Why i don't support Ron Paul

With the popularity of Glenn Beck (who i love to listen to) and the volume of supporters for Ron Paul in Utah, many people have asked me why I don’t support Ron Paul. So, to answer this question, I have put together a list of his quotes and voting records that I can’t support. Let me start by identifying my overall problem;

I am a conservative.  Ron Paul is a libertarian.  If you don’t know the difference, you may want to look that up.  The biggest difference for me is that conservatives believe there are some moral issues that may require constitutional amendments or laws.  I believe there are things like gay marriage that the founding fathers didn’t see coming.

I also believe that the freedom that god has blessed us with cannot be fully enjoyed selfishly in our own country without spreading it around the world.  I believe that regardless of where in the world, if we have the means to free a people to enjoy liberty from a dictatorship, I’m believe we have an obligation.  I agree that inspiring freedom by example is the highest and most effective way. Unfortunately, there are situations where freedom has to be purchased in blood.  (i.e.  see our counties history.)

I agree with Ron Paul and defunding the majority of the government agencies. Unlike Paul, there has to be a budget for intelligence to protect our nation.

His fundamental understanding of the Muslim war on the western society is flawed.  He believes that we get attacked because we “occupy” their lands.  I believe we are attacked because we are not Muslim.  I believe it to be a religious war not a land war. They will kill Christians if they had that chance and we didn’t have any presents in the middle east. (see History and jihad doctrine)

Last, besides the obvious hypocrisy of earmark spending and term limits, he is completely unelectable.  He gets completely crazy in debates and says idiotic things.

Below are several specifics I take issue with.

Put 65 projects into 2006 bills, worth $4B to his district

Q: You talk about opposing big government, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. In 2006, your district received more than $4 billion: 65 earmark-targeted projects that you have put into congressional bills for your district.

A: You got it completely wrong. I’ve never voted for an earmark in my life.

Q: No, but you put them in the bill.

A: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back.

Q: If you put it in the bill, and then you know it’s going to pass Congress and so you don’t refuse the money.

A: Well, no, of course not. It’s like taking a tax credit. I’m against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get the money back for the people.

Q: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.

A: No, no, that’s not it. They steal our money, that’s like saying that people shouldn’t take Social Security money. I’m trying to save the system, make the system work

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

No on all earmarks, even those he proposes for his district

Q: The Wall Street Journal says you load up Bills with special projects for your district.

A: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right [to our money back from taxes].

Q: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.

A: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I’m saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it’s like taking a tax credit. The whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything. I vote against it, so I don’t endorse the system.

Q: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.

A: I don’t take it. That’s the system.

Q: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the spending bills, then I think you’ll be consistent.

A: I’m trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I’m supporting this system, I find it rather ironic and entertaining.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Supports compulsory term limits, not voluntary for himself

Q: You ran on term limits. “I think we should have term limits for our elected leaders.” You’ve been in Congress 18 years.

A: But I never ran on voluntary term limits. There’s a big difference. I didn’t sign a pledge for a voluntary term limit. Matter of fact, some of the best people that I worked with, who were the most principled, came in on voluntary term limits. Some of them broke their promises, and some didn’t, and they were very good people. So some of the good people left. I didn’t run on that. I support term limits. We had 16 votes on term limits, and I voted yes for them. But voluntary term limits is a lot different than compulsory term limits.

Q: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn’t you voluntarily [limit your own term]?

A: Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Opposes death penalty at state and federal level

Paul opposes the death penalty and would vote against it in “any legislative body he was a member of,” according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. In 2005, Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an “eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty.”

Source: Pew Forum on Religion and Politics 2008 Jan 1, 2008

Q: The Bush Justice Department is reticent to prosecute any but the worst hardcore pornographers--and most often, only the smaller companies that produce such filth. Meanwhile, hardcore pornographers have found their way into major hotel chains. Would your administration prosecute all illegal adult pornography, including so-called white-collar pornographers?

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

He has voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and also against an amendment to prohibit flag-burning.

Protect all voluntary associations; don’t define marriage

Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, “Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.” And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda

Q: What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda?

