Friday, March 29, AD 2024 2:27am

Yep, Ron Paul (R.Pluto) is Pretty Much of a Wackdoodle Isolationist

That Ron Paul is a conspiracy believing nutcase as the video above indicates should not be controversial.  This is the man who was the keynote speaker at the John Birch Society fiftieth anniversary dinner in 2008, an organization that has embraced such bizarre conspiracy theories as Eisenhower being a Communist and water fluoridation being a Communist plot.  Throughout his career he has given a wink and a nod to most paranoid conspiracy groups on the right.  We see this most clearly in the newsletters that came out for over a decade in his name.  Ron Paul claims now not to know what was in those newsletters which I find passing strange since he earned a million bucks on them in one year alone (1993).  However, Ron Paul the crank and coddler of cranks is not the focus of this post.  This post is concerned with Ron Paul the isolationist.  That he is an isolationist, and not simply a non-interventionist as he claims,  was amply demonstrated in  a recent column by Eric Dondero who worked for Paul for 12 years:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist.  He denies this charge vociferously.  But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views.  For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII.  He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business.  When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY.  He’d finally concede that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust. 

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views.  Let me just concentrate on one in specific.  And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. 

He did not want to vote for the resolution.  He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.  He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time.  He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District.  Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign. 

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director.  Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe.  All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo.  At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I.  He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002.  Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria.  And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.”

Go here to read the rest.  Some of the responses to Mr. Dondero’s piece were priceless, betokening the anti-Semitism and lunatic conspiracy mongering which is present among many Paulbots who comment on the internet: 

“So, Dondero/Rittberg is yet another Jew talking trash about Ron paul. The international Jew bankers and Jews heads of international war profiteering corporations are really running scared this time, and digging DEEP!!!”

“AELF, the insult is inappropriate. I suggest the level of your analysis is flawed, as there are a number of careful thinkers, including at least one retired Maj. Gen. who is concerned that we do not know the truth about 9/11, or the level of involvement (or at least malign neglect) of elements in the intelligence apparatus. We had better all become 9/11 Truthers if we are to preserve what is left of our Constitutional Republic. Kudos to Ron Paul for daring to question the orthodoxy of the moment. “

“The Entire world KNOWS Israel and CIA was behind 911. The President of Italy and US Army War College Director Alan Sobrosky both state Israeli Mossad were behind the attacks, NYPD arrested 150 israeli Mossad agents caught celebrating and high fiving the First Attack! Odigo, an Israeli company, gave a 2 hour forewarning to its WTC employees. Either they were psychic, OR they were in on it. Bagel Nazis repent. There will be peace in the Middle East when Zionist Jews are in Orange jumpsuits cleaning the toilets of the Palestinians living in the Gaza Concentration Camp. USS LIBERTY-Never Forget.”

Back in the land of the sane, Mr. Dondero accurately portrays Ron Paul’s reaction to 9-11.  His legislative response was to propose a bill that authorized the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal against the terrorists so private individuals could somehow fight their way through Afghanistan and capture Bin Laden.  When Bin Laden was finally found and killed by our military Ron Paul was aghast because we did not inform Pakistan that we were going after him.  The obvious response, which I assume completely eluded Ron Paul, is that factions within the Pakistani military had been sheltering Bin Laden for years, and any notice to Pakistan would have caused a warning to have been given to Bin Laden.

