Ron Paul

[ReaganLiberal]

Will you be considering Ron Paul for the candidacy? I think he adresses many of your white nationalist interests. Tell me what you like about him.

[ftf]

White nationalists? JTF isn't StørmFrønt.

[kahaneloyalist]

And Ron Paul is a vicious Jew hating SOB, for him nothing tops getting the Jews. The one group he believes in giving money to is the Fakestinians.

[ReaganLiberal]

Much of what I see on here is similar to StørmFrønt except issues relating to the Jewish question.
As it is, I think he addresses issues that pertain to white conscious Americans such as ending illegal immigration, opposing the civil rights act of 1964, opposing public education and vouchers, and eliminating social security.
I like him not because I am a white nationalist but because I support less government.
Ron Paul is against all foreign aid to the mideast, including the Palestinians. If you vote for him, you are voting against foreign aid to Palestinians.
If he hates Jews, you have to show me proof.

[kahaneloyalist]

fair enough, hang on a bit and I will get you the proof

[RationalThought110]

And Ron Paul is a vicious Jew hating SOB, for him nothing tops getting the Jews. The one group he believes in giving money to is the Fakestinians.

How do Tancredo and Duncan Hunter feel?

[ReaganLiberal]

I think you would support Hunter and Tancredo, because, they, like Paul, are for closed borders.

No repsonses to Paul being anti-Semitic?

[Zionist Revolutionary]

If he hates Jews, you have to show me proof.

http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=2222.0

Case closed, really.  He could have condemned Hezbollah, a Jew-hating, terrorist organization.  He did not.

[ReaganLiberal]

It does bother me that he didn't want to condemn Hezbollah.
But if you notice, he said that there were more Lebanese casualties than Israeli ones, which is true, even if for good reason.
Also, Israel probably did kill many Lebanese civillians including Christians, because they used airbombs that didn't end up eliminating Hezbollah either way. In the Lebanon war of the early 1980s, they were able effectively to make alliances with the Christians and not kill civillians needlessly. Now they potentially alienated the population.
Don't forget, Hezbollah is an occupying power. Even many Muslims don't want to be under their rule.
Also, Ron Paul preferred neutrality on principle. If you read the founding fathers, they would agree.
You have to understand how Ron Paul votes. He never supports a legislation or resolution that has details with which he disagrees. He is against all pork.
The resolution condemned the Lebanon government, which is being occupied by Hezbollah and Syria, and Paul said it was unfair to criticize Lebanon for not eliminating Hezbollah if Israel couldn't do so itself.
So the case isn't closed yet.
Either way, if he hates the Israeli government, how does that show he hates Jews in general?

[judeanoncapta]

ReaganLib, stop trying to promote anti-Jewish people on this forum. Nobody wants to hear about these guys.

[Zionist Revolutionary]

It does bother me that he didn't want to condemn Hezbollah.
But if you notice, he said that there were more Lebanese casualties than Israeli ones, which is true, even if for good reason.
Also, Israel probably did kill many Lebanese civillians including Christians, because they used airbombs that didn't end up eliminating Hezbollah either way. In the Lebanon war of the early 1980s, they were able effectively to make alliances with the Christians and not kill civillians needlessly. Now they potentially alienated the population.
Don't forget, Hezbollah is an occupying power. Even many Muslims don't want to be under their rule.
Also, Ron Paul preferred neutrality on principle. If you read the founding fathers, they would agree.
You have to understand how Ron Paul votes. He never supports a legislation or resolution that has details with which he disagrees. He is against all pork.
The resolution condemned the Lebanon government, which is being occupied by Hezbollah and Syria, and Paul said it was unfair to criticize Lebanon for not eliminating Hezbollah if Israel couldn't do so itself.
So the case isn't closed yet.
Either way, if he hates the Israeli government, how does that show he hates Jews in general?

You're laughable, and a Nazi.  It doesn't bother you that he doesn't condemn an organization that wants to "Push the Jews into the sea, and finish Hitler's job"?  Would it have bothered you if an American Congressman durring World War Two had decided not to condemn the Nazis, or the Japanese Imperlialists, or the Italian Fascists?

[judeanoncapta]

I'm really sick and tired of all the neo nazi invading this site. ReaganLib, just go away.