A: If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either. At the same time, you should eradicate all these hate laws. They indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on others.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Conservatives support big government war policies

War, and the threat of war, are big government’s best friend. Liberals support big government social programs, and conservatives support big government war policies, thus satisfying two major special interest groups. And when push comes to shove, the two groups cooperate & support big government across the board--always at the expense of personal liberty. Both sides pay lip service to freedom, but neither stands against the welfare/warfare state and its promises of unlimited entitlements & endless war.

Source: A Foreign Policy of Freedom, by Ron Paul, p.365 Jun 15, 2007

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism.

Amendment to set up a task force on counter-terrorism and drug interdiction and allow military personnel to help patrol U.S. borders.

Bill HR 2586 ; vote number 2001-356 on Sep 25, 2001

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.

Drug Demand Reduction Act: Vote on an amendment to require that anyone hired by the Federal Government is subject to random, unannounced drug testing.

Reference: Amendment by Taylor, D-MS; bill by Portman, R-OH.; Bill HR 4550 ; vote number 1998-443 on Sep 16, 1998

Legalize medical marijuana.

Paul co-sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act:

Title: To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States. Summary: Transfers marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule II of such Act. Declares that, in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed or recommended by a physician for medical use under applicable State law, no provision of the Controlled Substances Act shall prohibit or otherwise restrict:

• the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use;
• an individual from obtaining and using marijuana from a physician's prescription or recommendation of marijuana for medical use; or
• a pharmacy from obtaining and holding marijuana for the prescription or recommendation of marijuana by a physician for medical use under applicable State law.
• Prohibits any provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act from prohibiting or restricting a State entity from producing or distributing marijuana for the purpose of its distribution for prescription or recommendation by a physician in a State in which marijuana may be prescribed by a physician for medical use.

Source: House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HR2592 on Jul 23, 2001

Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.

Paul scores A by VOTE-HEMP on pro-hemp legalization policies

VOTE HEMP is a non-profit organization dedicated to the acceptance of and free market for Industrial Hemp. Industrial Hemp is non-psychoactive low THC varieties of the cannabis sativa plant. Currently, it is illegal for U.S. farmers to grow Industrial Hemp because it is improperly classified as a "drug" under the Controlled Substances Act. Since changes in law require shifts in thinking and this requires education in the facts, our primary goal is the education of legislators and regulators, farmers and businesses, students and other concerned citizens.

Source: VOTE-HEMP website 02n-HEMP on Dec 31, 2003

Rated +30 by NORML, indicating a pro-drug-reform stance.

Paul scores +30 by the NORML on drug reform

OnTheIssues.org interprets the 2006 NORML scores as follows:

• -30 to -10: "hard-on-drugs" stance (approx. 228 members)
• -9 to +9: mixed record on drug reform (approx. 37 members)
• +10 to +30: pro-drug-reform stance (approx. 109 members)

About NORML (from their website, www.norml.org):

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law's mission is to move public opinion sufficiently to achieve the repeal of marijuana prohibition so that the responsible use of cannabis by adults is no longer subject to penalty.

NORML is a nonprofit, public-interest lobby that for more than 30 years has provided a voice for those Americans who oppose marijuana prohibition. We represent the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who smoke marijuana responsibly and believe the recreational and medicinal use of marijuana should no longer be a crime.

NORML supports the removal of all criminal penalties for the private possession & responsible use of marijuana by adults, including the cultivation for personal use, and the casual nonprofit transfers of small amounts. This model is called "decriminalization."

NORML additionally supports the development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could purchase it from a safe, legal and regulated source. This model is referred to as "legalization."

NORML believes that marijuana smoking is not for kids and should only be used responsibly by adults. As with alcohol consumption, it must never be an excuse for misconduct or other bad behavior. Driving or operating heavy equipment while impaired from marijuana should be prohibited.

NORML strongly supports the right of patients to use marijuana as a medicine when their physician recommends it to relieve pain and suffering.

Lastly, NORML supports the right of farmers to commercially cultivate hemp for industrial purposes, such as food and fiber production.

Source: NORML website 06n-NORML on Dec 31, 2006

Sponsored bill letting states legalize industrial hemp.

Paul sponsored Industrial Hemp Farming Act

Amends the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of "marihuana." Defines "industrial hemp" to mean the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, with a delta-nine tetrahydrocannabinol concentration that does not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Grants a state regulating the growing and processing of industrial hemp exclusive authority, in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding, to determine whether any such plant meets that concentration limit.