The hysterically funny aspect of  Ron Paul is the alternate history realm he resolutely refuses to leave.  In his world all that goes wrong in the world is a result of US foreign involvement.  Ergo, if the US simply retreats to Fortress America the Earth will be a paradise. A typical example is the blithe indifference that Paul has to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.  If Israel and Iran go to war as a result of such a development, that is no concern of the US, as if the US and the world would not sustain devastating consequences from a nuclear war in the Middle East.  His ideological forebears in the America First movement similarly believed we could simply sit World War II out on the sidelines.  The consequences of such an isolationist foreign policy were brought home to this country dramatically 70 years ago.  If Ron Paul ever got an attempt to actually implement his unicorns and faerie dust foreign policy I suspect that we would again have another Pearl Harbor style attack with nuclear weapons.  Ron Paul, like most true ideologues, lives in a world that he has constructed in his mind, and it only bears a passing resemblance to the world the rest of us inhabit, and we see this most clearly in his extremely dangerous and naive views on foreign policy.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
104 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ivykid
ivykid
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 7:37am

How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble and the attack from Bin-Laden is crazy and unelectable but their puppet say what he thinks will get him elected guy is not. Watch this video from 1999 and remember how much hate Dr. Paul received for saying that our foreign policies let to 9/11/2001. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XguvMUUtTtI

RR
RR
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 7:38am

This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

Ron Paul is an isolationist but Eric Dondero just sounds like a disgruntled employee.

“He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq.”

That makes Ron Paul a prophet. Fact is he voted for the war in Afghanistan and if there’s one thing you can’t deny him is that he always votes his principles.

Paulites say that Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. What’s the difference? They say Paul wants to trade and “talk” with other nations. No, he doesn’t. He opposes free trade agreements. They say that FTA’s aren’t really free, they’re managed trade, which is true but they’re freer than the status quo. But Paul isn’t even for free trade. He wants the entire federal government funded by tariffs. Combined with his position on immigration which is the one area he’s at odds with libertarians, there’s not a shred of evidence that he’s anything but an isolationist.

Darwin
Darwin
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 8:49am

Ron Paul getting the nomination (which I do not think has any likelihood at all) would be the one thing that would for sure have me refuse to vote for the GOP candidate against Obama. I’d have to go third party or sit out. Ron Paul is so utterly and idiotically unsuited to be president.

RR
RR
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 9:36am

Don, Paul votes his principles on earmarks. There’s a lot to criticize Paul for but earmarks isn’t one of them.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 9:39am

How is it that a politician that predicted and gave us a way of avoiding the housing bubble

Asset bubbles can and do form in the context of a specie-based currency, as they did in equities markets in 1928 and 1929. What you cannot do with a specie-based currency is provide liquidity in response to demand. The history of the period running from the fall of 1929 to the spring of 1933 is sadly instructive as to the consequences.

This from someone who believes that there’s a worldwide conspiracy to invent climate change?

Just in case you had not noticed, there has been a conspiracy involving a small corps of faculty at the University of East Anglia, Pennsyvania State University, the Goddard Institute, the American Geophysical Union, et al. to block publication of papers which contradicted the thesis they were pushing and trash the reputations of scholars who composed such papers and editors who approved them for publication. These people have also, and in conflict with statutes and regulations governing the terms of public grant money they have received, refused to archive and distribute raw data for others to re-analyze and destroyed documents to frustrate freedom-of-information requests in the UK and the US. Alas, some of these folk held gatekeeper positions with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

RR
RR
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:08am

Don, that’s while saying it’s hypocritical for you to take the tax deduction for mortgage interest while still opposing the deduction in principle.

RR
RR
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:28am

Don, what do you think of the mortgage interest deduction and do you take it? What do you think of Social Security and Medicare and do you plan to accept it? Is it your position that if you oppose a government program, you should not accept its benefits?

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:33am

Mac,

Pacem. Wwould you not give to your children, er, constituents?

Apparently, Paul refuses to partake of the Congressional pension bonanza. I think that is true to his beliefs.

And, ’bout his inflation-risk concentrated investments: if he were one of the economic apocalypse guys, he would not own 60% gold/silver mining stocks. You can’t barter, eat, or shoot mining stocks.

Just saying.