[ReaganLiberal]

Saying I'm a neo-Nazi is absurd. I am one of the most pro-Israel people out there.
I explained why he didn't condemn Hezbollah. He had a reason to, even if you disagreed with it.
Also, what do you think condemning Hezbollah would have done for Israel? We saw it did nothing.
I thought you would be happy with Paul as he is very strict on illegal immigration, wants to cut all government benefits for legal immigrants and wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Wouldn't you want to vote for him just for that?

[Lisa]

Reagan Liberal, I place the blame for any "civilian" casualties squarely on Hezbollah and Lebanon.  Why should it be Israel's fault that Arab "men" are [censored] wimps who routinely hide behind their women and children?  Why should Israel be at fault when the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to take over the southern part of their country? 

[cjd]

Reagan Liberal, I place the blame for any "civilian" casualties squarely on Hezbollah and Lebanon.  Why should it be Israel's fault that Arab "men" are [censored] wimps who routinely hide behind their women and children?  Why should Israel be at fault when the Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to take over the southern part of their country? 

Exactly!!!

[ReaganLiberal]

Nu, Jews? Still no response? And no, I'm not a neo-Nazi, oy vey! Please respond to my points, don't attack me, which is something a leftist would do.

[dawntreader]

I think Tom Tancredo is perhaps a bit better than Ron Paul, Reagn Lib.

I think I understand where you are coming from in defending Ron Paul...and no...just because he does not automatically condemn Hizbullah does not make him either anti-Israel or anti-Jew. What it DOES make him (from what I have seen of his voting record) is a die-hard constitutionalist, and a person who prefers no foreign entanglements, and no foreign aid.

Ultra-conservative.

Now, with that said...I would not vote for him because I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to support its allies. (NOT monetarily. I would like nothing more than for the U.S. to end foreign aid to Israel. This would primarily be just so Israel could tell the Bush admin and the State Dept. where to stick it when it comes to the "Peace Process.")

I think Christian America has a responsibility to help Christians around the world expecially those tortured and murdered on a regular basis by Muslims (Such as what is occurring in the Sudan right now.)

I am a Jew...but I would gladly crusade to protect Christians from Muslim hordes.

I am ultra-conservative, but I am not for "All-White Christian America." I AM for a Christian America...but I happen to think it's ok for legal immigrants of all nationalities to come here. Just NOT illegal immigrants.

So yeah...either Tom Tancredo...or if Fred Thompson joins the race I might decide I like him.

[ReaganLiberal]

I think Tom Tancredo is perhaps a bit better than Ron Paul, Reagn Lib.

I think I understand where you are coming from in defending Ron Paul...and no...just because he does not automatically condemn Hizbullah does not make him either anti-Israel or anti-Jew. What it DOES make him (from what I have seen of his voting record) is a die-hard constitutionalist, and a person who prefers no foreign entanglements, and no foreign aid.

Ultra-conservative.

Now, with that said...I would not vote for him because I believe the U.S. has a responsibility to support its allies. (NOT monetarily. I would like nothing more than for the U.S. to end foreign aid to Israel. This would primarily be just so Israel could tell the Bush admin and the State Dept. where to stick it when it comes to the "Peace Process.")

I think Christian America has a responsibility to help Christians around the world expecially those tortured and murdered on a regular basis by Muslims (Such as what is occurring in the Sudan right now.)

I am a Jew...but I would gladly crusade to protect Christians from Muslim hordes.

I am ultra-conservative, but I am not for "All-White Christian America." I AM for a Christian America...but I happen to think it's ok for legal immigrants of all nationalities to come here. Just NOT illegal immigrants.

So yeah...either Tom Tancredo...or if Fred Thompson joins the race I might decide I like him.

Thanks for the very reasonable response.
I agree with you very much. In truth, I am not a white nationalist. In the US, the idea is silly. I understand Jewish, French, German, English, Scottish, Irish or Italian nationalism for their respective countries. It's just that I can't see how such a broad racial category can define the makeup of the US. Paul, however, can be appealing to WNs for the reasons I said above.
I agree with cutting all aid from the mideast. It will help Israel in the long run, as it means less $ to terrorists. Paul himself said this. Also, Israel's economic problems stem from a socialist economy, and cutting aid might mean more economic freedom.
As a conservative and libertarian, I am more pessimistic about the US's ability to influence other countries and remove tyranny. This nation building enterprise that has resulted from cold war policies is a benign form of colonialism. Africa and the Muslim world have deep rooted cultural, intellectual and religious traditions that make change difficult. Also, I do not want my fellow Americans sent to die in battle if it does not produce a palpable benefit for the US. The best way to improve the lot of these 3rd world countries is to help them economically.
As you said, Tancredo is very similar to Paul, and to his credit, unlike Paul, he sees the inherent threat of Islam which is why he has a more favorable view of Israel and why he can be trusted to carefully limit Islamic immigration to the US.
Thanks again.

