I need a response to this article, ASAP

[Tall Girl]

This article was just sent out to the email list of my republican women's group. Has anyone come across a response by Ron Paul? I need SOMETHING to send out in response to all these women. I mean, obviously when you work in a bi-partisan way, you're going to get connected to people with differing philosophies. I need a better answer than that.

http://biggovernment.com/tloudon/2012/01/08/blinded-by-the-left-how-marxists-wrote-ron-pauls-defense-cuts-plan/

[specsaregood]

lol

[Tall Girl]

"LOL" won't cut it.

[affa]

lol

no lie, after reading that article, but before reading your response, that was to be my recommended official response as well: lol.

[mosquitobite]

been discussed at length here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?346702-Needs-Attention-Glenn-Beck-Video-CATO-Soros-and-Tom-Woods&highlight=beck+soros

[gerryb]

I would just send a link to the pdf for his restore america plan; Return spending to 2006 levels. I think everyone can agree we had enough government in 2006.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

[Tall Girl]

Thanks! I will go read the thread.

[Cleaner44]

The premise of the article, that Marxists oppose spending on Warfare are completely false. Since Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 until 2010, they continued to fund more war. The Democrat President Obama expanded war in Libya in 2011 without consulting the Republican controlled House. The Marxists on the left have grown the military budget and they are not interested in cutting it as demonstrated by their support of President Bush and Obama.

Ron Paul is proposing transitioning to a more efficient military, not based on a military presence in foreign lands, but instead based on utilizing the greatest Navy in the world. Our submarines can be off the coast of any nation at any time, allowing for maximum defense, while avoiding irritating foreign populations by having troops on their soil.

[specsaregood]

I thought we were the supposed conspiracy theorists.

[european]

1. High ranked people from both the military and intelligence and politics from the US and Israel agree with Ron Paul
If your friends want to know the truth they better listen to the real experts then to some talkshow hosts or other FOX or CNN so-called 'experts'.

2.
"The enemy can now attack the American homeland with ICBMs, biological weapons, cyber warfare, dirty bombs smuggled across the Mexican border"
Ron Paul wants the army and border patrol back to the US to protect American borders and not Afghan borders. He wants the troop back from Japan, back from Germany and all of the other countries so they can defend their own borders. And guess what borders he want the American troops to defend?


"America’s enemies, real or potential, Russia and China, and Iran"
May I point out that the US borrows money from China and then uses that money to station troops in Australia, to help them defend a possible but highly unlikely attack from China? And then rent is paid to China ofcourse. And next to that also foreign aid is send to China, because they are friends.

And on a sidenote: even Canada is a potential enemy. They got an army that is near the US border at this moment! (no joke)


spending:
http://newsizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/defense-spending.jpeg
http://newsizer.com/2010/05/09/us-defense-spending-has-doubled-in-past-decade/

2008 defense spending:Global Total: $1.57 trillion
http://armscontrolcenter.org/images/Global_Spending_Graph.jpg
http://armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/US_vs_Global/

Countries of Interest (in billions of current U.S. dollars)
Country 2008 Spending
United States 696.3
Canada 19.8
China 83.5
Russia 86.0
United Kingdom 60.8
France 67.2
Germany 46.9
Japan 46.0
Italy 30.9
Saudi Arabia 38.2
South Korea 24.2
Israel 14.8
Taiwan 10.5
Iran 9.6

It cannot hurt to decrease the costs by bringing the troops home. Also they will spend their money back at home and creating jobs near the military bases. If you want to Buy American, it's easier to do that in the US, then when you are in Germany or Japan. What economy you want to support?

[roc_rob]

It is a bit of an absurd article. I think its path of logic could be summed up by:


Hitler enjoyed chocolate milk, as does Ron Paul, and therefore Ron Paul is a disciple of Hitler.

(yeah, I know, Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)).

Regarding the question of how to counter the article to your republican women's group---I would turning them to shared views by respected authority, either military/intelligence or religious.

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scheuer) and noted Bin Laden expert considers himself conservative. He endorsed Paul in December with the following statement:


Dr. Paul’s precise use of history and common sense exposes the exorbitantly costly effort to build democracies in the Islamic world for what it is; namely, Washington throwing money down the drain for a cause that is impossibly lost from the start and one that will involve us in wars where we have no interests.

Spend a few moments searching Youtube for videos of Michael Scheuer (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+scheuer+&oq=michael+scheuer+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=29410l29410l0l29556l1l1l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0) speaking in support of a foreign policy aligned with Paul's own vision. Share your favorite video with the group.

If you feel the religious angle may be beneficial, check out Just war theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory) and its religious origins. Paul references the theory in his book The Revolution.

Good luck.

[affa]

"LOL" won't cut it.

How about:

The idea that Ron Paul wants to weaken our national defense is incorrect. In fact, he wants to improve our national defense by focusing on defense, rather than offense. Up to 1949 the Department of Defense was known as the War Department, and this renaming points out a little secret many in DC will not admit to: there is a significant difference between 'defense spending' and 'military spending'.