I’m for pretender that is
Pro-God
Pro-gun
Pro-life
Pro-America
Not Obama.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:51am

If Paul wants to take the position that he opposes favors outlawing earmarks, but will nonetheless request and vote for them until they are outlawed, then this position would be at least somewhat analogous to your mortgage interest hypothetical. But by requesting them so as to appease local constituents and then voting against them so as to appease his national base, he is being at least somwhat hypocritical in my view. Given Paul’s reputation for being such a man of principle, I do have a problem with this. Most politicians embrace both the concept and the art of compromise, and live with charged of being insufficiently principled. Paul distininguishes himself as being distinctively principled, and therefore can fairly be charged with hypocrisy on the matter of earmarks.

Finally, I agree with Don that Paul’s views are eccentric for a reason — they are wrong-headed and naive. Anyone who thinks tariffs are a good way to fund the federal government is just plain nutty.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 11:05am

I want to see Congressman Paul debate Congressman Kucinich!

Paul W Primavera
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 11:17am

And the substantive difference between Paul and Kucinich is??????????????????????????

They are both nut-cases.

Eva
Eva
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 12:31pm

Don:

I totally agree I’m not going to vote for that racist Paul with his wing nut beliefs.

Instead I am going to vote for a Republican candidate who between 1966 and 1969 actively recruited people for and since held successively higher leadership positions in an organization that believed as follows:

• Blacks could not have leadership positions within the group or receive other benefits within the organization because being black was how they were cursed by God (until their supreme leader had a revelation in 1978 that God now believed Black people were OK).

• The Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

• Ancient Jews built boats and sailed to America.

• As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

• God lives on a planet called Kolob. Jesus has his own planet as well. As good members of the organization they will have their own planets one day as well.

Yes, I will be voting for Gov. Willard Mitt Romney (R, Kolob)

Darwin
Darwin
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 12:45pm

While it’s hard for me to say enough that I think Mormon religious beliefs are laughable (and I’m not a Romney fan, though it seems like the nomination is likely to end up with him because of no one else turning out to be a very credible candidate) I can’t help thinking that Romney’s religious beliefs are probably a lot less harmful to governing than Ron Paul’s political beliefs are.

However, Eva does underline that should Romney land the nomination, there will a massive amount of work put into fanning anti-Mormon feeling by the Obama campaign and it’s operatives. The “Obama might be Muslim” whispering campaign will look pretty tame by comparison.

j. christian
j. christian
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 1:08pm

If you play the Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas album backwards, it says “Ron Paul is dead.” The Zionist Illuminati Yoko Ono bankers are behind this, I tell you!

Jay Anderson
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 1:54pm

The only GOP candidate for whom I will NEVER vote is, unfortunately, the one most likely to get the nomination. I could hold my nose and vote even for Dr. Paul. But I will sit out or vote 3rd party before I vote for Romney (and his religious beliefs will play absolutely no role in my decision making in that regard).

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 2:15pm

Rasmussen Reports: Romney – 45%; Obama – 39%.

It isn’t that Romeny is loved more. It’s that Obama is loved even less.

If from his or her GOP nomination until Election Day, Romney or whomever says one word about a subject other than the horrid economy . . .

Many Americans “are unemployed or have family members, neighbors and friends who are losing their homes, their jobs and their hope for a better future while Washington lives it up on their dime. They read stories on the Internet – stories their newspapers will not print – about billions lost on ‘green energy’ boondoggles while they pay $40 to $50 dollars for a tank of gas. They are losing their houses to foreclosure after Obama promised to fix that problem. They see trillion dollar deficits while their living standards erode and are demanding to know where the money’s going.

They are that virtual mob with pitchforks that are desperate to anoint someone as their leader who will help them storm the castle and evict the ogre holed up there. Mitt Romney doesn’t look like the kind of guy who is comfortable handling a pitchfork, but if he’s the last man standing after all the others fail, he’ll be appointed to that role.” From The Virginian blog

Meanwhile, on a golf course in Hawaii . . .