[jsullivan]

Ron Paul has written in his Nazi columns that the people destroying America are the "neo-cons" which he describes as people who are loyal to the Likud party of Israel. How absurd!

1. More than 90% of the neo-cons are NOT Jewish, including the most powerful ones like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, Defense Secretary Gates, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Senator McCain and so on. To highlight only the Jews, and to tie them to Israel is pure Nazi Jew-hatred.

2. The neo-cons - including the self-hating Jews like Paul Wolfowitz - are viciously anti-Israel and demand that tiny Israel commit national suicide by creating a PLO-Hamas terrorist state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in accordance with Bush's Jew-hating "road map". But Ron Paul the Nazi claims their actions are intended to help Israel at the expense of the U.S.!

3. Your justification of Ron Paul's support for Hezballah is disgusting. Israel should have wiped the Muslim Nazis in Lebanon off the face of the earth. For Paul to claim in effect that Israel is worse than Hezballah is again pure Nazi Jew-hating propaganda.

4. Paul is a TRAITOR to America who does NOT favor ending all immigration. As a "libertarian", he has said that he favors what he calls "legalizing immigration".

5. ANYONE who goes against Israel and the Jews will bring about the destruction of America. That is G-d's law. The Founding Fathers believed in G-d and the Bible. Paul the Nazi does NOT.

[mord]

Anyone who writes or is Published in Anti War.com is anti Israel.Justin the 'Homo' Raimondo is an anti Israel fanatic

[ReaganLiberal]

Anyone who writes or is Published in Anti War.com is anti Israel.Justin the 'Homo' Raimondo is an anti Israel fanatic

You're right about Raimondo. I read him. He is queer and viciously anti-Israel, as well as a braincase. There are many Jews who write for www.antiwar.com, although many of them are liberal.
I don't think Ron Paul writes his articles specifically for Raimondo's website. Raimondo just buys the writes to copy his speeches.

[ReaganLiberal]

Ron Paul has written in his Nazi columns that the people destroying America are the "neo-cons" which he describes as people who are loyal to the Likud party of Israel. How absurd!

1. More than 90% of the neo-cons are NOT Jewish, including the most powerful ones like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, Defense Secretary Gates, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Senator McCain and so on. To highlight only the Jews, and to tie them to Israel is pure Nazi Jew-hatred.

True, but you must analyze the roots of the movement: Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz were former Trotskyites who invented the term neocon. They're both conscious of their Jewish identity.
Don't mention Nazi cheaply. As for Jew-hatred, the fact is they support Israel. For good reason, but neocons almost invariably support Israel.

2. The neo-cons - including the self-hating Jews like Paul Wolfowitz - are viciously anti-Israel and demand that tiny Israel commit national suicide by creating a PLO-Hamas terrorist state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in accordance with Bush's Jew-hating "road map". But Ron Paul the Nazi claims their actions are intended to help Israel at the expense of the U.S.!

Good point. Well, the truth is the neocons haven't helped the US, and they think they are helping Israel, even if they are wrong.

3. Your justification of Ron Paul's support for Hezballah is disgusting. Israel should have wiped the Muslim Nazis in Lebanon off the face of the earth. For Paul to claim in effect that Israel is worse than Hezballah is again pure Nazi Jew-hating propaganda.

Paul never claimed that even in effect, and what do pronouncements by the US government do? Inflame the Lebanese against them even more and nothing else. They haven't helped Israel.

4. Paul is a TRAITOR to America who does NOT favor ending all immigration. As a "libertarian", he has said that he favors what he calls "legalizing immigration".

Read this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html

 

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate 
 
 
 
The Immigration Question

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul

         

The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality.

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago.

We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care.

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America.

We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

April 4, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Also why do you think not only neo-Nazis but nativists are all over Ron Paul? Because of his anti-immigration stance. When he is libertarian, he is libertarian on domestic policy.

