John F Kennedy III
12-16-2011, 08:49 PM
Ron Paul’s Constitutionalist, Anti-War Stance Supported By U.S. Troops
Establishment media attacks Paul after confrontation with Bachmann
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 16, 2011
Following Ron Paul’s clash with Michele Bachmann over foreign policy during last night’s Republican debate in Iowa, the establishment media characterized Paul’s views as an “outburst” that could cost him votes, when in reality the majority of Republican voters now want U.S. troops brought home, troops who themselves support Paul over every other GOP candidate.
(video in original article)
Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.
“Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,” confirms Politifact.
In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000). In comparison, Michele Bachmann received just $2,250.
“We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our friend Israel off the map, and they would use it against the United States of America,” said Bachmann during last night’s debate, presumably unaware of the fact that Israel has as many as 400 nuclear weapons, backed by the United States which maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads, and could turn Iran into a parking lot overnight.
Bachmann then labeled Paul’s refusal to back an unconstitutional pre-emptive strike on Iran as “dangerous for American security”.
Bachmann’s characterization of Ron Paul’s constitutional, non-interventionist, founding father-inspired foreign policy as “dangerous” is not a view shared by active duty U.S. troops, because as Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton points out, “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”
To cast Paul’s opposition to neo-liberal interventionist wars which have intensified under Barack Obama as somehow unconservative represents more dirty tricks on behalf of the establishment press. The Texan Congressman’s views are completely in line with the founding fathers, who also advocated non-interventionism.
“It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists,” Paul explains in his article I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would. “The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.”
Not only is Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance backed by U.S. troops and other military workers, aspects of it also shared by the majority of Republican voters.
After Obama rapidly accelerated an interventionist foreign policy, with more troops deployed than at any time under Bush (Bachmann should love Obama), Republicans quickly began to lose their appetite for war.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that a slim majority of Republican voters now support pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. In addition, the survey found that just 13 per cent of Republicans supported U.S. military action in Libya.
Perhaps Michele Bachmann should try asking active duty U.S. troops if they think Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are “dangerous”. Judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.
Hyperlinks in original article:
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-constitutionalist-anti-war-stance-supported-by-u-s-troops/
Establishment media attacks Paul after confrontation with Bachmann
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, December 16, 2011
Following Ron Paul’s clash with Michele Bachmann over foreign policy during last night’s Republican debate in Iowa, the establishment media characterized Paul’s views as an “outburst” that could cost him votes, when in reality the majority of Republican voters now want U.S. troops brought home, troops who themselves support Paul over every other GOP candidate.
(video in original article)
Ron Paul has has received more money in donations from active duty military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined and more than Barack Obama himself.
“Paul’s military-connected contributions for the three months more than double such contributions to all the other Republican presidential candidates—and they also exceed Obama’s,” confirms Politifact.
In the three months from April through June, Paul received “more than $25,000 from individuals who listed their employer as a branch of the military” (the campaign itself puts the figure closer to $35,000). In comparison, Michele Bachmann received just $2,250.
“We know without a shadow of a doubt that Iran will take a nuclear weapon. They will use it to wipe our friend Israel off the map, and they would use it against the United States of America,” said Bachmann during last night’s debate, presumably unaware of the fact that Israel has as many as 400 nuclear weapons, backed by the United States which maintains an arsenal of 5,113 warheads, and could turn Iran into a parking lot overnight.
Bachmann then labeled Paul’s refusal to back an unconstitutional pre-emptive strike on Iran as “dangerous for American security”.
Bachmann’s characterization of Ron Paul’s constitutional, non-interventionist, founding father-inspired foreign policy as “dangerous” is not a view shared by active duty U.S. troops, because as Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton points out, “They look at Ron Paul and see a leader who takes their oath seriously and who will fight to ensure that we don’t misrepresent that oath by sending them off to police the world, instead of defending our country.”
To cast Paul’s opposition to neo-liberal interventionist wars which have intensified under Barack Obama as somehow unconservative represents more dirty tricks on behalf of the establishment press. The Texan Congressman’s views are completely in line with the founding fathers, who also advocated non-interventionism.
“It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists,” Paul explains in his article I Advocate the Same Foreign Policy the Founding Fathers Would. “The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.”
Not only is Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance backed by U.S. troops and other military workers, aspects of it also shared by the majority of Republican voters.
After Obama rapidly accelerated an interventionist foreign policy, with more troops deployed than at any time under Bush (Bachmann should love Obama), Republicans quickly began to lose their appetite for war.
A recent Rasmussen poll found that a slim majority of Republican voters now support pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. In addition, the survey found that just 13 per cent of Republicans supported U.S. military action in Libya.
Perhaps Michele Bachmann should try asking active duty U.S. troops if they think Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy are “dangerous”. Judging by how their donations have flooded into Ron Paul’s campaign coffers, efforts to characterize Paul’s non-interventionist policy as a fringe viewpoint are clearly without any foundation whatsoever.
Hyperlinks in original article:
http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-constitutionalist-anti-war-stance-supported-by-u-s-troops/