Defense is absolutely important, and critical to the role of President. Ron Paul, who served in our military as a flight surgeon, is fully aware of that. The confusion arises because many do not understand his Constitutional Stance. Ron Paul believes that if we are going to go to war, we should follow the Constitution, and one of the core principles of the Constitution is checks and balances. The Constitution clearly gives the power of declaration of war to the Congress, but for the past few decades the Executive Branch has effectively done an end run against Congress, and codified this ability to avoid Congressional declaration with the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973, which allows the President to wage war for 90 days... at which point, it becomes impossible to leave, binding the Congress to fund it. While you may agree with some of our targets over the years, removal of this layer of checks and balances also allows for all the 'wars' you may not have been for, including everything from the Vietnam War (actually, 'Conflict') to our recent foray with Libya and drone bombings in numerous countries.

By returning the power of declaration of war to the Congress, we can still engage in war if deemed necessary by our Congress, as per Constitutional guidelines, and the power to wage war gets taken out of the hands of a single person - the President of the United States, because even if you like our President at any given time, you may not agree with the next one. The President would still have the ability for instant reprisal/defense in certain situations, such as if we found ourselves under imminent threat (say, a foreign navy encroaching on our coasts).

When Congress does officially declare war, Ron Paul would have a clear directive and goal. With those in mind, he would have the ability to go in, win the war, and get out. This is far different from today, when undeclared wars have no set goals, and thus never end.

At the same time, bringing our troops home from 900 bases around the world in well over a hundred countries will allow us to defend ourselves better, not worse. Why do we still have troops in Germany and Japan? Bring them home. Defend OUR country, not theirs. They are both capable of fielding their own defense.

Opponents loves to claim Ron Paul would dismantle the entire military. This is absurd. In fact, Ron Paul's suggested cuts would only bring us to 2006 spending levels, and we'd still be spending 5 times more than our closest competitor, China.

In conclusion, anyone who researches Ron Paul's actual stance on our military, our defense, and the proper role of the President in regards to both will release he is the only one seriously talking about defense. The rest would pay lip service to it, while bringing us more wars and destroying the economy of this great nation in the process.

[Emerick]

If the author is right, then the marxists wrote the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson!

Then point out to this: GENIUS!

[Emerick]

Two other points.

1) The article just appeals to stupid group thinking. They divide the world between right and left. If you are on the right, you are a good guy; if you are on the left, you are a bad guy. First of all, this is completely opposed to christianity, because it conflicts with the doctrine of original sin. Second, if this were true, then we are bound to oppose the cure of cancer is someone on the left wants it too!

2) The neoconservatives ARE FORMER MARXISTS! The creators of neoconservatism are former trotskysts. This is a fact. So, if you follow the author's narrative, then BUSH works for the Communist Party!

[pp0rker]

@Tall Girl -

First, do a gut check... If dismantling US military is such a "leftist" goal, why is Obama increasing military spending and increasing the wars?

From the article, "In short, the US left is using Ron Paul and other libertarians, to do what their armies and intelligence services have long dreamed of – destroying America’s military superiority, and with it, US national sovereignty."

Actually, the history of US militarism *is* leftist. Since the days of President Wilson, the left has pushed for American empire. But in the last 60 years, leftists infiltrated the conservatives calling themselves "neoconservatives" to continue pushing the American empire agenda.

The writer's argument is false, that by not invading other countries, we somehow diminish our defense. Not true. Paul I think rightly takes the position that US military interventionism makes the US *less* safe by hurting us economically and enraging those we attack.

Also keep perspective... the US has a larger military than the entire world's armies combined. The US has the world's largest nuclear deterrent.

All this militarism by the US and shear size of US military scares the crap out of the rest of the planet. At what point does the size of the US military turn the rest of the world hostile to us, especially if the US is showing it has no hesitation to use our military... and offensively.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul didn't commission the Sustainable Defense Task Force. Frank, Paul, Jones, and another congressman wrote in support of closing bases and ending wars over seas, to the tune of $1 trillion over ten years.

Ron Paul didn't name any persons to the Task Force.

The Task Force did not write Paul's defense plan. Paul's defense plan cuts $893 billion from proposed Pentagon spending in four years.

Glenn Beck is a moron, he makes the JBS at its most conspiratorial look completely sane, mainstream, and normal.

Bring up these facts to your friends:

Ron Paul was good friends and very close colleagues with Larry McDonald, former Georgia congressman and HEAD OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY. WHILE IN CONGRESS. If Paul were a Marxist, surely THE HEAD OF THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY would have sniffed that out. Furthermore, Larry McDonald has the second most conservative congressional voting record since 1937. Number 1? RON PAUL

Ron Paul was the commencement speaker at JBS' 50th anniversary get-together thing. Surely, if Paul were a Marxist, the JBS would have sniffed this out.

Ron Paul regularly appears on the Alex Jones show. If Paul were a Marxist, surely Alex Jones would have found this out.

Ron Paul gets flak in the media for having spoke out against the CFR, Skull and Bones, and secret societies in general in the past.

[mosquitobite]

Two other points.

1) The article just appeals to stupid group thinking. They divide the world between right and left. If you are on the right, you are a good guy; if you are on the left, you are a bad guy. First of all, this is completely opposed to christianity, because it conflicts with the doctrine of original sin. Second, if this were true, then we are bound to oppose the cure of cancer is someone on the left wants it too!

2) The neoconservatives ARE FORMER MARXISTS! The creators of neoconservatism are former trotskysts. This is a fact. So, if you follow the author's narrative, then BUSH works for the Communist Party!

*thumbs up*

[Feeding the Abscess]

Any updates, OP?

[attilahooper]

Any updates, OP?

Apparently not. But 42 idiots on facebook recommend it. nuff said.