Ron Paul has Never Met an Evil He hasn’t Sympathized With

As a Jew and a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I had been horrified to discover an interview in which Ron Paul had stated that if he would’ve been president during the holocaust he wouldn't have intervened despite the tens of millions of men, women, and children the Nazis had slaughtered.

Paul’s shocking remarks had not been an isolated incident complete with profuse apologies. They are one tiny chapter amongst countless similarly vile comments. Just a couple of days ago, in an interview conducted last Friday, Paul had announced that one must have empathy with … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He then went on to “explain” that Ahmadinejad isn’t seeking a fight with the Western World, and that it’s merely a concoction by those who wish to engage him in war. Has he never heard Ahmadinejad blast America and the free western world, clearly stating his intentions to wipe out Israel and all infidels?

Many view Ron Paul as simply naïve or as nuts and dismiss him and his rhetoric in the manner one does to a buzzing fly. It must be clear that he is not simply naïve or nuts, but evil. He led racist and anti-Semitic newsletters for many years, with the intentions of his actions to be so. He has often told aides that he “wishes Israel didn’t exist.” Sounds like Ahmadinejad himself, no? No wonder he feels empathy for him!

Ron Paul’s warped sense of good and evil seems to manifest itself amongst his supporters who’ve adopted a weird line of attack against Rick Santorum. They warn voters in ominous comments that electing Santorum to the presidency is a guarantee for a World War III, while voting for Ron Paul will bring peace upon the world.

They appear utterly ignorant of the events which had caused World War II to have become the monster war that it was - having led to the deaths of over fifty million people. When Hitler rose to power and built a powerful army despite it having violated the Treaty of Versailles, the world, weary of war, pretended not to notice, hoping to avoid a confrontation.

Even after the Nazis intentions became clear after the annexation of Austria, the European leaders attempted appeasement via Sudetenland instead of halting them in their tracks. Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, explained his avoidance of war saying that war results only in losers and in no winners, while the U.S. engaged in isolationism and turned a blind eye to Europe. Only after the Nazi beast has grown to monstrous proportions, gobbling up country after country, did Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. At that point though, the German army had already morphed into a strong and organized force which couldn’t be defeated so easily.

The U.S. continued to remain out of the war while watching the world turn upside-down until it came under direct attack by the Japanese, Germany’s ally. The Pearl Harbor bombings resulted in 21 Navy ships sunk or damaged, over 188 U.S. aircraft destroyed, over 2,400 Americans dead, and many more injured. This jerked the U.S. out of their isolationism, declaring war against an enemy whose size and power had vastly increased during the five years it faced zero or little opposition.

The U.S. had followed exactly the type of policy that Ron Paul promotes and promises to enforce, and that has led not only to the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor but to an extended and extremely difficult war to fight. Instead of defeating the German army in their homeland and having to liberate one or two countries they had invaded, battles were held across three continents, spanning most of Europe, chunks of Asia, and portions in Africa.

And Paul supporters say that precisely a Santorum presidency, who will not allow evil to mushroom out of control, will lead to a World War III?

Notable amongst the many indefensible remarks made by Ron Paul was his sharp rebuke to the military and Obama administration after news of Osama Bin Laden’s death was publicized and celebrated across the country. Instead of joining the jubilant masses, Paul bemoaned the successful operation and criticized the government in performing an act which didn’t respect the rule of the law according to Paul’s interpretations, asking whether we would’ve done the same had he been hiding in London.

Is there even hope to penetrate Paul’s skull that evil people are in existence very much like good people, and that evil needs to be handled differently than good? It doesn’t seem like it. Never mind that he hadn’t felt it necessary to express his condolences to the families of the 9/11 victims, save perhaps when he used them to condemn the U.S. government as responsible for the heinous actions of the terrorists. Ron Paul’s conscience, if he has one, was more disturbed over the death of Osama Bin Laden than that this evil monster’s life hadn’t been brought to an end a couple of decades earlier before he would’ve had a chance to inflict death and damage to thousands via 9/11 and other bombings across the world.

Ron Paul’s thinking is terribly wrong, for he considers those who sympathize with evil as unrelated to evil. The truth though, as Bush had outlined in his state of the union speech, is that one cannot be neutral in the fight against evil. One is either for evil or against it. If one’s sympathy for evil overrides the sympathy he feels for the victims, than that person is evil itself. Ron Paul has never decried acts of terror performed against ambassadors, children and innocent civilians who were riding busses, walking streets and minding their own business. Nor has he felt it necessary to condemn the Texas Fort Hood shooter or similar incidents. His behavior had been quite the contrary. Ron Paul has always taken the side of evil and terrorists, finding ridiculous excuses to explain away their horrific actions and for turning the villains into victims.

