Ron Paul

Kucinich, Richardson, and Paul Benefit Most from Bhutto Assassination

Bob Fertik — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:52:13 -0500

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is horrifying in terms of its violence against the people of Pakistan - and terrifying in terms of the possibility of Pakistan spinning into chaos with loose nukes and murderous fundamentalists.

Of course I can't add any insights into the who and why and the consequences for Pakistan and the world - nor can many Americans.

But let me add my $.02 on one topic in the news - which U.S. Presidential candidates will benefit the most.

Without a doubt, those candidates are Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Ron Paul.

Why? Because they are the three candidates who want to get out of Iraq quickly and completely, and let the Iraqis solve their own problems, rather than continue the bloody, expensive, and self-defeating U.S. occupation.

We urgently need to get our troops out of Iraq so we can send the fresher ones to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban more effectively - before we lose the other half of Afghanistan to the people who harbored Al Qaeda before 9/11.

According to the Pentagon Post, more troops will be sent to Afghanistan soon - but there is absolutely no indication where those troops will come from.

Beginning early next year, U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and
clandestine counterterrorism units, according to defense officials involved with the planning... Now, a new agreement, reported when it was still being negotiated last month, has been finalized. And the first U.S. personnel could be on the ground in Pakistan by early in the new year, according to Pentagon sources.

Peace, Injustice, and Ron Paul

davidswanson — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 22:23:14 -0400

By David Swanson

If Ron Paul had been president for the past 6 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms.

But more Americans would lack decent health care. More American children would lack adequate education. More families in America would struggle in poverty. Immigrant families would face increased threats and abuse. Women would have lost rights. And a growing oligarchy would further dominate American politics, making reversal of any admirable Paul policies likely.

Paul arrives at some admirable positions for some unexpected reasons. And his principles lead him to many reprehensible positions as well. He opposes occupying Iraq because it involves massive government expense and power. That, and not the million corpses, is his primary concern.

Paul is brave enough to say what he thinks and stand by it. While there are Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee, who have that same quality, the Democratic Party as a whole has an established reputation of not standing and fighting for anything, and least of all peace.

So, it's not completely surprising that a lot of opponents of the occupation of Iraq are looking to Paul as the best presidential candidate out there. Many Paul supporters really want peace and want it for the best reasons, but they detest the word "liberal" and loathe "big government." Others are not quite in that camp but consider the war such an overwhelmingly important issue that they don't much care what Paul's other positions are.

But Paul would end the occupation of Iraq and offer the Iraqi people not a dime to help rebuild the nation we've destroyed. In fact, he would cut the pittance we give in foreign aid around the world. But Paul has never, to my knowledge, said he would cut a single dollar from the biggest big government expense there is, much bigger than any war: the yearly budget of the Pentagon. And if he thinks he can keep funding that and NOT launch new wars, he hasn't thought about the workings of our government quite enough.

So, a Paul government would be stingy, extravagant, war-prone despite itself, and in debt. Would Paul solve that problem be reinstating progressive taxation for the super wealthy and corporations? No, he'd cut taxes. Of course, taxes SHOULD be cut for most people. But unless they're raised for the wealthy and corporations, we will have even more debt (which Paul says he opposes) or we will have to make massive cuts in what's left of the non-military public sector. And that's exactly what Paul would like to see: "wasteful agencies" and "governments collecting foreign aid" are among his targets. Rather than increasing funding for public schools, his solution for education would be to cut more taxes (the thinking being that this would allow parents to teach their children at home). That works for parents who want to do that and don't have to work. But most parents don't want to do that and do have to work. And with a president Paul allowing the minimum wage to plummet, opposing living wage standards, and doing nothing to restore the right to unionize, parents' work hours would not be shrinking.

