PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Responds to President Obama’s Middle East Speech




tajitj
05-19-2011, 08:08 PM
Sums it up perfectly. I like the idea of putting out PR's on issues of the day.


May 19, 2011 09:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time

LAKE JACKSON, Texas--(EON: Enhanced Online News)--Ron Paul, a twelve-term U.S. congressman, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate, remarked on President Obama’s speech earlier today about the United States’ Middle East policy. Please see the statement below.

“The President gave a speech today about our foreign policy in the Middle East, and once again this administration has proven that it does not understand a proper foreign policy for America. When will our leaders finally do what’s right for America and rethink this irrational approach we’ve followed for far too long?

“Israel is our close friend. While President Obama’s demand that Israel make hard concessions in her border conflicts may very well be in her long-term interest, only Israel can make that determination on her own, without pressure from the United States or coercion by the United Nations.

“Unlike this President, I do not believe it is our place to dictate how Israel runs her affairs. There can only be peace in the region if those sides work out their differences among one another. We should respect Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.

“The President also defended his unconstitutional intervention in Libya, authorized not by the United States Congress but by the United Nations, and announced new plans to pressure Syria and force the leader of that country to step down.

“Our military is already dangerously extended, and this administration wants to expand our involvement. When will our bombing in Libya end? Is President Obama seriously considering military action against Syria? We are facing $2 trillion dollar deficits, and the American taxpayer cannot afford any of it.

“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies. Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

Contacts

LIBERTY PAC
Gary Howard, 1-800-RON-PAUL

Here is link for spreading around the social networks.
http://eon.businesswire.com/news/eon/20110519007204/en

sailingaway
05-19-2011, 08:10 PM
Perfect. Here's a tinyurl of your link to tweet: http://tinyurl.com/3bjkgv2

Dr.3D
05-19-2011, 08:28 PM
Good for Ron, I'm glad he had the chance to publicly respond.

sailingaway
05-19-2011, 08:28 PM
I tweeted it and submitted it to Drudge which has a section going about Obama's speech and already has Romney's response there....

JohnGalt1225
05-19-2011, 08:31 PM
Spot on by the good Doctor, as per usual.

Verrater
05-19-2011, 08:39 PM
http://twitter.com/#!/Flintlox/status/71404305269272576

Retweet if you like.

KEEF
05-19-2011, 08:44 PM
Dr. Paul again states the obvious. If only other politicians could do the same.

Chester Copperpot
05-19-2011, 08:45 PM
Tweeting RP's PR's hahah

jmdrake
05-19-2011, 08:46 PM
Wow! Ron Paul sounds pro Israel and non-interventionist at the same time! Pure genius.

low preference guy
05-19-2011, 08:48 PM
Wow! Ron Paul sounds pro Israel and non-interventionist at the same time! Pure genius.

Well, his statement about Bin Laden's death sounded quite different from his spoken opinions about Bin Laden's death. We'll see.

kylejack
05-19-2011, 08:50 PM
“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”
Don't forget Persians, Ron! Also, some Arabs are Israelis!

Kylie
05-19-2011, 08:52 PM
Crossposted.

Thanks!

sailingaway
05-19-2011, 08:56 PM
I just noted who wrote this. I'm glad Gary Howard is with Ron on this.

low preference guy
05-19-2011, 08:59 PM
I just noted who wrote this. I'm glad Gary Howard is with Ron on this.

This guy? (http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/01/senator-pauls-communications-staff-set.html)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FVC73oteLnI/TS3N8UUPugI/AAAAAAAAAPA/BJCfvrK4Td4/s1600/n748183755_631676_8463.jpg

ScotTX
05-19-2011, 09:06 PM
Gary did great things for Rand. Good to see he's working for Ron now.

Zatch
05-19-2011, 09:09 PM
I just thought of something recently:

Free State Project = Libertarian version of Zionism

JJonesMBA
05-19-2011, 09:15 PM
Within the first ten minutes of the President's speech today at the U.S. State Department, he outlined four reasons why Mohamed Bouazizi (of Tunisian immolation fame) had no where to turn in his country, implying justification for his protest via suicide which shocked his fellow countrymen into action against the state:

1) no honest judiciary,

2) no credible media,

3) no credible political party, &

4) no free & fair elections.

Before I get on with my analysis of the rest of the President's speech, let's first take a look at those four issues through the lens of a citizen of the United States, and see how well we fare against the same measures. My subsequent blog posts will focus on the remainder of his speech.

First, since 9/11, the American judiciary has allowed for the unrestrained detainment of suspected enemy combatants without due process of law, supposedly secured by the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as a fundamental natural right of all mankind. Even now, this administration goes so far as to claim the power to assassinate American citizens, so long as they are "Suspected" of terrorism. These, among other vioations in the name of the "War on Terror," have been perpetuated under both regimes since that fateful day of infamy.

Most recently, the Supreme Court of Indiana ruled that Police Officers have every power to enter an individual's home - even without a warrant - such that a local Sherriff boasted the local populace would welcome such random, unannounced intrusions.

If the American people either became aware of these violations of their rights, or were to actually witness or even become subject to such treatment, would they continue to allow their government to pursue such tactics in their oppression? So far, it looks as though many Americans tolerate such violations of individual rights and the Constitution as they have faith that these powers will not be abused by the guards of their lives & liberties, but who will guard the guards?