Source: H.R.1866 2009-H1866 on Apr 2, 2009

Avoid double standard--follow international law

On one hand, we pretend to abide by the UN and international law, such as when Congress cited the UN in its resolution authorizing the president to initiate war with Iraq. On the other hand, we feel free to completely ignore the terms of treaties--and even unilaterally demand a change in the terms of treaties--without hesitation. This leads to an increasing perception around the world that we are no longer an honest broker. Is this the message we want to send at this critical time?

Some may argue that it does not matter whether the US operates under double standards. WE are the lone super-power and can do as we wish, they argue. But this is a problem of the rule of law. Are we a nation that respects the rule of law? What example does it set for the rest of the world when we change the rules of the game whenever we see fit. Won’t this come back to haunt us?

Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.360 Jun 20, 2006

Opposed to all free trade with foreign governments

We don’t need any troops abroad--they don’t help our defense

Q: How many troops do we have overseas right now?

A: I don’t know the exact number, but more than we need. We don’t need any.

Q: It’s 572,000. And you’d bring them all home?

A: As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad

Q: Under your doctrine, if we did not have troops in the Middle East, would al Qaeda leave us alone?

A: Not, not immediately, because they’d have to believe us. But what would happen is the incentive for Osama bin Laden to recruit suicide terrorists would disappear. Once we left Lebanon in the early ‘80s, suicide terrorism virtually stopped, just like that. But while we were there, suicide terrorism killed our Marines. We have to understand how we would react if some country did to us exactly what we do to them, and then we might have a better understanding of their motivation, why somebody would join the al-Qaeda. Since we’ve been over there al-Qaeda has more members now than they did before 9/11. They probably had a couple hundred before 9/11.

A: No, it’s both. It’s sort of like if you step in a snake pit and you get bit, you know, who caused the trouble? Because you stepped in the snake pit or because snakes bite you?

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 23, 2007

Habeas corpus always applies, even to Guantanamo

Q: Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?

A: I strongly disagree with him because I think it was absurd. If we can’t deny habeas corpus it infers that you have habeas corpus. So I would strongly disagree with his whole interpretation of habeas corpus.

Q: Do you think that that extends to non US citizens in US custody overseas, i.e. Guantanamo?

A: I think that might depend upon the circumstances of declared war, and what the circumstances might be.

Q: The context would be Gitmo, the case before the Supreme Court.

A: I would think then that we should, under those circumstances, follow the principles of habeas corpus.

Source: Boston Globe questionnaire on Executive Power Dec 20, 2007

Eliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently

Q: You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare. You used to want to end the FBI. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

A: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it’s the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn’t absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.

Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries

PAUL: [to ROMNEY]: I’m as concerned about the nature of the threat of terrorism as anybody, if not more so. But they don’t attack us because we’re free and prosperous. There are radicals in all religions that will resort to violence. But if we don’t understand that the reaction is because we invade their countries and occupy their countries, because we have bases in their country--and we haven’t done it just since 9/11, but we have done that a long time. It was the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 that was given as the excuse. If we don’t understand that, we can’t win this war against terrorism.

ROMNEY: Unfortunately, Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from. And the fact is that it’s trying to bring down not just us, but it’s trying to bring down all moderate Islamic governments, Western governments around the world, as we just saw in Pakistan.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

We’d be as furious as Muslims are, if our land was occupied

PAUL: [to GIULIANI]: They don’t attack us because we’re free and prosperous--but because we invade their countries, because we have bases in their country.

GIULIANI: There’s an Islamic, terrorism threat against us. It’s an existential threat. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. It has to do with their ideas, their theories, the things that they have done and the way they’ve perverted their religion into a hatred of us. Our foreign policy is irrelevant--totally irrelevant.

PAUL: Try to visualize how we would react if they did that to us, if a country, say China, came that great distance across the ocean, and they say, “We want you to live like us. We want you to have our economic system. We want bases on your land. We want to protect our oil.” Even if we do that with good intentions--even if the Chinese did that with good intentions, we would all be furious.

ROMNEY: Ron, you’re reading their propaganda.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

Grouping terrorists together damages relations with Muslims

PAUL: We had an air base in Saudi Arabia, that was given as the excuse for 9/11. There’s always a radical element in almost all religions. They have to have an incentive. We give them that incentive. The question that you aren’t willing to ask is, why is it that they attack America? I mean, they don’t attack the Canadians. They don’t attack the Swiss.

ROMNEY: Is it such a mystery as to why they attack America? We’re the strongest nation in the world.

GIULIANI: Ron, it’s simply not true. Islamic terrorists killed over 500 Americans before September 11, going back to the late 1960s. They have also killed people recently in Bali, in London. They have launched attacks in Germany. I could go on and on. The attack on Leon Klinghoffer.

PAUL: You paint all Islamics the same way, and this is a dangerous thing. What you’re doing is damaging our relationship by destroying our relationship with all Muslims. That’s what you’re doing.

GIULIANI: I do not accept that criticism.

Source: 2008 Facebook/WMUR-NH Republican primary debate Jan 5, 2006

Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to allow the President & Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information, after certifying that the surveillance is directed at the acquisition of communications of foreign agents.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. Let me make an analogy. With modernization, we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very quickly. That is like what we are trying to do here--FISA needs modernization.

Opponents support voting NO because:

We are legislating in the dark. We do not even know what the President is doing now because he will not tell us. The New York Times exposed that the administration had authorized secret surveillance of domestic conversations. When exposed, the President claimed he was operating under inherent powers, but court decisions have found that the President cannot simply declare administration actions constitutional and lawful, whether or not they are.

Yet rather than finding out what is going on, this legislation retroactively legalizes whatever has been going on. The President already has broad latitude to conduct domestic surveillance, including surveillance of American citizens, so long as it is overseen by the FISA court.

This bill does not enhance security, but it does allow surveillance without the traditional checks and balances that have served our Nation well.

Reference: Update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Bill H.R.5825 ; vote number 2006-502 on Sep 28, 2006

Says he opposes unions..but.Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union.

Paul co-sponsored allowing an Air Traffic Controller's Union

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Federal Aviation Administration Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution Act of 2006: Prohibits the FAA from implementing any proposed change to the FAA personnel management system in cases where the services of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service do not lead to an agreement between the Administrator and FAA employees, unless Congress authorizes the change during the 60-day period. Requires binding arbitration if Congress does not enact a bill into law within the 60-day period.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. OBAMA: Because what air traffic controllers do is vital to our safety, I became very concerned by a letter I received from Illinois air traffic controller Michael Hannigan. He wrote that "the air traffic controllers are not being allowed to negotiate in good faith with the FAA."

What was clear in Michael's plea was the sense that he and his colleagues felt that they were being treated unfairly. I looked into it and came to the conclusion that if we did not restore a fair negotiation procedure, it would threaten agency morale and effectiveness.

The problem is this: the FAA Administrator currently has the extraordinary authority to impose wages and working conditions on her workers without arbitration. In order to do that, she merely has to declare an impasse in negotiations and if Congress does not stop her from imposing her terms and conditions within 60 days, the Administrator can go ahead and act unilaterally. That authority denies air traffic controllers and all other FAA employees the opportunity to engage in and conclude negotiations in good faith.

It is in the best interest of the agency and public safety to have management and labor cooperate in contract negotiations.

EXCERPTS OF BILL:

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; never came to a vote.

Source: FAA Dispute Resolution Act (S.2201/H.R.4755) 06-S2201 on Jan 26, 2006

Radicals come to kill us because we occupy their lands

Q: What’s your strategy to protect our American way of life from the designs of radical Islam?

A: We indeed do have a problem, but if we go at this incorrectly, we are going to do more damage to ourselves than we are to our enemies. We have to understand the motives of those who come here & kill us. If we don’t understand that, we are not going to win this fight. They come here & kill us because we occupy their lands, and they rationally reason [that] we have to do something about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007

Talk to Iran like we talked to Soviets during Cold War

Q: Would you go to war with Iran if they developed nuclear weapons and threatened Israel?

A: Well, one thing I would remember very clearly is the president doesn’t have the authority to go to war. He goes to the Congress.

Q: So what do you do?

A: He goes to the Congress and finds out if there’s any threat to our national security. And thinking back to the 1960s, when I was in the Air Force for five years, and there was a Cold War going on, and the Soviets had 40,000, and we stood them down, & we didn’t have to have a nuclear confrontation, I would say that we should go very cautiously. We should be talking to Iran right now. We shouldn’t be looking for the opportunity to attack them. They are at the present time, according to the IAEA, cooperating. I think that we ought to be talking about how to get along with some people that are deadly, like the Soviets and the Chinese and the many others. We don’t have to resort to war every single time there is a confrontation.

Source: 2007 GOP debate at UNH, sponsored by Fox News Sep 5, 2007

Iran not in violation of NPT--so talk without preconditions

I am concerned about the pre-conditions set by the administration before it will agree to begin talks with Iran. The pre-condition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss.

By demanding that Iran give up its uranium enrichment program, the US is unilaterally changing the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. UN inspectors have been in Iran for years, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director El Baradei has repeatedly reported that he can find no indication of diversion of nuclear materials to a military purpose.

As a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the “inalienable right” to the “development, research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Yet the US is demanding that Iran give up that right en though, after years of monitoring, Iran has never been found to have diverted nuclear material from peaceful to military use.

Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.359-360 Jun 20, 2006

2002: No evidence of Iraqi nukes nor al Qaeda ties

The only talk here in the capital is about when, not if, we must initiate a war that even the administration admits could cost $200 billion. Some are not even embarrassed to gloat about the political benefits for those who preach war over those who preach negotiations, diplomacy, and containment. The fact that the Arab nations are overwhelmingly opposed to an attack on Iraq and are joined by the European Community is of no concern to those who demand war regardless of circumstance.

No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of al Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism. Many other nations pose much greater threats to world peace. Yet no one is clamoring for war against them.

Source: House speech, in Foreign Policy of Freedom, p.224 Sep 24, 2002

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; Al Qaeda was not in Iraq

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no WMDs, no Al Qaeda there. It is the policy of intervention that I object to so strongly. One time they’re our friends, the next time they’re our enemy. Bin Laden was a freedom fighter when we gave him weapon and equipment to fight the Russians and the Soviets. Saddam Hussein, we propped him up & got him into power & he was our friend & we encouraged him to invade Iran. But it’s this on-again-off-again stuff that continues to haunt us and keep coming back. But you know what? The truth of the matter is that bin Laden likes our foreign policy. He likes our foreign policy because it’s a tremendous incentive for him to raise, his group of Al Qaeda to join. He says: We are going to do to the US, exactly what you and us, together, did to the Soviets. We are going to drain you; we are going to humiliate you. Therefore we don’t even need to come over here. We have fallen into the trap; we have victimized ourselves; we have encouraged him.

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference Feb 7, 2008

Terrorists do not attack us because we’re free or prosperous

Q: You were attacked yesterday over your contention that the US has itself to blame for its policies in the Muslim world, for some of the terrorist attacks. Some clips:

ROMNEY: Ron, you need a thorough understanding of what radical jihad is, what the movement is, what its intent is, where it flows from.

GIULIANI: Ron’s analysis is really seriously flawed [about] the idea that the attack took place because of American foreign policy.

Q: What do you say to the criticism that you’re blaming the victim, the US, for the policies?

PAUL: Well, that’s not correct. Because I don’t blame the American people, and I don’t blame somebody who gets murdered for the murder. You have to look for the cause and the incentive and the motive. And the motive is that our foreign policy does aggravate a lot of people. I know there are radicals, and I know they will attack us, but if we don’t understand the motive, if we continue to believe they attack us because we’re free and prosperous, we can’t win this fight.

Source: CNN Late Edition: 2008 presidential series with Wolf Blitzer Jan 6, 2008

Mercantilist oil dependency was reason for war

Q: Would we have gone to war in Iraq if we weren’t so dependent on Middle East oil?

A: Probably not, but that should not be a reason. That’s an old theory. It’s mercantilistic. It’s neocolonialism that you have to maintain your supply routes and your natural resources. But I think there’s still a lot of those kind of people around. You know, we were told it was about oil and jobs when it first started in 1990, and this is just a continuation of that war.

Source: 2007 Republican debate in Dearborn, Michigan Oct 9, 2007

Press release:

“With a range of third-party candidates at his side – including the Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader, the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin and the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney – it’s unlikely that Paul will pick just one to support. But his spokesman said to expect “something of an endorsement,” with “a real effect on this fall’s election

Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/402653/oh-jesus-what-does-ron-paul-want-now/#ixzz0gO7jzyZB