When Ron Paul preaches his anti-war rhetoric, he’s not simply against attacking other countries before they attack us. He promotes closing the CIA and FBI leaving a nation with no intelligence to gather information about possible attacks. That’s not defending liberty, despite his claims. Such action is irresponsible behavior which can result in the infringement of liberty and life of many U.S. civilians on American soil through acts of terror our intelligence regularly intercepts.

Simply put, Paul wants to shrink and weaken the entire U.S. defense, leaving the greatest bastion of liberty defenseless in the face of evil.

Does the Constitution have any Meaning to Congress? What about a Deadline?

Prior to the super-committee’s creation when all were still in the midst of heated arguments whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, I, like many others, have argued that the right shouldn’t compromise, for the end result would be that the right will give in without receiving anything in return from the left.

How true that has proven to be.

The Democrats remain steadfast in their desire to constantly increase taxes, seemingly until all are equally impoverished and reliant on government. In order to present an image of reasonability, they’ve adopted a bipartisan attitude and have actively promoted the slashing of spending, though only of one department: the Department of Defense.

Defending and protecting this country is one of the few basic obligations that the federal government has been granted as is clearly outlined in the constitution. Defense spending had amounted to close to fifty percent of the federal budget from 1792-1860 and as recently as the 1950-s and 60’s, forty – fifty percent of all federal expenses were allotted for the defense department. Fast forward to 2010 and only twenty percent of our total budget has gone for defense despite the two wars we are still in the midst of.

Despite the proportionate shift and tremendous increase of spending during the last half a century, which has greatly weakened the dollar, Democrats consider defense as the only federal expense which it could do get by with far less funds. Their indifference towards national safety isn’t quite that surprising when one remembers that the left’s main objective for all federal spending is the purchase of votes. Since soldiers and veterans have always voted and currently still vote in overwhelming percentages for the Republican Party, it only makes sense for them to use federal funds to further grow the food stamps base or welfare bloc which are largely loyal to the hand that feeds them yet stifles their opportunity for individual success.

Several months ago, the left, the establishment, and the majority of Washington have revealed their callous attitude towards wasting American dollars and towards the country’s defense when they’ve thrown fifty billion dollars under the bus through the dumping of Mubarak. Mubarak had been an American ally and a fighter of terrorism, and his military’s main funding stemmed from the U.S. government. With Mubarak overthrown and dead the military has currently taken control of the country until conditions are stable enough for election, to the anger of the Muslim Brotherhood. Stupidly, the U.S. White House has recently called for "the full transfer of power to a civilian government" despite the obvious results which will follow. A speedy election in Egypt at this time is equivalent to handing over the power to the only organized group, the power-hungry Muslim Brotherhood who is drooling with hatred against the U.S. and Israel and will use the U.S. funded military to fight against democracy. But hey, fifty billion is kids talk when dealing with trillions, no?

To all who have been following politics and aware of the ways of Washington, The Super Committee’s failure to do its job has therefore not come as a surprise. The 1.2 trillion dollars of cuts which they’ve been unable to agree upon at the congress-imposed deadline will therefore be split evenly between cuts in the defense department and cuts in domestic programs, to be implemented throughout the next ten years. These 600 billion dollars of automatic cuts from defense spending are on top of the 350 billion dollars Boehner had compromised to Obama during the raising-the-debt-ceiling-talks. Thus, despite the global turbulence and weakened state of our military, defense spending is scheduled to undergo a total cut of 950 billion dollars.

The decision to cut half of the 1.2 trillion dollars from defense and half from domestic programs, if the Super Committee failed –which it had, benefits Democrats from both angles; defense as highlighted above and domestic programs (entitlement programs) because it reinforces their false message that the right wishes to cut Medicare, etc. In truth, conservatives wish to reform these programs since they are doomed to collapse if they are left as is. Reforming them will hopefully result in less money spent, but conservatives aren’t simply seeking to cut care and “throw grandma under the bus” as portrayed by the false picture the left has painted of them.

The total disregard the left has shown for the defense of this country goes hand in hand with their obvious contempt for the constitution. Sadly, this isn’t even news to most. The entire debt-ceiling deal though, has shown that congress lacks basic decency such as creating deadlines which are actual deadlines and not simply a phony front.

