. Silver was a strong supporter of the creation of Israel, and it was Silver who persuaded his friend Taft to support a 1944 Senate resolution calling for unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. Which, of course, led directly to the creation of the State of Israel.
So warmly was Taft received by Silver and Ohio’s Jewish community that they are credited with providing Taft with his margin of victory in his close re-election fight to the Senate in 1944.
Congressman Paul, curiously, has been totally unable to develop a Taft-like base of support within America’s Jewish community. In turn creating the kind of unnecessary hostility on display in this deliberate effort to exclude him from an important discussion.
Ron Paul should be given the chance to fairly explain his views in the Republican Jewish forum — not deliberately excluded.
View all comments (118) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/06/jewish-republicans-dont-exclud
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 12.6.11 @ 10:47AM
One half of 1 per cent of the Republican vote comes from the Jewish bloc. They give a few bucks as well. The Democrats get 4% of their base vote from the Jewish voters. They also get huge amounts of campaign cash.
80% of the Republican vote is pro-life. The one half of one per cent has more voice in the party then the 80%. Conservatives get nothing for backing Israel. The whole Jewish delegation in Congress is rabidly pro-abortion, with the possible exception of Erick Cantor.
Now Israel is a rich country with at least 300 atomic weapons. It can fight it's own battles and pay it's own way. Ron Paul would let Israel do what it feels like, but it would have to do it, without the blood and treasure of the citizens of the USA. He would treat Arab and Jew alike, in that he would cut off all foreign aid to both. Far more American aid and military supplies go to the Muslim states, then to Israel.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 11:28AM
The Jews can deliver not a single Electoral College vote.
They can't deliver New York, they can't deliver Conn., they can't deliver New Jersey and they can't deliver Pennsylvania, nor Florida.
They only thing they can deliver is noise, and that invariably swells the sails of the Democrat nominee and invariably blows in favour of a radical, leftist agenda.
I've written 'em off.
Because they've written me, and those like me off, a long, long time ago.
For them to vote against the supposedly "elegant" black man would entail a full-fledged, foaming at the mouth existential crisis.
Barry| 12.6.11 @ 1:00PM
Sure, American Jews don't have much electoral clout. But there are at least 50 million zionist Christian voters (Christians United for Israel - CUFI) who stand for a militant American policy in the Middle East. The media rarely if ever mentions this fact. Watch Bill Moyers's program on CUFI.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.11 @ 1:52PM
Ron Paul deserves to get heard and publicly ridiculed. A chance to communicate cannot hurt.
Jack--"its" is the possessive. Ron Paul's chief advisor in foreign policy--- Schuerer, has stated that he would not sell weapons to Israel if Israel attacked Iran, thus not being exactly "neutral."
Paul lies, and lies, and lies, as do his supporters. A pox on them.
Dave| 12.6.11 @ 4:27PM
Huh, to remain neutral, one must sell weapons to Israel? What are Ron Paul's lies? He is quite consistent in saying that he would not give aid to any foreign country. He will only use our military and our treasury for the defense of our own country. How is that contradictory to being neutral?
John| 12.6.11 @ 11:21PM
I agree. I think a miniscule percentage of America's population should be able to use the federal government to take money from my family and send it to another country that they feel more allegiance to.
Who could argue against a bankrupt nation taxing its citizens to send their earnings and savings across the ocean to a separate nation?
JAT| 12.7.11 @ 4:38AM
You can disagree with Paul's policies all you want, but one thing you can't legitimately accuse him of is being a consistent liar. Au contraire, he's lauded even by those who disagree profoundly with many of his issues as a consistent, honest, truth-teller. At least he tries to be - this much is apparent by his speeches on the floor of the House, his articles, his videos, and his positions.
Get real, Ron Paul is anything but a liar.
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 3:51PM
Sadly, gentiles don't seem to vote for Pro-life Jews. 3 ran as Republicans for congress from New York in 2010 and all lost.
OLDRAY| 12.6.11 @ 10:57AM
Mr Lord's article is so dumb it is at home with the strange Ron Paul supporters that infect your site.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 11:01AM
So, knowing that Ron Paul is a jew hater and that his followers are rabid anti-semites (see the flurry of comments sure to come), jewish Republicans still have to offer him a forum? Would this be the same if David Duke announced himself as a candidate or is it only dear leader ronpaul that gets this treatment because of his appeal to the Bircher fringe of Republicans.
john| 12.6.11 @ 11:17AM
We love you, too!
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 12:32PM
Only criminal propagandists such as yourself equate anti-semitism to anti-zionism, the classic khazar cowardice, hiding anti-human political motivation behind the firewall of all-too-human ethnicity.
Ignorant of what the term "semite" means.
Ignorant of the "jews against zionism" movement.
Ignorant of where the term "nazi" comes from.
Ignorant of the US Constitution.
And deliberately so.
Criminal propaganda.
Anyone but Obama| 12.6.11 @ 1:00PM
Regardless of the origin of the word semite, its modern usage in the term anti-semitism is clearly referring only to the Jewish people, not the Arabs.
And Jews Against Zionism is something that most non-Jews completely dont understand as it is a deeply religious matter and nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Additionally, antizionism is just the modern-day antisemitism that Jew-haters use to validate their views and give it a non-racist appearance (after all, what wrong with hating a country?)
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 1:42PM
Shocking criminal propaganda.
It's the zionists and criminal collaborators who SAY that "anti-semitism is clearly referring only to the Jewish people, not the Arabs". That doesn't make it historically or ethnically so. Lie #1.
Zionism is not a religion. Therefore to state that "non-Jews completely dont understand as it is a deeply religious matter" is pure fabrication. Jews understand it perfectly and when they explain it, it sounds just like everywhere else in the world when they explain it. Lie #2.
And finally, the desperate plea that " antizionism is just the modern-day antisemitism that Jew-haters use to validate their views" is tantamount to me saying that your criminal propaganda on their behalf is just modern-day nazism borne by supremacists who use slander of all criticism towards them to validate THEIR views. Since I have PROOF of your mischaracterization of anti-zionim for anti-semitism and you have NONE that correlate these notions (since none exist; one is a political ideal, the other an ethnicity), there is Lie #3.
You're a liar spreading deliberate false information.
Ergo: a criminal propagandist.