5. ANYONE who goes against Israel and the Jews will bring about the destruction of America. That is G-d's law. The Founding Fathers believed in G-d and the Bible. Paul the Nazi does NOT.

The founding fathers believed also in the dangers of foreign entanglements. Read former President Washington's farewell address.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAREWELL ADDRESS (1796)
George Washington
George Washington had been the obvious choice to be the first president of the United States, and indeed, many people had supported ratification of the Constitution on the assumption that Washington would be the head of the new government. By all measures, Washington proved himself a capable, even a great, president, helping to shape the new government and leading the country skillfully through several crises, both foreign and domestic.

Washington, like many of his contemporaries, did not understand or believe in political parties, and saw them as fractious agencies subversive of domestic tranquility. When political parties began forming during his administration, and in direct response to some of his policies, he failed to comprehend that parties would be the chief device through which the American people would debate and resolve major public issues. It was his fear of what parties would do to the nation that led Washington to draft his Farewell Address.

The two parties that developed in the early 1790s were the Federalists, who supported the economic and foreign policies of the Washington administration, and the Jeffersonian Republicans, who in large measure opposed them. The Federalists backed Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton's plan for a central bank and a tariff and tax policy that would promote domestic manufacturing; the Jeffersonians opposed the strong government inherent in the Hamiltonian plan, and favored farmers as opposed to manufacturers. In foreign affairs, both sides wanted the United States to remain neutral in the growing controversies between Great Britain and France, but the Federalists favored the English and the Jeffersonians the French. The Address derived at least in part from Washington's fear that party factionalism would drag the United States into this fray.

Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."

The Address quickly entered the realm of revealed truth. It was for decades read annually in Congress; it was printed in children's primers, engraved on watches and woven into tapestries. Many Americans, especially in subsequent generations, accepted Washington's advice as gospel, and in any debate between neutrality and involvement in foreign issues would invoke the message as dispositive of all questions. Not until 1949, in fact, would the United States again sign a treaty of alliance with a foreign nation.

For further reading: Burton I. Kaufman, ed., Washington's Farewell Address: The View from the 20th Century (1969); Paul A. Varg, Foreign Policies of the Founding Fathers (1963); Alexander De Conde, Entangling Alliances (1958).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAREWELL ADDRESS
Friends and Fellow-Citizens:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made....

The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed toward the organization and administration of the Government the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it....

Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare which can not end with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present to offer to your solemn contemplation and to recommend to your frequent review some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to permanency of your felicity as a people.... Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes in different ways to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water will more and more find, a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations, and what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other....

Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our union it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western -- whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You can not shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection....

To the efficacy and permanency of your union a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate union and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government....

Toward the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember especially that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to con-fine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.... If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.

As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear....

Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct. And can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation....

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand, neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the Government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard....

Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence, and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.

Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love toward it which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations, I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat in which I promise myself to realize without alloy the sweet enjoyment of partaking in the midst of my fellow-citizens the benign influence of good laws under a free government -- the ever-favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors, and dangers.

Source: J.D. Richardson, ed., Compilation of Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol.1 (1907), 213.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents

Also, I personally believe it is not wise to use religion as the sole determinant of foreign policy. Also, we can't possibly understand God's will. As I said, Ron Paul is for Israel's self determination anyway.

[ReaganLiberal]

Read very carefully this speech by Ron Paul. Tell me if you agree or disagree. I think it is superb.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate 
 
 
 
Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul

         
DIGG THIS

Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.

The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.

Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.

This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.

It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

January 23, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[RationalThought110]

Read very carefully this speech by Ron Paul. Tell me if you agree or disagree. I think it is superb.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul363.html

Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate 
 
 
 
Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul

         
DIGG THIS

Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.

The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.

Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.

This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.

It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

January 23, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives
 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

Ron Paul said in an interview that he doesn't think it should be a big deal if Iran has nuclear weapons.

[ReaganLiberal]

About Iran, Israel alone can take out the nuclear facilities even if the US objects.

I just wanted to remind you of a candidate who through his federalism will enable US schools to return to its Judeo-Christian and European roots. He is tough on the border, against war and welfare for the mideast and welfare for 3rd world immigrants and and their descendants here.

I think less US entanglement will enable Israel to defeat its enemies the way it sees fit and then make peace with its Arab neighbours.