What do I mean? As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has explained, although the Super Committee’s deadline has passed thus leading to the automatic cuts, none of those cuts will be effective prior to 2013. Therefore, the Congress still has an entire year to figure out a way to avoid or circumvent the cuts from ever taking place without substituting them with serious substantial cuts. Thus deals can still be worked out, and the deadline was no deadline. It was an outright hoax and game played on the American people solely to have enabled Obama to receive his additional trillions to frivol away. This allowed them to present an image of balance and responsibility despite the ZERO dollars in cuts prior to 2013 and possible Zero cuts after 2013.

Although the news that the deadline wasn’t a real deadline may benefit the defense department if a circular route to avoid the cuts is created, it once again illustrates the false nature of both parties in congress and the game they play with average Americans. They peer down at us ordinary Americans with contempt and derision, ignore the voice of the people, and treat the people as ignorant bumbling fools who aren’t capable of understanding such complex matters, all while high-fiving and back-slapping one another on another job well done.

Even if the current Congress doesn’t pass legislation which will halt the cuts from ever taking place, since the delayed deadline will take place after a new Congress is sworn in and (hopefully) a new president has taken oath. The new congress can thus prevail, twist, and pass legislation which will prevent any of the cuts of actually taking place. Either way, Obama’s trillions of dollars will have been spent to the last drop before a single penny of responsible action to counterbalance the raising of the debt ceiling is implemented, and will likely join the rest of the debt which will fall upon the shoulders of future generations.

The current congress’s actions have spoken louder than words; deadlines are worth less than the ink used to write them up while the defense of this country doesn’t matter that much. The president and John Boehner, the current minority leader, have jointly created these phony spending cuts which will or will not take place, depending on the upcoming congress and they are both guilty of its consequences. The entire super-committee was a cowardly excuse which Boehner created solely to exonerate himself for having handed the left all they wished for on a golden platter. The tough action he claimed to have taken was a pretense created to satisfy the conservative base, and is now visible to all. John Boehner, we are far from stupid, although the left and you believe us to be.

The time has therefore come to “throw them all out” as Peter Schweitzer has so eloquently explained in great detail in his book. 


       

Robert Samuelson: The Pentagon vs. the Welfare State

Robert Samuelson, columnist at WaPo, wrote a terrific article providing a clear response once and for all to those who demand the shrinking of our defense as the first and largest cut necessary in federal spending.

We shouldn't gut defense. A central question of our budget debates is how much we allow growing social spending to crowd out the military and, in effect, force the United States into a dangerous, slow-motion disarmament.

People who see military cuts as an easy way to reduce budget deficits forget that this has already occurred. From the late 1980s to 2010, America's armed forces dropped from 2.1 million men and women to about 1.4 million. The downsizing -- the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War -- was not undone by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1990, the Army had 172 combat battalions, the Navy 546 ships and the Air Force 4,355 fighters; today, those numbers are 100 battalions, 288 ships and 1,990 fighters.
- - - -
Three bogus arguments are commonly made for big military cuts.

First, we can't afford today's military. Not so. How much we spend is a political decision. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the country was much poorer, 40 percent to 50 percent of the federal budget routinely went to defense, representing 8 percent to 10 percent of our national income. By 2010, a wealthier America devoted only 20 percent of federal spending and 4.8 percent of national income to the military. Social spending replaced military spending; but that shift has gone too far.

Second, we spend so much more than anyone else that cutbacks won't make us vulnerable. In 2009, U.S. defense spending was six times China's and 13 times Russia's, according to estimates from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The trouble with these numbers is that they don't truly adjust for differences in income levels. U.S. salary and procurement costs are orders of magnitude higher than China's, for example. But China's military manpower is about 50 percent greater than ours, and it has a fighter fleet four-fifths as large. This doesn't mean that China's military technology yet equals ours, but differences in reported spending are wildly misleading.

Third, the Pentagon has so much inefficiency and waste that sizable cuts won't jeopardize our fighting capability. Of course, there's waste and inefficiency. These are being targeted in the $450 billion of additional cuts over 10 years -- beyond savings from Iraq and Afghanistan -- that President Obama and Congress agreed to this year. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had already cut major programs, including the F-22 stealth fighter, that he judged unneeded. Savings can be had from overhauling Tricare, the generous health insurance for service members and retirees. But like most bureaucratic organizations, the Pentagon will always have some waste. It's a myth that it all can be surgically removed without weakening the military.

Make sure to read Samuelson's entire article so that you'll have the complete rebuttal at hand, ready to be used in response to the liberals and RINO's who wish to slash defense spending while increasing social spending.