Anyone but Obama| 12.6.11 @ 1:59PM
Who cares what a word historically or literally means; a words true meaning is what its used for. Many words in the english language are used in different senses than what the literal meaning suggests. Foolish statement #1
I didn't say Zionism is a religion (though there definitely is a form of religious Zionism), I said Jews against Zionism stems from a religious viewpoint. Foolish statement #2
What "PROOF"? And you're just strengthening my point. Hiding behind a "political" disagreement rather than an ethnic one gives validity to many antisemites. Foolish statement #3
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 2:22PM
(chuckle)
Whatever you say, shill.
Anyone but Obama| 12.6.11 @ 2:32PM
tsk, tsk; always with the name-calling...
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 3:58PM
"It's the zionists and criminal collaborators who SAY that "anti-semitism is clearly referring only to the Jewish people, not the Arabs". That doesn't make it historically or ethnically so. Lie #1."
I have history and cited facts, you have loud assertions.
"Zionism is not a religion. Therefore to state that "non-Jews completely dont understand as it is a deeply religious matter" is pure fabrication. Jews understand it perfectly and when they explain it, it sounds just like everywhere else in the world when they explain it. Lie #2."
Judaism is a religion. And last time I check, G-d promised us the land of Israel. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of a Messianic era in Israel 3 times a day. The best argument you have is a few sects of Jews who revere a Roman-imposed Rabbinic ruling over the text of the Torah.
'And finally, the desperate plea that " antizionism is just the modern-day antisemitism that Jew-haters use to validate their views" is tantamount to me saying that your criminal propaganda on their behalf is just modern-day nazism borne by supremacists who use slander of all criticism towards them to validate THEIR views. Since I have PROOF of your mischaracterization of anti-zionim for anti-semitism and you have NONE that correlate these notions (since none exist; one is a political ideal, the other an ethnicity), there is Lie #3.'
Zionism is the belief that there should be a Jewish state in Israel. And antizionist is one who wants to end Israel. Just as calling for an end of French France is antiGallic, so to a call for an end of Jewish Israel is antisemitic. And in so far as there is a state, it would involve the deaths of millions of Jews and the subjugation of the rest. QED.
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 5:57PM
More criminal propaganda: deliberate misrepresentation.
1) what "facts" are those? You've mentioned none. My facts are manifest: YOU'RE saying "anti-semitism is clearly referring only to the Jewish people, not the Arabs". THERE is MY fact. Checkmate.
2) Judaism is not Zionism. One is a religion, the other political motivation. Thank you for proving my point. Checkmate 2.
3) Blatant minimizing of stated goal of supremacy by deceit, theft and genocide. That's what zionism is. The "promised land" was to be obtained by a "sacrifice of 6 million". (wink-wink-nudge-nudge) First attempt during WW1 to spread the lie of 6 million deaths in Romania found to be fraudulent. Second attempt more successful despite clear indications of fraud (human skin lampshades, gas showers installed before Russian intervention, only race to see its population INCREASE during the war, Elie Wiesel a fraud, etc, etc), but I'm sure it went down like you say, yep, 6 million, oh, hey, what a coincidence, that's the SAME number...heeeey. Wow, what are the odds?
Hey, did you know 6 million children STARVED TO DEATH last year? And 6 more the year before? But to hell with them, right? That's not as important as 6 million adults killed 70 years ago, no, sir.
Hey, did you know STALIN killed 50 MILLION Russians? But to hell with THEM, right? They're not as important. Say, who was FUNDING Stalin? Or the Bolshevik Revolution, who was behind THAT? Hmm, it's a mystery, right? Nothing in the history books THERE, right?
(smiles ruefully in contempt)
So you can obfuscate, minimize or mislead all you want, criminal propagandist, but it doesn't change the fact that we're on to you. We know the lies you use, the criminal propaganda that comprises your entire agenda, the slander, the attempts to ostracize, the blatant fabrication and the cowardly name-calling you eventually revert to when the criminal propaganda isn't taking.
We know who you are. We know what you're doing. We know who you represent. We know who THEY are and what THEY are doing.
And we're telling everyone.
You've done all you can, traitor. Kudos for that. Your masters would be proud. But all you're doing now is painting a bullseye on your chest.
We want our country back. And we aim to get it back.
Criminal propaganda be damned.
charles ranalli| 12.6.11 @ 10:26PM
right on
charles ranalli
albuquerque
John| 12.6.11 @ 11:42PM
Aren't there about as many Jews in the US as in Israel? Combine this with other Jews in other areas of the world, and surely non-Israeli Jews outnumber Israeli Jews, so obviously, speaking strictly hypothetically, the dissolution of Israel would not have to involve millions of deaths. Jews, typically a successful and well-connected group, could go thrive elsewhere, as about two thirds of the world's Jews already do. So, on that point, you're mistaken or being dishonest.
The desire to have a Jewish state in modern Palestine, simply because a Jewish state existed there for a short time in antiquity, is not very logical, or even sane. This is why it's the cause of so much strife.
However, since millions of Jews are there, they could simply elevate the Palestinians to full-fledged, voting citizens with all their basic human rights protected by law, and most of the strife would end overnight. Everyone could have dignity....If it weren't for the petty hatreds and other psychological problems of the Zionists, this could be accomplished.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.11 @ 1:54PM
Reggie:
there are Jews who wish to kill Jews. I'm sure that there are people who are philosemitic and anti-Israel, but I have yet to find one in my nearly half-centuryt of life. It is safe to bet that they, like you, are not safe to be trusted around Jewish kids, as I would not trust Jack or Clint.
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 2:26PM
More criminal propaganda that denies the existence of the "jews against zionism" movement.
Carry on, shill, carry on.
The tide is turning anyway.
Down with ALL Apartheid states. And no entangling alliances with them, certainly.
Any who promote apartheid segregation and supremacy are criminal propagandists.
Like you, Occie.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 2:52PM
"Jews Against Zionism" makes as much sense as "Jews for Jesus." Which is to say, it doesn't. The only thing "criminal" here is the level of stupidity constantly displayed by Jew haters like you, Clint & Jack.
Reggie| 12.7.11 @ 3:29PM
(chuckle)
Whatever you say, shill.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 4:47PM
Wow. Your reply was so supportive of your position. You must be the star of your special ed class.
Reggie| 12.7.11 @ 11:42PM
I already had supported my position. You just brought slander as rebuttal. Like a criminal propagandist.
And again, like a criminal propagandist, you rebuke for not countering your slander with "supportive" arguments.
You're a criminal propagandist and a traitor. And the bullseye on your chest is only getting bigger.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:11AM
I've posted my mailing address on this site many times, cyber tough guy. Come on up to Pittsburgh so I can show you my Benelli.
Reggie| 12.8.11 @ 3:15PM
More criminal propaganda: threatening with violence once ridicule and slander prove to be ineffective.
Following the playbook step by step, right traitor?
(shakes head in pitiful contempt)
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 3:46PM
Apparently, Screwball Israel Firster Maniac, Tool Job has gnawed his way out of his straitjacket and tunneled out of The Minnesota Institute for The Criminally Insane, again.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 2:53PM
Apparently, Clint got bored at his "Queers for Palestine" rally & his Mommy allowed him to push the buttons on the magic machine for the day. How cute.
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 3:48PM
"Only criminal propagandists such as yourself equate anti-semitism to anti-zionism, the classic khazar cowardice, hiding anti-human political motivation behind the firewall of all-too-human ethnicity."
History and Genetics show that most Ashkenazi Jews are not Khazars. They don't match the genetic profile of Chuvash and are closer to Sephardi Jews than to other Europeans. In case you don't know what a Chuvash is, Reggie, let me clarify. Chuvash are the Volga Bulghars of old and would be the group closest to Khazars. Not only were both Oghuric Turks in the same region, but were essentially the same people until the civil war that broke out at the collapse of the Kok Turkut. Khazars supported the Ashina clan and took them as their Khagans, keeping the legitimacy of the old regime. The Bulghars did not and the groups fought, with the Khazars winning and forcing the Bulghars north to Suwar and Volga Bulgaria and west, into what is now Bulgaria. Ashkenzi Jews have a very different genetic profile than Karaylar, or Tatar Karaites, the only people who claim to be Khazars.
Antisemitism reffers to Jews and only Jews. The term was created by Wilhelm Marr, founder of the Antisemiten-Liga, Antisemitic League. "Antisemtism" was to be a modern scientific belief based on race and reason, differentiated from medieval Christian Judenhaus, hatred of Jews.
"Ignorant of the "jews against zionism" movement."
You mean the prostitutes at NK, who get funding from Iran and the PLO and for this were almost excommunicated by anti-Zionist rabbis?
"Ignorant of where the term "nazi" comes from."
National Socialist German Workers Party.
"Ignorant of the US Constitution."
LOL.
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 6:10PM
BWAAA-ha-ha-HAAA !!!
Oh, the lady doth protest too much.
The guy WRITES ashekenazi jews and in the SAME breath says that "national socialist german workers party" is where the term "nazi" comes from; beautiful, I couldn't've PLANNED that better.
And because the criminal propagandist REPEATS that antisemitism applies ONLY to jews, then that makes it so, and that is proof that that makes it so, even though it's not so at all. And brazenness with which this absurdity is declared only exposes your deceit even further. I shouldn't rely on that aspect of your criminal propaganda so much if I were you.
Or at least, less so than the rest.
Traitor.
Freedomist | 12.6.11 @ 1:38PM
Ron Paul and his supporters are not "Jew haters" nor are they "anti-semitic". It is the people who want a Jewish Israel that call critics of "Jewish only" Israeli policies these despicable names. Shameful.
C Bowen | 12.6.11 @ 11:14AM
The RJC said Paul does not sufficiently support the interests of a foreign nation over his own.
What does that say about the candidates that are attending?
The Ruling Class Republicans and their front groups like the RJC openly argue that Jewish Americans care more about a foreign nation making them no different then the "anti-Semites", just with a different spin on it.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 11:25AM
No, the Jews are doing the right thing banishing that lunatic Paul from the proceedings.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 11:25AM
Wow, RP's been unable to form such a bond. Might have to do with his Islamist sympathies and his 9/11 trutherism and sympathy with its perpertrators. Yep, he needs a respectful forum even though his knowledge of history (and that of his acolytes) is pretty unimpressive.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 11:27AM
Interests of a foreign nation over their own? They say that somewhere or is that the spin that the Paul Bund puts on things. Many would think that our interests correspond with one another and that Israel is our ally. The Paul Bund, though, just sees jews and automatically foams at the mouth out of their innate hatred of them.
C Bowen| 12.6.11 @ 12:22PM
The RJC wrote that Paul doesn't favor Israel, a foreign nation, enough, compared to the other compliant candidates.
The sad thing about American Republicans is that they are so leftwing on Israel, they won't take the time to read Clean Break, where Bibi amongst others called for breaking away of American subsidies so they could chart their own course.
John| 12.6.11 @ 11:34AM
APPEAL TO ALL AMERICANS ON BEHALF OF RON PAUL’S FOREIGN POLICY
If you don’t support Ron Paul because of his foreign policy I can understand because I was a traditional neoconservative type for much of my life. Upon digging into the facts, however, I now recognize that Ron Paul is on the right side of this issue.
The history of the Middle East and world in general, virtually all major surveys taken in Muslim streets, speeches delivered by Muslim leaders, and human nature confirm that meddling in the affairs of other countries and regions is the root cause of resistance, hatred, revenge, and terrorism.
Our meddling in the Middle East for more than 60 years by overthrowing governments (including democratic ones), invasions, occupations, setting up puppet governments and military bases came long before terrorism emerged as a reaction. There is no supporting evidence that organized radical Muslim terrorism results from hating us by nature, because of our religion, or lifestyle.
A universal characteristic of human nature is to be focused on creating a better life for ourselves and our children. Hatred, terrorism, and focus on what goes on in other countries come into play when our own way of life is violated or threatened by them. Until our heavy handed meddling in the Middle East we were rather liked and very much respected in the Middle East.
If a Muslim superpower meddled in our region for 60 years, invaded and occupied countries in North America, set up pro-Muslim puppet governments and military bases there would also be resistance, hatred, and no doubt some of us would also consider it justified to respond with the use of terrorism (even though terrorism should never be justified). Why, therefore, are we surprised that blowback emerges in reaction to our constant and consistent meddling in the Middle East during the course of 60 years?
We kept escalating the war in Vietnam to no avail but since leaving that country we now get along well. When under Soviet occupation the people of Eastern Europe despised and resisted the Russians on a daily basis. Now that the Soviets are out they are hardly given a 2nd thought in the people’s daily lives. Afghanistan practiced resistance and terrorism during the Soviet occupation of that country. Since Soviet departure and American entrance in that arena the hatred and terrorism has shifted to us. There is terrorism being committed by Muslims of Chechnya in an effort to free that country of Russian occupation.
Why then do we violate our Christian, national, and individual values to aggressively meddle in the affairs of others only to create more hatred and terrorism directed against us, while the vast majority of people around the world, and friendly leaders of other countries, warn against this course of action? Do not two of the most important commandments left by Jesus Christ not state “Love thy brother as you love yourself” and “Thou shell not kill?” Does not our Constitution, and did not our forefathers, warn against foreign entanglements and to respect the self-determination of all people whether we agree with them or not? Have we not been taught from early childhood to treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves?
History has proven over and over again that empires usually fall not from the strength of enemies but from their own over expansion. Many empires have tried to create a world in their own image by force and to date have all ultimately failed on each occasion.
If you can’t accept supporting Ron Paul’s foreign policy based on true Christian, national, and individual values that maintained the world’s respect for so many decades, then consider the fact that we simply cannot afford our current self-defeating warfare policy. Even if our meddling in the Middle East could create utopia for 30 million people in Afghanistan and 30 million people in Iraq, is it worth leading 312 million Americans into bankruptcy and full scale Depression during this process?
All evidence available thus far shows that our claims against Iran are basically as bogus as those used to justify the war in Iraq, except that the bombing of Iran would have far more serious negative consequences. Iran poses absolutely no threat to the United States. Even if Iran developed nuclear weapons it is unreasonable to believe that they would initiate a nuclear war against Israel as Iran would be toast within 24 hours. Contrary to the claims of so many Ahmadinejad never threatened to nuke Israel. And Iran has not started a war of aggression during its entire modern history, while we have started several, which included 3 acts of war committed against Iran alone.
This is not to say that Ahmadinejad does not represent a despicable dictatorship but we must consider how to deal with the situation with our own best interests and those of our children first. This also does not mean that Ron Paul does not believe in maintaining very strong defense. He absolutely does but that has little to do with constantly, and aggressively, meddling in the affairs of other nations.
Even after reading hundreds of documents that are readily available on the Internet, including those of our own government, which confirm all of the above, it took me a few years to accept the truth. Unfortunately, we don’t have a few more years to resolve these issues any longer thus I hope and pray that all Americans will take the time to examine the facts and accept the truth much more quickly than I did. This election will determine if we continue on the path to endless wars of self-destruction, bankruptcy, and full scale Depression within the next few years, or if we start the process of recovery under President Ron Paul.
gary| 12.6.11 @ 12:18PM
well said. I hope everyone gets a chance to read your comment.
RON PAUL Revolution 2012!!
Ryan| 12.6.11 @ 1:04PM
I could live with a scaled-back position like Paul's on foreign engagement; however, I believe it is FAR too naive to believe that militant Islamists will leave the US alone under any scenario. I think that there are many like myself in a similar position. We WANT to support Israel; we WANT to pull back from some of our Middle East engagements; we WANT to end the idiocy of foreign aid.
However, we also believe that America has a vested national and moral interest in helping to spread freedom abroad and oppose despotism, in preventing genocide, and in promoting Western civilization in general. Yes, we've made mistakes at times in doing some of these things, but that does not make them outside of the Constitution nor unnecessary.
swolma | 12.6.11 @ 9:06PM
Unfortunately, what you fail to realize is that all these actions have failed to produce positive results. The Iraqis are worse off than they were before we removed Saddam Hussein (who we help put in power in the first place). Have you seen pictures of it recently? Practically every neighborhood has a blast-wall surrounding it; very few neighborhoods have any electricity or running water at all. Oh yeah!, we've done so much for the inhabitants there. It was recorded by The UN that over 53& of its inhabitants occupy slum areas (an increase from the original 20% before we "spread democracy") The only people benefiting from our entanglements in the middle east are the private interests involved in our military- industrial -complex. War is a racket, and there are plenty of individuals who don't want to see these activities end. Just like Vietnam, it's going to take the outrage of the American public to turn the tide. Also, go ask Henry Kissinger if the secret bombing of Cambodia and Laos (which was hidden from Washington officials at the time) was Constitutional? One can cite more than a handful of scenarios in our history where the US's current administration had violated constitutional law and conducted illegal war for the sake of a few vested interests.
kim| 12.7.11 @ 12:34PM
This is an excellent summary of American foreign policy, and where it has gone terribly wrong. I hope you will continue to share this on other forums, and send it to Bill Oreilly , Krauthammer , and some of the other warmongering clowns on Fox. Oh...and The Donald. Good letter.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 11:37AM
Israel and the American people are allies.
But if you haven't noticed over the last half decade, the Washington foreign policy establishment is increasingly getting cross-wise with the state of Israel.
Israel is on it's own.
Bush sold 'em out with that idiot Condi, not as much as Obama to be sure, but that second Bush term saw the collapse of a sane approach to the Arab/Israeli dispute.
Israel is getting pushed to the wall.
And American Jews are overwhelmingly in favour of a leftist lifestyle and agenda.
Simon Templar| 12.6.11 @ 11:43AM
I think that many of you have missed the point here. Mr. Lord seems to be arguing the point that the Jewish group should not exclude him as it would be a mistake to pass up the opportunity to question Paul about his past statements and positions and put this out into the clear light of day. Who better than this group to question him vigorously on these issues and expose anything that might be hidden or misunderstood.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 12:12PM
Yea but Simon Templar, Paul is such a damned waste of time, when there are so many other issues that need to be discussed.
We've had TOO damn much of that heretofore.
We had the poorly read Cain, Huntsman, and Paul, and those people have WASTED all of our times, and screwed up the primary process.
We need to winnow the field to the real contenders, and Paul isn't one of them.
And now Paul, who isn't one of us really, is going after Newt, and we all know why, because Newt shut-up Paul in the last debate with a succinct and accurate put-down.
Paul is a bitter clown, who is wasting our time, and damaging our party with his protracted ego-mania.
I want the Jews to simply exclude him.
Of course whether the Jews will actually do what I want them to do is quite another matter.................... They're mostly infected with a Manhattan attitude............
gary| 12.6.11 @ 12:22PM
if you listened to Ron Pauls entire answer to Newt, you would understand that the Patriot act would most likely have not stopped that attack. Ron Paul is trying to stop this country from becoming a police state. Do you think the TSA is really helping us be safer? Don't think so.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 2:58PM
No, the TSA is indeed a joke. That's why we need to do our security El Al style. Ask certain questions, observe behavior, & yes, scrutinize Aziz from Peshawar more than Ethel Smith, who's 92 & needs a walker.
How would you combat an enemy who uses our own freedoms against us? I'm not asking to be snide or set you up for something. I just want to know what you think would work. And would you give up the TSA in favor of the more effective "El Al" method?
Ryan| 12.6.11 @ 1:05PM
Paul's support us understated in the media - he actually has a puncher's chance in Iowa as it stands right now.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.11 @ 1:56PM
Actually, I would let him speak so his little Robots can't argue that the meanie JOOOOOS won't let him speak. But he, like the Paulbots, are worthless.
Jay| 12.6.11 @ 2:26PM
I like Ron Paul, and I don't hate jews or Isreal. I love America, and believe we need to take care of business here as priority one. Don't care if it's Russia, Japan, Sweden, or Sri Lanka! We are broke, and need to take care of this nation before even considering taking care of another.
As far as the debate goes, consider this. I'm going to have a debate about the 2 major political parties in the US. However, I don't like the things those Democrats have to say about the way government should be run, so I'm excluding them.... Doesn't make much sense does it? A debate is only a valid debate when people with different oppinions discuss a matter. I'm sure it will be an interesting debate when every candidate there is grandstanding as to how they would do more for Isreal...... By excluding those who would offer any type of counterposition, they negate the entire point of having the debate to begin with.
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 3:53PM
Tool Job's The RINO-CINO, who says he'll vote for The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
We Are Being Set Up By These Israel Firster Propaganda Squad RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges For The Ruling Elites' Frontman Mittens Romney.
These Are The Same Israel Firster Propaganda Squad RINO-CINO Flunkie Stooges Who Gave Us The Serial Traitor To Conservatism, John McCain Of McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy,McCain-Lieberman,Gang Of 14, Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003,TARP.
Now They Are Trying To Give Us RomneyCare,TARP, Cynical Flip-Flops On Abortion, Gays, Refuses to Sign Pro-Life Pledge, Illegal Immigrants, "Little Chain Saw Al" At Bain, Crony Capitalism Campaign Money Trail.....
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
John2| 12.6.11 @ 11:50PM
Newt got off a good answer, but he was arguing from the Soviet premise that an all-powerful, intrusive state has a better chance of protecting itself from the disgruntled citizens it creates.
Paul, not very eloquently, pointed out that America is supposed to be an experiment in maximum citizen liberty, not maximum government-provided security.
Just because you enjoy someone's pompous grandstanding doesn't mean they have made a valid point.
William R| 12.6.11 @ 12:11PM
The folks at the RJC should just move to Israel because it is so obvious they put the interests of a foreign country over their own.
That aside, Lord is so far divorced from reality that he is a major embarrassment to the American Spectator.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 12:23PM
Well, most folks consider Israel to be our ally and that allowing jihadists/islamists to have nukes would be a bad thing. Paul and the Paultards disagree-in the 30's, they would have been neutral as between Great Britain and Hitler. It's a foreign policy that has never been practiced anywhere and certainly never in this country. But, somehow, they've are deluded enough to believe it is legitimate. Funny how the world is smaller than ever and more dangerous than ever but the tinfoil hat wearing paultards will be digging trenches on the beaches of the Atlantic and Pacific to repel invasion.
James| 12.6.11 @ 2:32PM
The U.S. congress declared war on Germany on December 11..constitutionally. That was also a war against countries, not a noun.
Paul has not suggested that we allow radical jihadist/islamists to just go out and get themselves a nuclear weapon; he is merely stating that our foreign policy of aggression and nation-building exacerbates the problem and could possibly make the nation of Iran want to be able to defend itself like we are able to. Do you really think that invading yet another country is going to significantly lower or increase the amount of people in the world that hate us?
The Paul trolls' comments tend to rely heavily on their shock value over an analysis of the issues themselves (words like "nut", "Hitler", "extremist", "clown", anti-semite", etc.)
Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.6.11 @ 4:22PM
The US is not conducting a foreign policy of aggression. Stop lying.
William R| 12.6.11 @ 2:55PM
Ed, ask the more than 100 still living survivors of the USS Liberty what a good friend Israel is
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 3:21PM
Leave it to a member of the Paul Bund to bring that up. Mistakes happen in times of war, as any sentient human being can understand. After all, we shot down an Iranian passenger plane during the Iran/Iraq conflict and there have been such incidents in every war or near war, often with our side shooting our side. To a Paulbot, that would mean one of our cities should be nuked (a neutral event to be sure).
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 3:59PM
You're An Israel Firster Traitor Bastard Punk, Little Eddie.
"USS Liberty' veterans demand investigation
Jun. 3, 2007 12:00 AM
Conclusions submitted in October 2003 to the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense by the USS Liberty Veterans Association, Inc., in demanding a congressional investigation into the aborted rescue during the attack of the USS Liberty and subsequent alleged cover-up.
The group also calls for a new Naval Court of Inquiry and that June 8 be officially recognized as USS Liberty Remembrance Day.
1. That on June 8, 1967, after eight hours of aerial surveillance, Israel launched a two-hour air and naval attack against USS Liberty, the world's most sophisticated intelligence ship, inflicting 34 dead and 173 wounded American servicemen (a casualty rate of 70 percent, in a crew of 294);"
http://www.azcentral.com/arizo.....y0603.html
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:03PM
Funny how any support of Israel is equal to treason with these fools. I wonder, Clint, since you profess to be Catholic, if that makes you a "Vatican Firster?"
Why not? Its the same type of thing you say to those of us who support Israel. If you supported the IRA in their "freedom fight" against the Brits, does that make you a "Belfast" or "Ireland Firster?"
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 12:13PM
The best argument for adding Paul is that the Repub Jewish Coalition can corner him on foreign policy and force him to either open up on his anti-Jewish views or backtrack in public.
BTW, it's quite ironic for Ron Paul to attempt to associate himself with Mr Republican, Robert Taft. Taft was by no means an isolationist, but against the Roosevelt policy of aggressive foreign interference. In addition, Bob Taft was an honest man.
Cfountain72 | 12.6.11 @ 1:37PM
Hi Dai,
Care to offer any proof of Ron Paul's anti-semitism or that he is actually an isolationist (in the true sense of the word?)
Peace be with you.
