Ron Paul Podcast #5: Non-Interference and change

Show #5: Non-Interference and change

Show #5: Non-Interference and change

This podcast lasts 5 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Program notes: Now that the phenomenal fourth quarter “money-bomb” of 4.2 million dollars in one twenty-four day is somewhat passe, we need to see if Paul’s numbers will go up in NH and other parts of the country. As of today, he is fourth in NH with 8%, ahead of Fred Thompson and Huckabee. Fortunately, we don’t have to be worried about the Paul campaign mismanaging the money of loyal supporters. You can’t have this same confidence with the Romney or Giuliani campaign.

Ron Paul Podcast #3 – On Foreign Policy

Show #3: 911- Calling Dr. Ron Paul; save us from this senseless foreign policy.

Download Podcast.

Also included, a portion of Ron Paul’s response in the first presidential debate.

This podcast lasts 7 minutes. For previous podcasts go to archives.

Podcast Notes:

Today, I would like to speak about Ron Paul’s foreign policy. As anyone who has watched all the debates or even one of them will know, Ron Paul stands away from the pack. He opposes the neo-conservative agenda of policing the world and using force as a way to achieve peace. The idea of achieving Middle Eastern stability through the barrel of a gun is senseless and Paul has made that clear.

Bombing holy sites?

Tom Tancredo stood by his remarks on Sunday’s debate. The week before, while speaking to a group of Iowas he said:

If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.

In response, Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.”

I confess Tancredo’s positions on Immigration and government limitation is appealing to paleo-conservatives like myself. Nevertheless, the audacity of Tancredo¹ is absurd. Tancredo could well be a reasonable choice in the Republican ticket if his positions were not so radical. It appears that his low numbers both on the internet and nationally has led him and his staff to think of creative ways to call the attention of the country. In debates, he has been known to taking every opportunity to go a step further than his opponents. Instead of the typical neo-con calculated candidates, Tancredo utters the obscene. Indeed, second-tier candidates (and Tancredo is truly a second-tier) are free to utter their thoughts however absurd they may seem and– trust me–they are absurd.

Who defines victory?

Anyone familiar with my official site for the last few years know that I have been a strong opponent of the Iraq War. Since I am unable to do all the research necessary, I have depended on some phenomenal bloggers and intellectual giants such as William f. Buckley Jr. Along the way, my thinking has been shaped more and more around Libertarian thinking, as expressed by the honorable Ron Paul and the great scholar R.J. Rushdoony.

Establishing arguments contra war has not always been as easy as it is today. Nowadays, the most fervent war-supporting Republicans have begun to express serious doubts about the president’s war policy. After all, when the ship has been sinking for so long,¹ even the crew will jump, though their captain may wish to die honorably. Of course, there are still those who will die on their loyalty graveyard. They will fight to the end though they may feel their fight is more about status than morality. They will fight to the end at the expense of other children’s blood, not their own.

These die-harders still claim that we need to stay until “victory” is accomplished; “victory” of course, is never defined. This is why I am glad Dan Phillips continues to write stimulating blogs that forces neo-cons to truly define their terms. Dan Phillips argues that supporters of the war will constantly use phrases like “we cannot leave until we achieve ‘victory;’ or “we cannot cut-and-run because that will mean that we have surrendered to our enemies.”I must confess that though I have believed for very long that the concept of “victory” in the lips of neo-cons is always destined to failure, I have not challenged what exactly they meant by the idea and how irrational it really is. Dan Phillips emerges to challenge and reveal the absurdity of it all when he poses these questions:

Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.

The level of political discussion began with talks about WMD’s and now they have turned to “we must not leave, though we admit the war was a mistake.” What keeps us in Iraq is the stubbornness and unconstitutionality of a president who still has not given a definition of “victory” without changing his mind a month later.

Imperialism never admits failures; they persist because as Ron Paul has mentioned time and time again: “War is the health of the state.” If the imperial endeavor ceases, the state then ceases to control your money and your lives. If the state continues to wage war, then your life is back in their hands. So, what is victory anyway but the unstable and rhetorically mindless meandering of tyrants.

What Ron Paul needs to say tonight?

Here are two things Ron Paul needs to do tonight:

a) What Ron Paul needs to do tonight is to stress once again that he will bring the troops home immediately and then appeal to the families and say something like: “Father and Mothers, brothers and sisters-I promise you I will bring you sons and daughters home immediately as your president!”

b) Secondly, Paul needs to capitalize in his Giuliani reading list. He should say something like: Mr. Giuliani needs to read what I have given him; how can a man desire to be a president of the United States if he does not seek to understand foreign policy. I, on the other hand, understand foreign policy and understand Middle Eastern politics and that is why I should lead this country.

America: Leave the Middle East!

The old argument used against those like Ron Paul who believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be better off without American interfering in Middle Eastern foreign affairs has plenty of validity according to a new survey out by Zogby.

The idea according to the Neo-Cons is that if we leave Iraq or if we don’t attack Iran, the Middle East will enter a civil-war (hint: It has become a civil war due to American foreign policy). American foreign policy under Bush has enraged the Middle East and underscore what Ron Paul has said so many times: “Let the Middle East deal with their problems.”

The Arab American Institute (AAI) and Americans for Peace Now (APN) on Monday, June 4, will release the results of a new joint survey of Arab Americans and Jewish Americans showing a high level of support, among both communities, for a negotiated two-state peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The poll, conducted by Zogby International, also shows a low level of approval of President Bush’s handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as an intention, by voters in both communities, to support political candidates who commit to actively advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process. The poll reveals solid support for a more robust use of American diplomacy in the region, including in Washington’s policy toward Iran.