Category Archives: Ron Paul 2012

Ron Paul Explains Unintended Consequences of Unconstitutional Intervention in Foreign Affairs

Short Term Thinking and Unintended Consequences of War

In 1999, Congressman Ron Paul addresses Congress on the issue of Defense Supplemental Spending. He describes how short-term thinking leads to unintended consequences such as backlash and retaliation and giving arms to people who turn out to be our enemies. This, in turn, leads to further aggressive action on the part of the United States. Each action we take has backlash and retaliation from enemies we make along the way. it is extremely predictable, and yet we do the same thing over and over and over. It would be one thing if we ever accomplished even our short-term goals in the process, but we seldom do.

The constitution states that the congress must declare war if it is declared. (Not the president!)

Constitutionally, the president has no authority to take aggressive military action unless congress has declared war except in the case of an imminent threat. Since WWII, every president has decided that every whim that comes along is a dire threat so that he can pretend to justify his actions.

Here are a few excerpts.

“It is not the prerogative of Congress to micromanage a war…”

“It’s is not the prerogative of Congress to micromanage a war… that is correct. It is the job of the congress to declare the war. But here we have a congress involved in diplomacy and micromanaging a war that hasn’t been declared.”

“The issue is how do you permit a president to wage a war, without us [addressing congress] declaring the war? Once we declare the war, it is true, we should not be talking about whether or not to use airplanes or foot soldiers or whatever – we do not micromanage, we do not get involved in diplomacy maneuvers. But today we have things turned upside-down. We have the president declaring war and we say nothing and the congress micromanaging the war that shouldn’t exist.”

“To say to the president, ‘Thou shalt not use these funds for a ground war’… well, he hasn’t had the authority to wage his air war! Why would he listen to us now? Could we trust him and say he’s going to listen to what we tell him? Of course not! He’s already fighting his air war, and he will continue to! He has set the standard, and not he alone! All our presidents from World War II have set the standard that they’ll do what they darn well please!”

“It is said that we must move in now to help the refugees. Have you looked at the statistics? How many refugees did we have before the bombing started? other say ‘We must move in because Milosevic is so strong.’ Prior to the bombing Milosevic was weak! You talk about unintended consequences! They are so numerous! What about the unintended consequence of supporting the KLA who is supported by Ossama Bin Ladin? How absurd can it get”

We Keep On Funding and Befriending People Who End Up Being Enemies

You know, Ossama Bin Ladin was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter in Afghanistan and we gave him our weapons and supported him. But then, we found out that he wasn’t quite so friendly so we arrested or captured a few of his men and he retaliated by bombing our embassies. Of course, we retaliated by bombing innocent chemical plants as well as people in Afghanistan who had nothing to do with it. So where are we now? We are back to … deliberating over ‘Should we give weapons to the KLA?‘ I mean, the whole thing is absurd!”

“So the president comes and asks us for six billion dollars and in congresses infinite wisdom we give him thirteen! And yet we don’t declare war!”



Ron Paul’s Politics Haven’t Changed Since the Early Eighties.

“It is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.” Ron Paul.


1983 – “A gold standard is the only standard that can be used if you want a free market and …a sound, healthy economy. There is no power greater than the power over money, the power to create and contract the money supply, the power to control the purchasing power of your money. Throughout history, this has proven to be the most sought-after monopolistic power of man.”


1988 – Question by interviewer to Ron Paul speaking of sending foreign aid to another country. “What if the Soviets started sending money if we didn’t send the money?”


Answer: “Then the Soviet system would fall even more rapidly. They can’t even feed themselves. We’re financing the Soviet system too.”



Question – “You wouldn’t worry about that as president of the United States?”


Answer – “I would worry about it if they threatened my security or the security of the country, but I think it would be helpful to bankrupt the Soviet Union if they want to spend all their money because they couldn’t win in Afghanistan and they are broke and now they are getting more loans from the … United States.”


“There are 38 million people today who have no healthcare after the government has been in healthcare for forty five years. The price has gone up, the quality has gone down, the distribution has been eliminated. There are more people without healthcare now since the government has been in the business.”


1990 – Question to Ron Paul “Ron, why do we keep getting into these foreign predicaments?”