Occam's Tool| 12.6.11 @ 1:57PM
He takes money from StormFront. When told it's from StormFront, he doesn't give it back.
99% of his followers are vermin I would not allow to babysit my kids.
FREEman| 12.6.11 @ 2:09PM
"99% of his followers are vermin I would not allow to babysit my kids."
This from the guy who cheers for nuclear genocide in Iran.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:05PM
"Nuclear genocide." And what do you think those poor, innocent Iranians will do once they get their nukes? You think they'll just use all that material for watch dials?
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:08PM
The Screwball Israel Firster Maniac,Tool Job Is In The Building.
Dr. Ron Paul "I don't want white supremacists support"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.6.11 @ 2:59PM
It's not for me to prove Ron Paul's biases, but for him to adequately deny them, preferably to the people directly concerned.
BTW, "anti-semitism" has always struck me as a misleading term. The practicers of such a bias have nothing against Arabs, Syrians or Iraquis, all of them more Semitic than Ashkenazi Jews. No, these people are anti-Jewish.
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:11PM
Uh Oh !
The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Plays Their Dog Eared Anti-Semite Card.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:06PM
Its not playing a card if its the truth. And we all know you can't stand the truth. Especially when its about you.
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 3:59PM
Don't remind people that Taft was a Zionist before Truman.
9thID| 12.6.11 @ 12:18PM
I agree with Lord in that inviting Capt'n Ron to the forum would give more of the public an opportunity to see Paul's anti-Semitism up front. This would be helpful in pointing out the differences between Conservatives and Liberal-tarians and why Paul will attempt another 3rd Party run. The best cure for evil of Libertinism is to expose it to the light of historical truth...
tonypal| 12.6.11 @ 12:38PM
Good point. I once argued with a black co-worker that trying to shut down a KKK rally in Manhattan was the wrong thing to do. Actually, I told him the proper thing was to not ever bother showing up to protest, thus rendering them irrelevant. But we should never look to silence anyone with a different point of view, no matter how disagreeable. As we all know, fresh air is the best disinfectant.
As for Mr. Paul, I think his foreign policy is wrong headed. Much like our present clown/president, Mr. Paul seems to have a serious problem with Israel. So let's have at him and let him disprove the notion that he might just be an anti-semite. This appears to be the perfect forum for Mr. Paul to enlighten us.
In the meantime, perhaps Clint can cut and paste a few statements from Mr. Paul and tell me how I'm an Israel-Firster. Then I will call my Martian contacts and Frankenberry and we'll have a secret meeting.
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:17PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.
“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.
“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 12:48PM
The only credit I can give to Lord for his discrediting campaign against the candidate who goes against his masters' plan to destroy this country is that he has the good sense to say "AS SEEN FROM HERE, (Paul's) views on foreign policy have been repeatedly discredited in practice." (practice? what practice is that exactly? but whatever...)
See, "as seen from HERE", that is, a patriotic and free America where we are NOT beholden to criminal government's dictates that we denounce, we believe ANY support to a warmongering, foreign govt-infiltrating, media-usurping, crimes against humanity-perpetrating Apartheid state like Israel should receive not only NO support from America but whole-hearted condemnation.
They need to be cut off.
And their collaborators in this country need to be cut out.
How much more of our money and our childrens' lives do we allow them to spend for the pursuit of THEIR goal of a one world government that spells the end of American sovereignty and slavery for all before we wake up?
Enough is enough. Zionism needs to go, jewish and christian alike. It's criminal.
Those who endorse it while slandering others of anti-semitism for its defense, are criminal propagandists.
And patriotic Americans need not be bullied by these cowards no more.
Free America Now
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 4:00PM
What crime can you attribute to Israel which has not been carried out by any other nation, including the US?
Reggie| 12.6.11 @ 6:15PM
Oh, so because Japan attacked us in 45, that makes it ok for Israel to attack us in 68? I see.
Well, we responded to the former. If you're saying we should have responded to the latter as well, I agree with you.
Or is that not what you meant, criminal propagandist?
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:10PM
I guess the English & Canadians should cease to be our allies then, since we've accidentally shot up a couple of their armored vehicles in Iraq & Afghanistan. Is that how it works? Or is it only "ze CHOOOOS" who're just blatantly nefarious?
Reggie| 12.7.11 @ 3:27PM
More criminal propaganda: diluting the issue to its minimal expression to better attack it.
First of all, no Canadian troops in Iraq. Only outsourced Canadian mercenary units, such as half our American presence there. So right off the bat, we all can see the level of ignorance you're operating in.
Secondly, you equate death by friendly-fire to death by deliberate attack. You THINK the USS Liberty was a case of friendly-fire obviously.
The survivors of the attack as well as the Captain who say they were DELIBERATELY attacked (because they heard them coming over the radio and Israel expressed FULL WELL their knowledge of WHO they were attacking, not to mention the fact that men overboard were machine gunned AFTER initial bombing strafe where AMPLE opportunity to IDENTIFY the ship they were attacking WAS American) are WRONG and YOU, criminal propagandist, are right, yes?
And that because your zionist masters said so, right? Whom you believe more than American troops, is that correct?
(snicker)
Good luck with that, traitor.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 4:57PM
Weggie:
Before you call me stupid, learn to read. I mentioned friendly fire incidents in Iraq & Afghanistan & the countries that were involved. I didn't say that the Canadian one or the British one happened anywhere. I said they happened. And they did:
In Afghanistan: Canadian
http://enews.fergananews.com/article.php?id=15
Try again, mullah fellator.
Reggie| 12.7.11 @ 11:47PM
More criminal propaganda: changing the story when caught in deliberate fabrication and obfuscating issue with more slander.
Your desperate cowardice amuses me, traitor that you are. Know that once we remove the criminals and bring to justice, we intend to focus all of our attention on you, criminal propagandist, and the rest of your enemy-collaborating kind.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:13AM
I'll hold my breath, cyber tough guy. Like flechettes?
Reggie| 12.8.11 @ 3:12PM
No, I like getting traitors to ADMIT they are criminal propagandists by fortifying themselves with the charge.
Like you just have. Checkmate.
Haw!
(I'm done with this witness, your honour.)
Barry| 12.6.11 @ 1:02PM
Ron Paul has consistently supported Israel's right to self-determination. Following excerpt from Bill Moyers Journal 10/4/2002:
MOYERS: Do you think... Excuse me, do you think Israel wants us to take out Saddam Hussein so that Israel doesn't have to do it itself? Because Israel is threatened...