C matt
C matt
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 2:48pm

Doesn’t matter. O will likely get a second term bc Romney’s Mormonism is just too odd for most voters. I will vote Paul just for the fun of it.

Dante alighieri
Admin
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 5:18pm

What’s amazing about the support for Ron Paul is that there is another candidate who espouses pretty much all the same things Paul does but who is not certifiable. I am talking about Gary Johnson. Granted he’s a little loopy, but unlike Ron Paul he has an actual record of political accomplishment in his life.

TommyAquinas
TommyAquinas
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 5:26pm

In the past, I’ve quipped that Ron Paul’s slogan should be “Protecting Freedom at Home, Forsaking It Abroad,” but after this, I’m not sure of the first part.

It’s strange that otherwise rational men like Mark Shea and John Zmirak seem to have fallen for some of his ideas (namely the ones involving American foreign involvement), though – thankfully – they haven’t embraced anti-Semitism or anything like that. (I do remember an article by Zmirak where he almost, almost comes to complete agreement with Pat Buchanan while reviewing the latter’s “Churchill’s Unneccessary War.”)

On Paul’s proposal to grant letters of marquis and reprisal, two questions come to mind:
1. Wasn’t privateering primarily a sea-based activity? If so, how could it effect al-Quaeda, the leadership of which resided in the decidedly landlocked country of Afghanistan.)
2. Does Ron Paul know why letters of marquis and reprisal were outlawed under international law – because privateers often became pirates once the war is over? If he thinks sending patriotic, government-controlled US troops abroad causes international chaos, he should see what would happen after we’ve enabled a ton of free-booting mercenaries groups with military capabilities…

RR
RR
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 6:29pm

It’ll be interesting to see whether the groundwork laid by Paul will translate into votes for Gary Johnson.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 7:18pm

Tommy, Paul’s idea of simply picking up our marbles and going home strikes a chord with people who opposed the Iraq War, and that explains Shea.

Doesn’t explain Shea.

Zmirak I do not know enough about to comment.

It can be difficult to tell at times whether or not Mr. Zmirak is being tongue-and-cheek.

We live in a time of “let’s pretend” in our society and the idea that we can simply abdicate our role in the World without dire consequences is deeply attractive

More precisely, Paul et al deny the reality of political conflict and the consequences thereof in contexts which lack a coercive and adjudicatory authority. Joseph Sobran’s writings (his turn toward anarchism) made this more explicit. Paul trafficks in the notion that conflicts abroad will always and everywhere be inconsequential to us or that we face no conflicts ourselves if we do not generate them with policy errors (which we would not if we would stop listening to fools like Henry Kissinger and Bernard Lewis and start listening to savvy and well-informed folk like Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell). The pretense that one can turn the effects of political conflict on and off with a spigot does tend to save libertarians of a sort from giving consideration to trade-offs and qualifications.

(I can’t tell you how many people have told me over the years that we could easily balance our budget if we were not giving away all of our money to the “durn foreigners”. )

You might remind them that the sum of appropriations for various components of the State Department, the Defense Department, the Agency for International Development, &c. devoted to foreign aid amounted to about $58.4 bn during the fiscal year concluding on 30 September 2010. That would amount to 0.4% of domestic product, or about 1% of all public expenditure.

In the Nineteenth Century we could get away with isolationism courtesy of broad oceans and the Royal Navy. Now, it is simple lunacy.

Now try to tell that to folks who fancy that several sentences in Washington’s Farewell Address suffices for a permanent blueprint for American foreign policy.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 7:19pm

Er, ‘tongue-in-cheek’.

Nate Wildermuth
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 9:19pm

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist only makes sense if you see American’s main role in the world as a military power. This is, unfortunately, all too common.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:11pm

I seem to recall that the America First Committee dissolved the 2d week of December in 1941, that Sen. Gerald Nye cast a vote in favor of a declaration of war, and that Charles Lindburgh volunteered for service. Sen. Vandenberg later said that the attack on Pearl Harbor pretty much discredited the foreign policy he had been promoting in Congress. An earlier generation of isolationists was less impervious to empirical data.