Second, the media in the United States is hardly credible. The recent histeria covering the obviously self-aggrandizing media marketing campaign of a notable celebrity businessman is a failed attempt at a farce; it is a tragedy of epic proportions without comedic redemption.

Regulated by the government, competition in the media industry is stifled. The influence of advertising revenues promotes a conflict of interest from that of the consumer, who ultimately desires & deserves insight & accountability from original sources, analysts, & anchors.

With an oligarchy of cable providers monopolizing the distribution of content, the industry structure further promotes a cabal of news channels safely restrained from the perils of competition.

This industry structure yields several conflicts of interest across the value chain - from the advertisers to the regulators, from the content providers to the distributors, the channels - and ultimately the demagogues postering as journalists - have an incentive other than gathering, analyzing & distributing relevant messages from original sources; the entire industry is in fact a farce - but again, no one is laughing.

Why should the media pick up the controversial story of the President's birth certificate 4 years after the original issue was brought up? Should not it have been covered by the mainstream media during the previous political campaign? The fact that it is picked up now only to perpetuate the episodic myth that is Mr. Trump's political aspirations is none other than the commercialization of an idea that has been in the public domain for years, lying dormant until the market was there to test the new product. And guess what, it was a dud, and which brand got tarnished? The Trump Brand? No. The Republican Party? Hardly. The Tea Party? Sure, why not kill two birds with one stone & make a further mockery of the people searching for truth in this country? Way to go MSM, way to further suppress your competition, divide & conquer your market segments & maintain the status quo of avoiding any actual coverage worthy of journalistic integrity. Oh, and you just might have alienated potential new viewers. How are those ratings working out for you?

Third, the political party structure in America has a monopoly on an outdated organizational structure, where corruption is rampant across the system, where positions of power are guarded with impunity. At the 2008 Texas State Republican Convention, the establishment avoided at all costs an attempted takeover by the masses of new activists flooding the party with passion, energy & intellectual curiosity. The establishment has taken notice, and has attempted to counter with a nominal adoption of Tea Party demands, but time will tell who will get the boot in 2012, as I anticipate those with the fire in their bellies will hold their elective representative's feet to the fire as well.

Fourth, it is hardly arguable that elections in the United States are anywhere near democratic. The federal government has instituted regulations guarding against third party participation, either in debates, getting on the ballot, or even in the simple ability to raise funds honestly. The Supreme Court recently struck down the so-called McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" as unconstitutional, and rightly so. People should be free to express their thoughts, feelings & beliefs, either economically or otherwise. Civil rights and Economic rights are two sides of the same coin.

But how can a truly honest, unbiased populist be taken seriously by the aforementioned corrupt media? Not via the tried and true mainstream approach, aside from the occasional billionaire able to self-finance - especially in the absence of an effective means to measure the voting intentions of the people from a pool of potential candidates beyond the lesser of two evils (whose only substantive differences lie in their effectiveness in lying to the American people). Why not revise our system to include preferential voting?

The failure of a truly free-market system in the election process is evident in the requirement that all presidential debates be organized by the federal government. After Ross Perot's near-miss of making it to the White House, the Clinton & Dole campaigns of 1996 set up this further barrier to entry for potential third party candidates to overcome the two-party duopoly. Only by taking over each party from the grassroots, as attempted by Ron Paul's campaign for liberty & subsequent Tea Party movement, can the power-brokers be shaken from their ivory towers.

In conclusion, if an American citizen were to light him or herself on fire, would the people rise up in support? Or would they spit on his/her grave and accuse them of giving up in the freeest country in the world? One day, the ability for our country's government to keep its promises to deliver every product in excess of supply, with adequate quality of service, and to each segment of its constituents, will fall apart. When that does, it may be obvious to all that America herself may have lit herself on fire long ago.

BlackTerrel
05-19-2011, 09:47 PM
Ron Paul non-interventionist as usual. The smartest policy possible.

HarryBrowneLives
05-20-2011, 12:32 AM
Gary Howard or Howard Gary ...or whatever your name is ...Big Guy here's a Ci-gar for your efforts on a wonderfully written press release.:D Where were you a week ago homie??

Sentinelrv
05-20-2011, 12:46 AM
Why doesn't Ron have a blog on his campaign website so people can tweet or Facebook his updates? He should respond all the time to the daily news and how he as president would have handled things.

mconder
05-20-2011, 10:19 AM
Perfect.

PermanentSleep
05-20-2011, 10:36 AM
Why doesn't Ron have a blog on his campaign website so people can tweet or Facebook his updates? He should respond all the time to the daily news and how he as president would have handled things.

I think that's a good idea, maybe not every day but at least a central place to provide logical argument to the absurdity of party politics and the mainstream media.

I also wish the campaign would re-record audio from his best speeches and record audio files on specific issues and offer them free to the grassroots to use for youtube videos.

Sentinelrv
05-20-2011, 07:13 PM
I think that's a good idea, maybe not every day but at least a central place to provide logical argument to the absurdity of party politics and the mainstream media.

I also wish the campaign would re-record audio from his best speeches and record audio files on specific issues and offer them free to the grassroots to use for youtube videos.

I sent an email about it to Steve Bierfeldt. Hopefully he gets it.

Flash
05-20-2011, 10:10 PM
I can't help but feel Israel splitting up is punishment for Humans misinterpreting the Israel prophecy. The way I see it-- one way or another it's going to split, whether we have an interventionist foreign policy or not.