RON PAUL: You know, that's an interesting question. I think they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and I can't blame them.
When Israel went in and took out that nuclear reactor in the early 1980s, actually I was one of the very few Republicans that supported it. It's in their interest to deal with it.
No, I think... I don't think it's so much that Israel wants us to do their work for them; it's that we don't allow them to do their work for themselves, because even Persian Gulf War may well have been better fought by Israel and moderate Arabs, and they could have taken care of Saddam Hussein a lot better than we did, because that war is still going on.
Steve| 12.6.11 @ 1:14PM
Ron Paul hasn't said he's entirely opposed to intervening in other nations. He has opposed the Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan (during the last five years) because we've spent our time and mony supporting the unpopular Karzai administration (as with the Shah) and we've failed to effectively end Al Qaeda influence. We've allowed them to flee to Pakistan and now we have a third war in fifteen years on the horizon. Not to mention Iran...
Little Lord Hawkleroy| 12.6.11 @ 1:21PM
"The Founding Fathers, for example, repeatedly intervened in countries outside U.S. borders, contrary to the impression Paul tries to give."
Jeffrey Lord, not a history student.
http://www.theamericanconserva.....g-fathers/
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 2:24PM
Of course, he forgets to mention our combat with the Barbary States/Barbary Pirates, a very early intervention. We could have just paid tribute and got along just fine-it was their coastline and they deservedly resented our encroachments. Why did we have to fight. Too bad dear leader ronpaul wasn't there to play 6th Dimensional Chess with them.
FREEman| 12.6.11 @ 2:32PM
Pirates don't represent a country, friend....they are pirates.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 2:38PM
Might want to check your history, friend. I'm sure you just misspoke, particularly given the historical brilliance shown by the Paulfront. Our battles weren't just with guys chasing gold doubloons and going arrr.
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:20PM
Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thoms Jefferson's First Inaugural Address And The Old Right And Get Back To Us.
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:20PM
Nice non-answer. If Paul was President during the Barbary wars, he'd say that it was our interventionism that was the problem, no doubt. And we would've never heard of the battle for Derna. And we'd STILL be paying "tribute" to them because we were, & still ARE, according to the Muslims, INFIDELS.
"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."..."American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers,"
But I'm sure if we leave THEM alone, they'll leave US alone, right Clint? It must've been that we allowed Jews in the country at the time that pissed the Berbers off, since there was no official State of Israel for you to blame.
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 4:02PM
You mean the founded American Republic, with dominion over subject peoples (indians) from our founding?
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:19PM
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Maiki| 12.6.11 @ 2:00PM
Not supporting foreign aid to another country doesn't mean you hate that country or are anti that country or its people. Especially when you don't support giving foreign aid to *anyone*.
It is *NOT* anti-zionist to cut off aid to Israel. Israel won't disappear off the map without foreign aid -- they have good intelligence, lots of armaments and nukes, and a strong army. They have capably defended themselves several times in the last 60 years. Ron Paul doesn't want to eliminate the State of Israel -- he just wants them to be independent from our policies and our money.
Nobody says Ron Paul hates the Japanese people or the South Korean people for wanting to close down the base in Okinawa (Even though North Korea *does* have nuclear weapons). Somehow, with Israel, it is different -- I think it emerges from this Evangelical Messianic vision for Israel -- not for specific concerns with Iran or the Israeli People.
Ed| 12.6.11 @ 2:20PM
Yet the Paul Bund doesn't froth at the mouth about Korea and Japan. He doesn't seem to attract the same degenerates that are anti-asian that he does jews. The stormfront donations are a good example of where dear leader ronpaul is coming from. Could one of the Paulfront gang explain how the dear leader would have dealt with Great Britain/Nazi Germany during WWII? Would he have been neutral between the two.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 2:24PM
Ed, actually the American Bund in the 30s made more sense than the Paulites of today. Those then didn't have World War Two to demonstrate the folly and the ruin of isolationism.
What's Paul's excuse today? What's the excuse of his cult followers?
They have none.
Maiki| 12.6.11 @ 2:52PM
Yup, non-interventionism *sucks* -- it never works at all. Definitely hasn't worked at all for Switzerland -- where every able bodied young man is armed, where they have a budget surplus and low debt, low unemployment, aren't being dragged down by the mess that is the EU.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.7.11 @ 3:24PM
Uh, we ain't Switzerland. One does not maintain the prestiege of their banking empire by getting involved in the wars of other nations.
Maiki| 12.6.11 @ 2:48PM
He would have entered the war at exactly the same time as the US did -- when Japan attacked us. And entered it with a declaration of war, just like we did in 1950. Details would be handled on an as needed basis.
Is it that you are *afraid* of non-interventionism? Don't live in fear! We don't have to preemptively attack in order to have a good defense.
Ron Paul talks plenty about shutting down bases in other countries, as well as cutting aid to other countries that are not Israel. Stop cherrypicking quotations.
There are plenty of "degenerates" that are attracted to all candidates.
Maiki| 12.6.11 @ 2:53PM
Typo on start of war. sorry about that.
inde-voice| 12.6.11 @ 2:00PM
Man, Ed and Dan running into this comment section with dick in hand.
Gingrich campaign workers, no doubt.
Dan| 12.6.11 @ 2:22PM
Those with their johnson in their hands are the occupiers in various public squares in cities across the country.
In addition, it's the libertarians and Paul who've made their peace with the various lifestyle types.
Not Gingrich.
Not Conservatives.
Reason| 12.6.11 @ 3:03PM
Jonathan Taubes, a self-professed Orthodox Jew, wrote the following comment on a Washington Jewish Week article:
"As an Orthodox Jew, I think it's disgusting that they didn't invite Ron Paul.
Especially because Ron Paul is THE single best candidate for Zionists and pro-Israel people such as myself.
Why? Paul wants to end foreign aid to Israel. When we give foreign aid to Israel they become our slave. We can make them do whatever we want. In 2005 when Israel wanted to bomb a nuclear facility in Saudi Arabia we said no and forced them not to. Ron Paul says stop making them dependent on us and give them their sovereignty back. The less foreign aid we give Israel, the more free THEY are to follow THEIR agenda, not ours.
Ron Paul thinks we should let Israel be fully sovereign and independent. He DOESN'T think we should be dictating its policies from Washington.
Every other candidate does, though, which is a big reason for my support of Paul, as an orthodox, pro-Israel Jew."
C Bowen | 12.6.11 @ 10:45PM
It does seem pretty straightforward when one puts it that way.
Ron Lewenberg| 12.6.11 @ 3:50PM
I would like to see Ron Paul at this debate. I also wish that the RJC had invited Congressmen Hunter and TAncredo in 2007 along with Paul. Hunter and Tancredo are both friends of Israel. You will not find an more serious anti-Jihadist than Tancredo in elected office these days.
Red Phillips | 12.6.11 @ 4:06PM
Mr. Lord has a knack for attracting rebukes from high powered thinkers. Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman have already blasted his past anti-Paul rantings. Now Daniel Larison has chimed in. As Mr. Lord has been schooled over and over, the Founding Fathers were not interventionists in any meaningful sense. So why he continues to repeat that canard, I don't know.
http://www.theamericanconserva.....g-fathers/
Zbigniew Mazurak| 12.6.11 @ 4:19PM
Except that these three isolationist loons have all failed to rebuke any of the comments Lord has made. Facts are stubborn things.
The indisputable fact is that Thomas Jefferson was the FIRST US President to intervene military abroad, and he did so without Congressional authorization or even consulting Congress. That is not to say they were hyper-interventionists like Bush and Obama. But the claim that they were "noninterventionists" is a myth.
Furthermore, it is morally repugnant (and I don't use this combination of words often) for Jeffrey Lord to lecture the RJC and tell it to accept the traitor from TX-14. Ron Paul is a despicable traitor, a fool, and an isolationist Blame America First loon. He has no business running for the GOP's nomination for any office, let alone for President. The RJC's decision to ban him from their forum was THE RIGHT DECISION. If Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, and CBS folks had any balls, they would've banned Ron "Blame America First" Paul from their debates, too.
Clint| 12.6.11 @ 4:25PM
" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Red Phillips | 12.6.11 @ 4:40PM
ZM, Jefferson did inform Congress of his actions, but his response to the Barbary Pirates, despite frantic interventionists attempts to claim otherwise, are not analogous to modern day interventions. The Barbary Pirates were guilty of piracy, go figure, so responding to them militarily was clearly a reasonable Constitutional and moral option. We were not making the Barbary States safe for democracy or bringing American style Enlightenment to the benighted world or any other Jacobin fantasy.
Red Phillips | 12.6.11 @ 4:51PM
"Except that these three isolationist loons have all failed to rebuke any of the comments Lord has made. Facts are stubborn things."
Umm ... did you read Larison's reply? He rebukes Lord's assertion of repeated interventions in toto, unless you believe that repeated means two cases that aren't even analogous. I guess two is technically repeatedly because it is more than one, but the term here is deliberately misleading assuming Lord even has the specific number of two in mind, which is doubtful given his history of cavalierness with facts he is unfamiliar with.
Facts are indeed stubborn things, assuming you can see then through your ideological blinders.
C Bowen | 12.6.11 @ 6:45PM
I just read that Eliot Lauer is a board member of the RJC.
Seeing as he is traitor Jonathan Pollard's lawyer, I am wondering why any Republican is accepting an invite?
Ah, I guess that is why Lord was sent out to write something about it.
Red Phillips | 12.6.11 @ 9:20PM
I don't begrudge a lawyer for representing a criminal. Every criminal deserves competent representation. The problem is that in the same way that many friends of Israel can't conceptualize that American and Israeli interests aren't always entirely congruent, many can not understand why turning US secrets over to Israel is that much of a problem. They seem to believe that we should just have complete transparency with Israel and turn over to them anything they might want. So Pollard in their minds is guilty of a non-crime.
C Bowen | 12.6.11 @ 9:49PM
Red;
Of course Pollard deserves competent representation as a tradition of our people, but the question is why would this organization which claims to be Republican get involved, unless its soft on the treason issue?
Groups like this exist based on an older strategy of antagonizing the host country to make these sorts of decisions. Popular Zionism was intellectually formed around the idea that Jews could not live in gentile nations without causing trouble and this notion gathered all sorts of attention on the right and left--that this strategy goes on without criticism as so called "American conservatives" defend a foreign ideology only seeks to harm present day American Jews.
Ron Paul supporter | 12.7.11 @ 4:33AM
Thank you Mr. Lord, for a fair and balanced article. Obviously we Paul supporters and Dr Paul himself disagree profoundly with you on many of the issues, but it's nice to see you sticking up for him , or at least his right to try and explain his views.
I think most people agree that Paul himself isn't antisemitic in the slightest, and though he has criticized certain Israeli government policies in the past, he isn't opposed to the state of Israel; he's opposed to us dictating their policies from Washington. Every other candidate wants to interfere with Israel's sovereignty. The more foreign aid we give them, the more control we have over them. Only Dr. Paul recognizes that we should free them from these chains and give them their sovereignty back.
Btw, I say this as a Ron Paul supporting, pro-Israel, orthodox Jew.
Louder| 12.8.11 @ 12:58PM
How can Americans NOT see that AMERICA IS BROKE??? We are borrowing money to give foreign aid. Plain and simply put, WE HAVE NO MONEY FOR FORIEGN AID! If we keep giving money at this rate, we will default and there will be a depression unlike anything America has witnessed. Weather you support Israel or not, you have to FACE THE FACTS! Let America rebuild itself, THEN talk about other countries.. Why is that so hard to compute???
JohnMikal| 12.8.11 @ 1:55PM
Are there any Jewish organizations that have taken a stance regarding banning Ron Paul from debate? Please supply links. If there are none, should that be taken as tacit approval of limiting discussion?
bse2| 12.9.11 @ 12:14AM
Ron Paul's foreign policy has not been discredited on this site. Ron Paul is the only candidate who follows historic principles of Just War. - Google Just War Theory and check it out.
Current American foreign policy has been a dismal failure since Viet Nam. Iraq and Afghanistan fit the same category. These are all wars that we had no business fighting - because they are all unjust wars.
America will never win an unjust war, not because of military might, but because of the will to win, and the compromised political policy that inevitably accompanies unjust war. We will always end up in some form of extended, costly, stalemate or defeat - Which is exactly what is happening in the middle east. A just war requires a quick thorough victory with the establishment of a superior peace. This we we cannot do unless there is a just foundation to the war. We are doing far more harm than good right now.
Ron Paul is right.