Answer – “I think there’s a basic flaw in our policy. We’ve gone astray. We do not follow the constitution, we do not follow our American traditions and especially in this century, our policy has changed. We have become an interventionist government. I believe we became interventionist in many areas, not only does our government intervene in our personal lives, our government intervenes in the economy and it intervenes in the internal affairs of other nations. No longer do we take the advice of our founders and what was traditionally the American non-interventionist foreign policy and I think it’s going to continue. This is not a tactical fight. This is not a discussion about when you should “go in”. The left and the right so often argue about, “Well, we should go in, he’s the enemy, we’ll attack him but we’ll let this person alone and then they switch and they flip-flop and we lead to a disaster. We don’t know why we go into these areas. It leads to disasters like Korea and Vietnam.”


2002 – “We allied ourselves in the 1980’s with Iraq in it’s war with Iran and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports confirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein’s development of chemical and biological weapons and, at least indirectly, assisted in their development. Now as a consequence of that needless intervention, we’re planning a risky war to remove him from power. And, as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate. Like a take-over by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he’s an enemy of the al-Qaeda and someone new may well be a close ally of the Izu Islamic Radicals. Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it’s becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudi’s. The Persian Gulf war, fought without a declaration of war, is, in realty, still going on. It looks like 9-11, may well have been a battle in that war perpetrated by fanatical gurillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is.”


“In the 1980’s we got involved in the Soviet-Afghanistan war and actually sided with the forces of Ossama Bin Ladin, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States and it has come back to haunt us.  “


2007 – A question asked of Ron Paul in a debate: “Congressman Paul, you voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?”


Ron Paul – “That’s a very good question and you might also want to ask the question, ‘Why are 70% of the American people now wanting us out of there?’ and ‘Why did the Republicans do so poorly last year?’ So I would suggest that we do look at foreign policy. I’m suggesting very strongly that we should have a foreign policy of non-intervention – the traditional American foreign policy and the republican foreign policy. Throughout the twentieth century, the republican party benefited from a non-interventionism foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean war. Think about how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam. How did we win the election in the year 2000? We talked about a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, don’t police the world. That is a conservative, it’s a republican, it’s a pro-American, it follows the founding fathers and besides, it follows the constitution. I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, Declare war if you want to go to war! Go to war, fight it and win it, but don’t get into it for political reasons or to enforce UN resolutions or pretend that Iraqis were a national threat to us.”
Another question for congressman Paul: “If you were president, would you work to phase out the IRS?”


“Immediately! And you can only do that if you change our ideas about what the role of government ought to be. If you think the government has to take care of us from cradle to grave, and you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we can not manage, then you can’t get rid of the IRS. But if you want to lower taxes, and if you want the government to quit printing the money to come up with shortfall and cause all of the inflation you have to change policy.”


“Dr Paul, how you reconcile this moral leadership kind of conservatism with the very libertarian strain of conservatism? The Barry Goldwater conservatism that you represent? How do you put together what he just said with what you believe in the unified national purpose?”


Answer – “Well you do it by understanding what the role of government ought to be. If the role of government is to be the policeman of the world, then you lose liberty. If the goal is to promote liberty, you can unify all segments. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn’t divide us. I believe that when we over-do our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. We stood up to the Soviets, they had forty thousand nuclear weapons, now we are fretting day in and day out about third world countries that have no army, navy or air force and we’re getting ready to go to war. But the principle, the moral principle, is that of defending liberty and minimizing the scope of government.”
Another question: “Please site an example of when you had to make a decision in crisis.”


“… I guess in medicine I made a lot of critical decisions. I mean you are called upon all the time to make critical life-saving decisions, but I can’t think of any one particular event when I made a critical decision that affected a lot of other people. but i think that all of our decisions that we make in politics are critical. My major political decision, which was a constitutional decision, was to urge for years that this country not go to war in Iraq.”


Questioner: “We have Mrs. Reagan here… she wants to expand embryonic stem-cell research… will that progress under your administration Dr Paul yes or no?


Dr. Paul, “Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with programs like this in Washington is that we either prohibit it or subsidize it. The markets should deal with it and the states should deal with it.”
Questioner: “i would like each candidate to mention a tax he would like to cut.”


“In my first week I would get rid of income tax. In my second week I would get rid of the inflation tax. It’s a tax that nobody talks about. We live way beyond our means with a foreign policy we can’t afford and an entitlement system that we have encouraged. We print money for it, the value of the money goes down and poor people pay higher prices. That is a tax. It is a transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class to Wall Street. Wall Street is doing quite well but the inflation tax is eating away at the middle class of this country. We need to get rid of the inflation tax with sound money.”

Ron Paul Supporters are From Both Sides. Why Is That?

Ron Paul Supporters are from Right-wing and Liberal.

Ron Paul Supporters from Both Sides Because His Political Ideologies ACTUALLY Make Sense!

Why and How did Ron Paul Cause a Revolution in Political Thought?

Often political candidates are criticized for not “compromising”, as though the answer to getting anything done politically is to compromise on your position. But both the traditional “right wing” (the GOP / Republican Party) and the “left wing” (Liberal) ideologies are primarily based around talking points without any real substance. It’s as though they latch onto soundbites that sound good and will grab their listeners attention and repeat them over and over with dabs of what sounds like supporting evidence or logic in between to make their political stance sound well thought out. The whole point of their political ideology is to separate themselves from the people they are blaming (the other side) and make sure that the public knows that whichever side the “other side” is, they are to blame and whatever the problems are can only be fixes by switching to their side. both sides are intellectually shallow and their arguments are dumbed down to a third grade level so that they can appeal to people who aren’t really listening, don’t care that much or just plain aren’t that smart.

Why is it that Ron Paul supporters come from such a diverse variety of political ideologies? Because his Libertarian philosophy actually makes sense. It isn’t a bunch of talking points reiterated over and over with emphasis and emotion to manipulate people who want something to believe in. It is actually substantial and well-thought-out.


How to REALLY Detour Crime – And ACTUALLY Make a Difference:

Both the liberals and conservatives in this country have eroded our constitutional rights and freedoms over the past several decades. There are more and more laws being added every day, both state and federal, which limit the freedoms of law abiding citizens without specifically addressing how to limit the ability of those who victimize others to be able to victimize others.


Take drug use, for instance.

Conservatives overwhelmingly think that drug use is a major contributor to crime and therefore should be illegal. Libertarians believe that drugs should be legalized. Therefore the philosophy is that if we arrest drug users and put them in jail we will decrease crime. There are many, many drug users and abusers in the United States. Therefore, prisons are overcrowded with many people who have not infringed upon the rights of others. They have simply decided for themselves that they wish to imbibe the drug or drugs of their choice.


What is the answer to the overcrowded prison system?

To turn people out of it. So many people such as child molesters, rapists, thieves, arsonists, kidnappers, etc are turned loose every day, while people sit in prison who have only hurt themselves but have not hurt others. Does this make sense? Why don’t we take the drug laws off of the books – especially the laws concerning less dangerous drugs – and only use prisons to RESTRICT the physical capability of people who have proven that they are a danger to others to be a danger to others? Wouldn’t that make more sense? If drug users actually did other things to prove they were harming other people, THEN put them in jail for THAT. The only thing the War on Drugs has done is to drive up the price of drugs by turning the marketing of drugs into a more dangerous enterprise. Now more criminals are making more money and more innocent bystanders are getting killed in the crossfire. Innocent people , falsely accused go to jail on a regular basis while dangerous criminals run free. Does this make sense? No, not at all. And is the outcome of these laws and all of the tax money that goes into enforcing them to lower drug use or danger to citizens? No! Not even close!


Get meaningless drivel out of the law books and only keep what actually protects the freedoms of law abiding citizens!

Streamline law and government until the laws are fair, concise, comprehensible and free from conflict. Only allow laws that ACTUALLY protect citizens from danger in REALITY. Get hypothetical drivel that sounds good but in actuality costs tax payers a tub of money and produces no real benefit off the books!


This philosophy can be added to any area of law enforcement.

The most obvious would be gun control. The whole problem with this concept is that by registering guns, restricting ammo etc, we will be decreasing gun deaths and gun violence. Yet, if we don’t get the type of people who would use guns in a violent manner off of the street, then what good have we done? We have only restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens but have not really found a long term solution for solving gun violence. Criminals who are capable of using a gun for violence will continue to do so, but law abiding citizens will be forced to turn their guns over to the authorities. Good citizens won’t have a way to fight back against armed criminals. There really is no benefit to this type of thinking. The price of guns will skyrocket due to problems in accessing them. It will become a high-stakes game just like the “War on Drugs”. Who will pay the price? Private citizens.

Why not streamline the laws and put all of our effort into arresting and keeping dangerous criminals behind bars instead of harassing people who don’t hurt anyone? How badly do we need another speeding ticket written? How badly do we need another urine test performed by a P.O.? Urine tests create a lot of false positives and negatives anyway. We aren’t ACTUALLY proving anything by requiring them. It just costs tax payers money for no good reason. Local police write speeding tickets and occasionally arrest someone for possession or transportation of drugs. What does that do to keep us safer? Why not focus our effort on child molesters, rapists, kidnappers, arsonists etc and quit enforcing laws that don’t help the citizens in any way instead of arresting people who only plug up the court and prison systems without really making the public safer?








Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!