Ron Paul: U.S. Shouldn’t Support Israel’s Gaza Blockade

 Ron Paul.com on June 3, 2010

Show: Imus in the Morning -- Channel: Fox Business -- Date: 06/03/2010

Ron Paul: Afghanistan is a No-Win Situation

32 Responses

by RonPaul.com on April 7, 2010

A coalition of neocons, oil industry executives and religious extremists want to redraw the boundaries of the Middle East. But it’s not going to turn out the way they want: Afghanistan is a no-win situation, and reports of war crimes and torture continue to do irreparable harm to America’s reputation all around the world.

Show: Freedom Watch

Host: Judge Andrew Napolitano
Date: 04/06/2010

Transcript

Judge Andrew Napolitano: American soldiers recently murdered two pregnant women, then crudely removed the bullets from their bodies, then washed the wounds in alcohol, then stabbed the dead bodies and reported that the woman were found stabbed and bound when the soldiers arrived. General McChrystal backed up these guys, until Afghani investigators uncovered the likely truth. On Sunday of this week, the general apologized for what “international forces did”. Is it any wonder that President Karzai is furious with the American military? This is all part of President Obama’s war in Afghanistan.

In Pakistan, next door, the president is waging a secret war, and has unleashed more drones in one year than President Bush did in 8 years. Are soldiers fighting that war? No, CIA agents are. The authorization to use military force, which Congress enacted shortly after 9/11, is clearly unconstitutional. It has no target, it has no end, no one can concede defeat, no one can surrender. It permits every future president to attack whoever he or she wants, for whatever reason he or she wants, wherever they want to go.

Joining me now is one of America’s great defenders of the Constitution, of personal liberty and freedom, and the author of the best-seller, “End the Fed”, CongressmanRon Paul. Congressman, I know you guy are off this week, I appreciate your time. Thanks and welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, Judge, good to be with you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: I thought we would talk a little bit about foreign policy, about military policy, especially in light of this scandal the other day. These soldiers, obviously, did a horrific thing. They’re not an example of what every soldier does. The military must prosecute them now in light of what happened. But doesn’t the president, don’t those who set the American foreign policy, realize what this does to the reputation of the United States of America in areas of the world were things like this happen, and when people who perpetrate it, appear to get away with it?

Ron Paul: And don’t you think every Muslim around the world already hasn’t heard about this story? Just like the stories and the pictures of the torture. They said that did irreparable harm to us once that circulated around the world. So, it’s a no-win situation for us. We’re in there for the wrong reasons, doing the wrong thing, and these kinds of incidents just makes things so much worse for us. You just wonder what they’re thinking about to pursue a policy like this.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: When Lyndon Johnson wanted authority to invade North Vietnam, something he was secretly planning to do from before the time he labeled Barry Goldwater as a warmonger, he created the Gulf of Tonkin incident. We now know this never happened. The American public and the Congress believe that U.S. warships were fired on by North Vietnamese military, and so they gave them a resolution that authorized them to invade the North. We all know what happened on 9-11. But, nevertheless, the Congress gave President George W. Bush and his successor, Barack Obama, and President Obama’s successor if this thing is not rescinded, the authorization to use military force against any target anywhere on the planet. This can’t be lawful. The Congress could never have intended that this thing be so open-ended. Yet if you read it, it is open-ended. And presidents even use it in a non-public way, like dispatching the CIA to fight a secret war.

Ron Paul: Yeah, I think it’s totally out of control, although the resolution did say that he was to go only after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Well, the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan had nothing to do with it. So it’s being used outrageously. So you’re right; they have been able to justify this authority to go to any place, anytime they want. It’s endless war, and of course, they use this as a declaration of war, therefore, then they can set up their military courts and their tribunals and all the rest that goes on. So, the whole idea of our foreign policy needs be reversed. This idea that we are the policeman of the world and that we should be everywhere, telling everybody what to do, is an insane policy, and it’s coming back to haunt us. The sooner we wake up, the better.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Now, Pakistan is an ally. But why do members of Congress look the other way, Congressman Paul, when the United States bombs Pakistan? When by mistake it kills innocent people, when it does so using plastic drones out of the sky, that are controlled from a computer in Langley, when it has troops on the ground that are out of uniform? Oh let’s see. Troops on the ground out of uniform. Doesn’t that violate the laws of war? Doesn’t that allow the host country to declare that these people are unlawful combatants, and have no rights? Aren’t we basically doing in Pakistan some of the same things we’ve accused the bad guys of doing to us?