Of course parents who don't work, or don't work jobs with good benefits, tend to lack health insurance. Paul would offer these tens of millions of Americans and the even greater number with inadequate health insurance nothing more than a middle finger. Paul believes the greatest crisis in our health care is the imposition of vaccinations. Everything always comes back to his notion of personal "freedom," even if it's the freedom to die of a curable disease. The only solution that has been found to provide everyone decent health care – in fact it works in almost every industrialized nation in the world – would mean private medicine, allowing everyone to choose their own doctor, but would also mean replacing the health insurance companies with the government. This is the last thing Paul would ever stand for. Better that people suffer and die than that the government be involved in helping them.

Women who value the right to abortion would lose it under a Paul Administration. This is not speculation. He openly says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's his principle and he stands by it courageously and honestly, but most Americans disagree with him.

Life would change dramatically for all Americans under this sort of right-wing rule, but much more so for immigrants. Paul would allow fewer legal immigrants, while denying any illegal immigrants a path to become citizens. An immigrant woman here without papers who was raped would be denied the right to an abortion. Her child, born in America, would be denied citizenship. Her family would be denied welfare, as well as health care, and education, not to mention any investment in public transportation. Undocumented workers would gain no workplace rights under a Paul government, and so the rights of all of us would continue to erode. In fact, immigrants would be scapegoated and associated with 9-11, and Paul's priority would be "securing borders."

Under a Paul administration there would be fewer immigrants for a good reason: he opposes the trade policies that destroy the economies of the nations they flee to come here. But Paul opposes those policies because they are international, not because they empower corporations and hurt workers. That's none of his concern. He's a "property rights" man, even if it's at the expense of those without property. He opposes NAFTA for the same reason he opposes the United Nations. He would erode international law far more swiftly than Bush, thereby endangering us all in the long run. International law is what works against wars of aggression. The UN told Bush not to invade Iraq. Bush illegally invaded anyway.

But if Paul is as major an opponent of justice as I suggest, why then are so many advocates of peace and justice flocking to him? It depends in each case. Many passionately oppose the occupation of Iraq, but they don't call it an occupation. They call it a war. And their chief concern is not the million Iraqis dead, but the nearly four thousand Americans. And (this is key) they don't like the Democrats.

Paul is a man with principles, bizarre and twisted principles, but principles. Beside him, most of the Republicans look like charlatans, and the Democrats who are allowed on television and in the New York Times look like spineless cowards. They look like spineless cowards not because they favor peace (they don't), but because they refuse to stand up to Bush and Cheney. Paul stands up to Bush and Cheney. NOTHING is more powerful than that in today's politics, and he does it. Standing up to Bush and Cheney is what propelled Howard Dean's campaign so rapidly, and few paid close attention to what his positions were either.

Of course, there is a candidate in the 2008 presidential race who stands consistently and courageously on principle for both peace AND justice. And if we had the courage of our convictions we would put everything we have into backing him. Not only might he win, but our backing him now might force the Democrats in Congress to act like they believe in something, and force other candidates to improve their positions. His name is Dennis Kucinich. Paul doesn't want people to give their money to Washington. Give it to http://www.kucinich.us

Ron Paul Shocks GOP With the 'Inconvenient Truth' About Islamic Terrorism

Bob Fertik — Wed, 16 May 2007 09:41:33 -0400

Ron Paul shocked the GOP debate in South Carolina when he dared to defy the central belief of post 9/11 Republican theology: that Islamic terrorists hate us "because of our freedom," as George Bush said.

REP. PAUL: Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.
We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?
REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.
MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)
And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)
MR. GOLER: Congressman?
REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.
They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Despite the attack by the High Priest of Republican 9/11 Theology, Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul stood his ground. And he was rewarded for that by running a strong second in FOX News' own text poll with 25%, four points behind Mitt Romney and 6 points ahead of Rudy Giuliani.

Of course Paul is right, and the Defense Science Board is on his side:

'Muslims do not hate our freedom, but rather they hate our policies [the report says]. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy.'

Ever since 9/11, the American people have been brainwashed by Republicans into believing "they hate us because of our freedom." But after the disaster in Iraq, Americans are slowly waking up and asking the tough questions.

If there are any thinking Republicans left, Ron Paul will make major gains in GOP polls after telling his "inconvenient truth" in the South Carolina debate.

Here is the video: