"The End of the War is not near."

[galtgulch]

Here is the link to the speech Ron Paul gave on the floor of the Congress:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/index.php#12541

www.campaignforliberty.com 4Mar 8PM 105701

Ron Paul was mentioned in an op ed piece in the newspaper today (Who's steering this sinking GOP ship? Scot Lehigh, lehigh@globe.com) with just one word before his name, "eccentric."

I suppose because Ron Paul has consistently read each bill before the Congress in his ten terms in office that makes him eccentric.

The implication is that it is natural, proper and acceptable for an elected representative to fail to take the time to read a bill before voting on it as is true of virtually all the other congressmen. That would make him eccentric.

I suppose that when Ron Paul struggles to understand whether a power being sought by a bill is authorized in the Constitution in Article 1 section 8, that makes him eccentric.

The implication is that in this day and age it is not necessary or reasonable to determine whether adherence to the Constitution is being practiced.

I suppose that when Ron Paul abides by his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in his actions as a Congressman that makes him eccentric.

The implication is that the usual practice these days is to take the oath as a ritual exercise but then ignore it altogether when one decides what to vote for and what to vote against.

There are a growing number of citizens, especially among the young people, who have come to understand what Ron Paul is all about. They do realize he is unique and different than most other elected congressmen. They realize the media does characterize Ron Paul as eccentric but they know he is a man of integrity who has the courage to stand virtually alone against the powerlusters and party hacks. They are reading the books on Austrian economics and Atlas Shrugged which Ron Paul has recommended to them. They are the future and their numbers will continue to grow until they become the dominant force in this country.

www.campaignforliberty.com In the time it took for me to compose this post membership has grown to 105706; 6Mar 105836

gulch

Edited March 6, 2009 by galtgulch

[BaalChatzaf]

How much Muslim blood would R. P. shed if we got hit with another 9/11?

Or would he tell us that we are to blame?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

How much Muslim blood would R. P. shed if we got hit with another 9/11?

Or would he tell us that we are to blame?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

Ron Paul did suggest to the Congress that they discuss the option of making a formal "declaration of war" which is the power exclusively held by the Congress. They defaulted and effectively delegated the option to the president which is not an authorized power in Article 1 Section 8. But they don't care about the Constitution as we are learning despite their ritual oath taking.

Ron Paul can speak for himself. As I understand his thinking this country incurred the wrath of the Muslim world when the CIA placed the Shah of Iran in power after someone else had been elected to head that country. The Shah became a brutal dictator causing many people to be tortured and killed over twenty five years.

In addition military bases were built in Saudi Arabia which angered those of the Islamic faith because two of their holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, are there.

The attack on 9/11 probably would not have occurred if the CIA had not meddled in the affairs of middle eastern countries and if military bases were not built there as well.

Such meddling is not authorized in the Constitution and the Founders warned us against such interventions.

The attack on 9/11 is in the category of "blowback."

This country should not be intervening in the affairs of other countries in the world. Citizens could support and trade with citizens of other countries but no one should be taxed to support other countries governments. Sorry but it is not authorized. e.g. the US just gave hundreds of millions to the govt of Gaza! ???

www.campaignforliberty.com 5Mar 5PM 105789

gulch

Edited March 5, 2009 by galtgulch

[Chris Grieb]

I seriously doubt that many followers know who the Shah of Iran was.

What the people Bin Laden inspires is Israel. That state with all those Jews.

Also you haven't Baal's

question.

[DavidMcK]

If we had a non-interventionist military policy we wouldn't have to worry about shedding muslim (or anyone else's) blood because there wouldn't be another 9/11.

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

Can we set a baseline standard that the geographic integrity of the United States can, and should, be protected from foreign threats prior to being attacked. The precise reach of these actions to protect it, e.g. bases, to be determined?

A second baseline assumption is that a declaration of war should be the Constitutionally preferred method of action if, and when, military action shall be effected. However, there are tactical events wherein time constraints will not permit the preferred process to be engaged.

Adam

[tjohnson]

I agree with David and Galt.

[BaalChatzaf]

If we had a non-interventionist military policy we wouldn't have to worry about shedding muslim (or anyone else's) blood because there wouldn't be another 9/11.

We are targets of Muslim extremists because we are Kafirs, not because we attack them. Bin Laden did not plan 9/11 because the U.S. attacked Muslims, but because U.S. troops dirtied their Holy Ground with their Unbeliever Boots. He saw us as Crusaders and if you listen to his rants that is what he calls us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We are targets of Muslim extremists because we are Kafirs, not because we attack them. Bin Laden did not plan 9/11 because the U.S. attacked Muslims, but because U.S. troops dirtied their Holy Ground with their Unbeliever Boots. He saw us as Crusaders and if you listen to his rants that is what he calls us.

Bob,

This is an excellent example of what I call identifying before judging. I have too often read comments from people on both sides (i.e., "Islamists hate us because we are successful and they want to conquer the earth" versus "Islamists attack us because we attack them") where people imagine that fundamentalist Muslims think in the same manner the person advancing the argument does.

Thus when a person argues for "Islamists hate us because we are successful and they want to conquer the earth," the attitude he usually projects is what he imagines people do according to the way he views life and religion, not according to the way radicals really think.

When a person argues for "Islamists attack us because we attack them," he imagines how he would feel if he were attacked—usually involving feelings of peace and sovereignty—and projects that onto all Muslims living withing a foreign country.

Both mostly argue (from what I have read) as if the other side were the polar opposite. I have usually been exasperated because it is a false dichotomy. The person missing from this dichotomy is the fundamentalist, the Islamist.

Your comment sheds the "third option" kind of light on that dichotomy (couched in your standard take-no-prisoners rhetoric, of course ). You are spot on.

Another issue that is totally ignored in these evaluations is the sense of brotherhood fundamentalists feel for each other. When you kill or maim one of their people, it doesn't matter whether you were right or wrong, whether you were attacking or being attacked. You damaged a brother and that is all they see. Their psychology in this is about as close to a feeling of metaphysical collectivism as one can get. They don't protect and defend a brother because it makes them feel safe as individuals or even because that is all they know (like with standard tribes). They literally feel a brother is an integral part of their being. This is very foreign to Western mentality except in tiny doses, but I have seen it up close as a worldview.

Once this kind of mentality is understood, i.e. properly identified, only then do evaluations make any consistent sense. Only then can accurate predictions be made. Unless people properly identify what they are dealing with, Islamists will continue to confound both sides of that debate by repeatedly not acting as they are supposed to.

(Then enter Bob: Wipe them off the face of the earth and the issue becomes moot—then it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. )

Michael

[galtgulch]

If we had a non-interventionist military policy we wouldn't have to worry about shedding muslim (or anyone else's) blood because there wouldn't be another 9/11.

We are targets of Muslim extremists because we are Kafirs, not because we attack them. Bin Laden did not plan 9/11 because the U.S. attacked Muslims, but because U.S. troops dirtied their Holy Ground with their Unbeliever Boots. He saw us as Crusaders and if you listen to his rants that is what he calls us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

It has been said that if this country falls it will not be because of any foreign power but from within. Clearly that is what is happening based largely on the fact that the American people do not have the knowledge to correctly diagnose the cause of our current plight and that is not because such knowledge is unavailable. At the risk of being considered immodest and despite our little differences here, in reality virtually everyone of us, Objectivists, have a profound understanding of the reason our country is off course, off the rails, on the rocks, sinking fast, out of control, heading in the wrong direction, in danger of loss of the Constitutional Republic which Ben Franklin warned us we would lose if we were not vigilant.

www.campaignforliberty.com 5Mar 105786 9PM 105817;

gulch

Edited March 6, 2009 by galtgulch

[Martin Radwin]

If we had a non-interventionist military policy we wouldn't have to worry about shedding muslim (or anyone else's) blood because there wouldn't be another 9/11.

We are targets of Muslim extremists because we are Kafirs, not because we attack them. Bin Laden did not plan 9/11 because the U.S. attacked Muslims, but because U.S. troops dirtied their Holy Ground with their Unbeliever Boots. He saw us as Crusaders and if you listen to his rants that is what he calls us.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Do you realize that you just agreed with David? By conceding that Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attack in response to the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia ("because U.S. troops dirtied their Holy Ground with their Unbeliever Boots"), you have affirmed his argument. For if the US had a non-interventionist foreign policy, there never would have been US troops in Saudi Arabia, and the 9/11 attack almost certainly would never have happened. Yet the believers in a foreign policy of endless intervention in the affairs of other nations are constantly given credit for helping to defend the United States homeland. While those of us who believe in a foreign policy of non-interventionism are constantly accused of being indifferent to the defense of the United States.

Martin

[DavidMcK]

Thanks Martin!