Ron Paul: Yeah, and if we weren’t so powerful, somebody would be charging us with war crimes. The Pakistan government, if it were a little bit stronger, maybe they would object. But, you know, they’re dependent on us. We go in there and we run roughshod over their government and their land. Then what do we do to pacify them? We send them more money, and weapons! So we’re just stirring the pot, it’s all we’re doing. And I just thing we ought to leave the whole area.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: I agree with you. I just don’t think, and I know you have said this yourself, that we can declare democracy by decree. I mean, this is a society, a culture, a set of values that are not shared by us. And you can’t bring democracy at the point of a gun. What do you think the president, who must understand this, really wants to accomplish in Afghanistan? Is it a presidential lust for war, because war brings political support, war lets you raise taxes, people are willing even to give up their freedoms in times of war? Or is there something else at work here?

Ron Paul: You know, I think it’s a lot of those things. But I think mostly its how they’ve been brought up, what they have learnt, who their professors have been, what is the general attitude? And basically it has been that of intervention. And there are some of the neo-cons who feel like we’re morally responsible for this, then the oil people get involved and say we need to control the oil and the gas lines and the pipelines. Others have the religious notion that we’re obligated to do this in support of both Christian beliefs and the Jewish state. And it all adds up and you get a lot of these coalitions together, and they want to redraw the boundaries of the Middle East. That’s what they’re trying to do.

But, you know, I don’t think it’s going to turn out the way they want. Because I think all our policies, whether it’s in Iraq, or what we’re threatening to do in Iran, is actually helping Iran. You know, Ahmadinejad and Karzai get together and talk about it, in spite of our hostilities to Ahmadinejad, and all the support we have given to Karzai up till now, these two guys get together just as the leaders, the Shia leaders of Iraq go around and talk to the Iranians. So I think we have just created so much chaos, and I don’t see any benefit to it.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Congressman Paul, it’s always a pleasure, thanks for joining us on Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you, judge.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: You can catch today’s show atFoxNews.com/FreedomWatch and on Sirius 145, XM168, or online atFoxNewsTalk.com at 6 P.M Eastern on Saturdays. From New York, defending freedom, until the next time, stay free America.

Ron Paul:Why Governments Hate Gold

Date: 06/07/2010

Why Governments Hate Gold

by Ron Paul

This past week several emerging and ongoing crises took attention away from the ongoing sovereign debt problems in Greece. The bailouts are merely kicking the can down the road and making things worse for taxpaying citizens, here and abroad. Greece is unfortunately not unique in its irresponsible spending habits. Greek-style debt explosions are quickly spreading to other nations one by one, and yes, the United States is one of the dominoes on down the line.

Time and again it has been proven that the Keynesian system of big government and fiat paper money are abject failures in the long run. However, the nature of government is to ignore reality when there is an avenue that allows growth in power and control. Thus, most politicians and economists will ignore the long-term damage of Keynesianism in the early stage of a bubble when there is the illusion of prosperity, suggesting that the basic laws of economics had been repealed. In fact, one way to tell if a bubble is about to burst is if economists start talking about how the government and the Central Bank have repealed the business cycle.

The truth is the laws of economics are constant and real, no matter how inconvenient they might be to politicians and bankers. This reality is setting in and the bills are coming due. In the mean time, countries that have no money have bailed out other countries that have no money, except for the phony money created by politicians, bureaucrats, and their partners-in-crime at the central banks. This may be preventing big well-connected banks from having to take on massive losses, but it is all at the expense of the taxpaying citizen.

As governments and central banks continue the cycle of spending and inflating, the purchasing power of their currencies is constantly being degraded. These currencies are what the people are working for and saving. This inflation guts the savings and earnings of the people, who have very limited options for protecting themselves against these ravages. One option is to convert their fiat currency into something out of reach of central banks and government spending, such as gold or silver.

It is fairly typical in the midst of economic crises like these for gold to come under attack from Keynesians economists and their amen corner in the media. The arguments against gold are usually straw men, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of buying gold. Gold is not a typical investment. It is a defense against the predictable behavior of governments to debase a fiat currency under its absolute control. The people who run the printing presses have trouble shutting them off. In order to limit one’s exposure to this reckless behavior, it is wise to exchange unsound assets for sound ones.

As the foundation of their power, their fiat currency, is rejected or avoided, government power is compromised. Fiat currencies trade the people’s freedom and security for the government’s freedom to squander the wealth of the nation on wasteful pet programs, wars, and corruption. This is why the freedom of the people is so intertwined with a sound monetary unit. This is also why the founders liked gold and silver, and supporters of big government hate them.

P. Buchanan:Misdemeanors — or Crimes?

june 7th, 2010

Misdemeanors — or Crimes?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

On this matter of offering federal jobs to potential candidates to induce them not to run against Senate Democratic incumbents, this White House is drifting dangerously close to the falls.

Colorado’s Andrew Romanoff has now confirmed that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina trolled three federal jobs in front of him, if he would desist and not run against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

And Romanoff has produced an e-mail where Messina presents the three-job menu, one of which might be his, if he passed up the Senate run. Two were with the Agency for International Development. The third was director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.

All three are juicy plums.

Romanoff and Messina both say no hard offer was made. And Robert Gibbs has assured the press the president had no idea Messina was talking to Romanoff about federal jobs that only Obama can fill.

But if Obama knew nothing of the Messina-Romanoff talks, who did? For Messina cannot appoint anyone to anything. Has Messina’s boss, Rahm Emanuel, been given the franchise to offer a dessert tray of federal jobs to people he wants to keep out of Democratic primaries?

An independent investigation needs to be conducted to determine whether Chicago-style politics has been introduced into the West Wing.

For in the week since White House Counsel Robert Bauer issued his two-page report on his investigation into whether Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a job to stay out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary, that report has become scarcely credible.

Consider. Repeatedly, Sestak said he had been offered a job if he would not run. The job was widely thought to be secretary of the navy. If true, Sestak was charging someone high at the White House with having committed a felony: offering a federal job to influence the outcome of a federal election.

What made the issue combustible was that only Obama can appoint the navy secretary. Though no one suggested Obama made the offer, the White House denied any offer had been made.

When Sestak won the primary, the media began to press. Sestak stonewalled, repeating only he was offered a job and turned it down.

Came then the report of Bauer, which purported to clear up the conflicting statements.

What had happened, we were told, was that President Clinton, at the behest of Rahm, called Sestak to urge him not to run against Arlen Specter, but to stay in the House, adding that Joe might serve on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

Sestak hastily confirmed that this was the “job” he had been offered — in a one-minute exchange in a single conservation with Clinton.

No one else, says Sestak, contacted him with any offer any time.

Bauer’s report appeared to put the matter to rest. For PFIAB is a non-paying advisory board. Thus, Sestak had not really been offered a job, and even the seat on the PFIAB board had been but a suggestion by Clinton.

The story has now begun to crumble.

First, a seat on the prestigious PFIAB, with access to the nation’s secrets and a valid claim to be an adviser to the president, is certainly a thing of value. For the White House to offer it to get Sestak not to run would appear a clear violation of the anti-bribery statute.

Second, as columnist Byron York reports, members of Congress are not permitted to sit on presidential boards. Clinton was suggesting that Sestak take a slot on PFIAB, which Joe could not take as long as he stayed in Congress, which Clinton was urging him to do.

Is it possible Rahm and Clinton did not know of this prohibition?

Another problem has arisen with the Bauer report. Sestak insists the one-minute chat with Clinton was it. Not before, not during the Clinton call, not after, did anyone from the White House talk to him about not running.

But the report says “efforts” were made to determine if Sestak would be interested in serving on a presidential board “in June and July of 2009.”

This suggests multiple White House contacts with Sestak.

Who else talked to Joe? Another emissary like Clinton? What arguments did they use to persuade Sestak not to run, if they did not offer him something? For Joe was deeply angered at having been passed over by the White House in his planned run for a Senate seat in favor of a GOP reject like Arlen Specter.

The White House claims Obama knew nothing about any of this.

But is it credible that White House Chief of Staff Rahm colluded with ex-President Clinton to get Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate race and the president of the United States was left in the dark?

Not to be a cynic, but the Rahm-Clinton-Sestak-PFIAB story rings of a concoction upon which all agreed — to get the White House off the sticky wicket onto which Joe’s earlier honesty had placed the West Wing.

This thing could metastasize, big-time.

may 27th, 2010

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition

Paul Joseph Watson – Prison Planet

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

“My guess is that at an early point they said to the bad guys in the CIA – hey this operation’s running what do we do, and the zionists and the neo-cons said let’s use it,” said Hart, making reference to how top neo-cons like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their fellow Project For a New American Century authors had called for a “catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor,” the year before 9/11.

“The twin towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion, not the planes,” said Hart, adding that this view was based on his close friendship with consultants who work with the world’s leading civil engineering and construction firm.

Hart asked the company to study the collapse of the twin towers, after which they told him directly, “There’s absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the towers were brought down by a controlled ground explosion.”

Hart then explained how the five dancing Israelis seen celebrating the attack on the World Trade Center in New Jersey as it unfolded, who turned out to be Mossad agents, proves at at a minimum Israel knew the attack was going to happen. Hart went further in speculating that the planes had been fitted with transponders and that the Israelis were guiding them in to the towers.

Host Barrett pointed out that to carry out the successful controlled demolition of three of the biggest buildings in history, the conspirators would have to ensure that they were hit, making the use of remote controlled airliners a distinct possibility. In addition, Barrett mentioned the fact that he had interviewed numerous pilots who dismissed the chances of accurately guiding a huge commercial airliner into a building while flying at sea level at around 600 miles per hour, especially considering the alleged 9/11 hijackers struggled to even fly basic Cessna light aircraft.

“Sounding a chilling note, Hart added that the U.S. is in grave danger of an Israeli-instigated false-flag nuclear attack, perhaps using an American nuclear weapon stolen from Minot Air Force Base during the “loose nukes” rogue operation of August, 2007. The motive would be to trigger a U.S. war with Iran, and perhaps to finish the ethnic cleansing of Palestine under cover of war–which Hart is convinced the Zionists are planning to do as soon as the opportunity presents itself,” writes host Barratt.

Given his biography and standing, Hart’s comments are not to be taken lightly. Hart is a former Middle East Chief Correspondent for ITN News and has also presented for BBC Panorama specializing in the Middle East. He was also a war reporter in Vietnam and the first journalist to reach Suez Canal with the Israeli army in 1967. Over the decades, Hart has developed close relationships with numerous high profile political figures, including the Shah of Iran, Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres.

Hart has been a successful author for years and has no reason to fabricate the fact that a top construction firm told him point blank that the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

In forwarding this information, Hart joins legions of other credible experts who to some extent or other have all publicly challenged the official 9/11 story, with many outright stating that the attacks were an inside job, people like 20-year decorated CIA veteran Robert Baer, who told a radio host that “the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job.

In addition, no less than 1198 architectural and engineering specialists have signed a petition demanding Congress re-open an official investigation into the 9/11 attack and the collapse of the twin towers.

june 1st, 2010

Israeli Knesset Member: Israel Wanted High Number Of Fatalities

by Steve Watson – Prisonplanet.com

Navy Commander: “Next time we’ll use more force”

Hanin Zoabi

A member of the Israeli Knesset, the legislative branch of the Israeli government, who was on board the Marmara ship when it was ambushed by IDF troops, has told reporters that the intention of the raid was to kill as many on board as they could in order to ward off others from attempting to reach Gaza by sea.

Hanin Zoabi, who currently serves as a member of the Knesset representing the Balad party, made the following comments at a press gathering today:

“It was clear from the size of the force that boarded the ship that the purpose was not only to stop this sail, but to cause the largest possible number of fatalities in order to stop such initiatives in the future.”

Zoabi added that the international flotilla to Gaza did not have any intention to cause violence:

“Our goal was to break the siege. We had no plans for a confrontation. Israel carried out a provocative military operation. Israel is used to doing as it pleases with the Palestinians. The main problem is not the ship, but the siege.”

Zoabi, a Palestinian Arab citizen of Israel, also told the media that she did not hear any warning from the Israeli commandos before they boarded the ship, an account that conflicts with statements from several Israeli government officials.

“They were dinghies and choppers. At 4:30 am the forces landed quickly. I did not hear any warning from the ships, because noise was coming from the ships and the choppers. Within 10 minutes there were already three bodies. The entire operation took about an hour.” Zoabi said.

Zoabi described gunshots coming from the Israeli boats toward her direction. While she also claimed that from her vantage point there was no resistance from the activists once the commandoes boarded, video footage has revealed that the troops were attacked with poles. However, the evidence suggests that this was after the fact that they had been fired upon, and sustained fatalities, despite raising a white flag.

“A clear message was being sent to us, for us to know that our lives were in danger. We convened that we were not interested in a confrontation. What we saw was five bodies. There were only civilians and there were no weapons. There was a sense that I may not come out of it alive. Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation.” Zoabi said.

Zoabi’s party published a statement saying, “Those who should be questioned are Barak and Netanyahu, who gave the order for an armed takeover in the middle of the sea. Behind this crime are criminals who should be interrogated.”

As prominent political scientist Norman Finklestein has pointed out, the Israeli government convened and mapped out what actions would be taken against the flotilla weeks ago. Given that heavily armed elite commandos were sent in under cover of darkness and reportedly fired at sleeping civilians according to eyewitnesses, it can only be assumed that the intention of the Israeli government all along was to use force, as Hanin Zoabi claims.

This is backed up by the discovery of an apparent assassination list which had been prepared in advance by the Israelis, showing names and pictures of people on board of the ships to be murdered, who, according to Israel, were “involved in the International humanitarian aid for Gaza”.

Prior to the launch of the Flotilla, it was suggested in the Israeli press that the involvement of pro-Palistinian and Hamas-affiliated figures involved in the convoy, including Zoabi, indicated that the mission was not humanitarian in its nature and was a direct provocation.

The flotilla was also manned by the head of the Islamic Movement’s Northern Branch Raed Salah and the head of the Arab-Israeli Higher Monitoring Committee Muhammad Zidan, as well as members of the Muslim Brothers activist movement in Britain.

In the wake of what has unfolded, Israeli officials have seized on the presence of these figures to justify the actions of the IDF.

However, while Israel considers these people enemies of the state, it is clear from videos and testimonypresented on the websites witnessgaza.com and freegaza.org that the flotilla, which was manned by over 700 activists, intellectuals and political figures from over 40 countries, was entirely peaceful and constituted no physical threat to Israel.

Despite worldwide condemnation, Israeli forces have declared that next time they will use more force.

“We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war,” a top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post.

“That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war.”

Israeli has also released images of what it says are weapons found aboard the Marmara. They consist of a hammer, a wrench, a spanner, a screwdriver, kitchen knives, wooden and metal poles – all items you would find on board the boat in any situation.

Other items include a slingshot and some rocks and a bottle with tubing and wires that Israel calls an “improvised explosive device” – hardly an impressive arsenal, certainly not something you’d go about attacking a machine gun wielding elite commando unit with.

Another two ships, including The Rachel Corrie, are expected to attempt to enter Israeli waters in the coming days. Activists on board the Corrie are reported to have decided to go ahead with their attempt to break Israel’s blockade.

Because the Corrie is is an Irish-flagged vessel, any attack on it in international waters would be an attack on the government and people of Ireland. Michael Higgins, the foreign affairs spokesman of the Irish Labour Party todaycalled on the Government to demand safe passage for the Corrie.

In a statement, he said some of those on the vessel had contacted him earlier today and had stressed they wanted to avoid conflict and to be allowed unload their cargo to help the residents of the Gaza Strip.

“The Minister for Foreign Affairs . . . must make it clear that any assault on the Rachel Corrie would be regarded as a hostile act against Ireland and a clear breach of international law that could not be ignored by this country,” Mr Higgins said.