I gave it my best shot Art, perhaps you would care to give me a hand?

I’m already in the doghouse with Dale Price.

Mark Noonan
Mark Noonan
Thursday, December 29, AD 2011 10:43pm

People believe things such as that Bush was behind 9/11 because it is much easier to find flaws with friends who won’t harm you than to deal manfully with enemies who wish to kill you. Paul represents the fundamental selfishness of modern life – the merciless disregard of anything that does not bring pleasure to the self. Bush, flaws and all, immediately saw the threat post-9/11; so did many others…but at the end of the day, the selfishness of our society triumphed over our duty to do what is right. Obama rode it to victory in 2008…Paul hopes to do the same in 2012. That literal millions of people are suffering the cruelest of repression doesn’t even enter in to the equation for the selfish…they are out of sight, out of mind and their problems – if they must be brought up, at all – are entirely someone else’s fault (the “neocons” or the “Zionists” or what have you..as long as you are attributing the problem to something that doesn’t actually exist … there are, actually, no “neocons” … it gets you off the hook for dealing with the real perpetrators).

Paul, though, will flame out – my bet is that third place will be his showing in Iowa (and God grant us that Santorum finishes in first place!). So will Obama – I sense a swing in our nation back towards honor, back towards a willingness to just do what needs to be done. Not all of us, to be sure, but I think a majority…and a majority which will rule in 2012.

Elaine Krewer
Admin
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 5:00am

Not that I am any great fan of Romney, and I certainly don’t think he’s really the best possible candidate — but really folks, if he does turn out to be the GOP nominee, does anyone on this forum truly, honestly, believe that he would be worse than Obama?

If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Spambot3049
Spambot3049
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 5:47am

If anyone here truly would rather see Obama reelected than see Romney elected, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.

Just want to point out that if Romney is elected, we could be stuck with him for eight years, and many Republicans in the House and Senate will feel obligated to support his agenda out of loyalty to the party. If Obama is re-elected, we have only four more years of him and his agaenda faces a strong “loyal opposition” in Congress. Just sayin’.

Dante alighieri
Admin
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 7:06am

What Spambot said.

Dante alighieri
Admin
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 7:34am

Court appointments are the only reason I’d consider pulling the lever for Romney. But even on that score, how much can we trust him?

Jay Anderson
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 7:58am

Whether Romney is preferable to Obama (a debateable point as far as I’m concerned) matters little to me. I’m tired of voting for whatever RINO stiff is placed before me simply because of dire warnings that “the alternative is worse”. I won’t vote for him under any circumstances (and I will use my blog to try to convince others to do likewise), so don’t bother playing the “but Obama is worse game” with me.

And, besides, Paul Zummo’s assessment above is 100% correct.

Jay Anderson
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 9:37am

I guess Paul was agreeing with Spambot, so it’s Spambot’s assessment (as well as Paul’s) that is spot on.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 10:04am

Obama dillenda est.

Here is a metaphor for Romney. A man goes to the beach, fills his navel with glue, sticks a flag in it, and determines which way the wind’s blowing.

Either Romney or Obama is less vital than the GOP taking the Senate and adding to the House majority. That is best case scenario for us greedy bankers.

My prediction for 2012 Jay will again vote for Obama again.

Obama must go!

Call me a racist. Call me anything you want. Except don’t call me late for supper. No wait! I feed myself.

Dante alighieri
Admin
Friday, December 30, AD 2011 11:48am

I’m with Jay on this one (except that I prefer Romney to Paul). There are only so many times I can be told to vote for the guy that is simply the lesser of two evils. I did it with McCain, I’ve done it with Dole, and I have no plans to rally ’round the Romney flag, especially when there are several preferable alternatives. If Romney is the nominee, I’m just sitting this dance out.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top