 | Ron Paul Gets John Birchy |
Think Ron Paul is a progressive kind of Republican just because he’s against continuing the Iraq War? Pay attention to the details. For example, there’s Ron Paul’s opposition to international organizations in a way that is reminiscent of the beliefs of John Birch Society members that United Nations black helicopters are planning to invade the United States.
Ron Paul opposes the International Criminal Court, saying, “organizations like the International Criminal Court… are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals.”
Of course, some American soldiers are war criminals, having tortured prisoners of war or engaged in deliberate massacres. Why is Ron Paul defending them?
Ron Paul joins in with the wacky right in claiming that there’s a special conspiracy to replace the United States with a new nation “called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”
Ron Paul teaches us the lesson that what progressive-for-a-Republican really means is not-progressive-at-all. In 2008, we need to elect the real thing, a genuine progressive.
(Source: American Independence and Sovereignty, RonPaul2008.com)
Contact Us
This is really disturbing.
One item, central to my plans for building peace, is for the US to become a signatory to the Rome Accord, submitting thereby to the jurisdiction of the ICC in The Hague.
However, since Afghanistan already was (and, I think, still is) a signatory, they have every right to request an investigation of US war criminals.
I hope they’ll start at the top. But if they don’t, I will.
–A²
Comment by Alan Augustson — 6/19/2007 @ 11:14 am
You skillfully managed to misunderstand Ron Paul. The principle is obviously that the US should not transfer power to foreign organizations. Power should be transfered towards the people not away from the people.
Comment by Holly — 6/19/2007 @ 11:16 am
jclifford is part of the wacky hard left socialist fruitcakes, wanting big government and world government to baby sit him or her (or it).
Ron Paul is a man of integrity and is an anomaly in modern politics- intelligent and honest; and the only other two candidates that are any good have no chance in winning the nomination- Kucinich and Graval, so true Americans have no choice other than Ron Paul.
jclifford is the type of brainwashed sheep who squeals in delight over socialist AIPAC bought Hillary and Obama…
Comment by Livewire — 6/19/2007 @ 11:22 am
Is it fruitcake of me to say that when someone commits a war crime, they should be held accountable?
Under Ron Paul’s approach, the Nazi soldiers at the concentration camps in Germany and Poland would have gotten away with their war crimes. Is that what you call integrity, Livewire?
Show me where I squeal in delight over Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Livewire. Can you? I can show you many articles where I criticize them.
It seems to me, Livewire, that you’re the sort of person who criticizes things people have written without actually having read them first.
And, Holly, does Ron Paul indulge in the right wing conspiracy theory of a plot to create a North American Union, or does he not? It’s clear as day on Ron Paul’s own web site that he does. I quote him right here in the article. Those are Ron Paul’s actual words…
… unless he’s using the same racist ghostwriters that had Ron Paul saying that African-American children should be dealt with more harshly by the criminal justice system than European-American children.
Comment by J. Clifford — 6/19/2007 @ 11:35 am
Laf, now you’re totally distorting the obvious smear attack. Gimme a break.
In any event, who’s your “progressive” choice? Hillary? More war. Obama? Bigger military/more war. Edwards? More war with a side of conscription for good measure. At least Kucinich and Gravel are against the war - but neither is generating any buzz that I’ve seen, and probably for good reason: people are finally beginning to realize that government sucks at just about everything, and cannot be trusted to do even the most mundane of tasks with any skill or efficiency.
Comment by bret — 6/19/2007 @ 11:49 am
I’m absolutely sure that Ron Paul would be fundamentally against a North American Union. I have no idea if anyone is working for such a union or not though. There is nothing particularly right-wing about being against such a union either. Especially, if you compare with the European Union, where the people who are against it come from all parts of the political spectrum.
I don’t understand the need to demonize people you disagree with (this goes for people who support Ron Paul too).
Comment by Holly — 6/19/2007 @ 12:01 pm
Government can’t be trusted? As opposed to what?!?
Big business, like Enron, WorldCom, Haliburton, etc?
Big religion, like the Catholic Church with its pedophile protection program?
No, what can’t be trusted is right wingers in control of government. Government in the right hands, and watched over by an active citizenry, is the best option we’ve got. Unlike big business and big religion, big government is open to rigorous scrutiny through and through. It’s up to us to follow up.
You can’t really say HOW I’m distorting anything, Bret, because I’m not. You’re making excuses for Ron Paul.
Does Ron Paul indulge in the right wing conspiracy theory of a plot to create a North American Union, or does he not? Do you agree with him, or do you not?
Comment by J. Clifford — 6/19/2007 @ 12:03 pm
You are right. Government, business and religion cannot in general be trusted. It is the job of the government to protect you against abuse from business and religion (of course it is primarily your own job to do this). You cannot be protected against government abuse, therefore government should be kept transparent, small and out of your life to minimize the potential abuse.
Comment by Holly — 6/19/2007 @ 12:13 pm
Big Government is open to rigorous scrutiny?
That might be the most naive thing I shall read all day. At the least, Big Business has to answer to stock holders and consumers who can vote with their wallets. Big Gubmint doesn’t let you do that.
As to your bizarre reference to the Nuremberg Trials, it was the right of the German people to try their own peoples, rather than put on a Victory Justice show trial that absolved the Red Army of the very crimes the Nazis had done. Kids today, (juvenile minds anyway) still miss the larger issues involved. It is our responsibilty to try and convict our own war criminals be it George Bush and Rummy, or Bill Clinton who lied the country into the Kosovo campaign.
Comment by C Bowen — 6/19/2007 @ 2:00 pm
When the so-called solution is worse than the problem, Paul votes no.
Comment by gumbofile — 6/19/2007 @ 5:23 pm
What’s bad about prosecuting war criminals? How is that worse than the war crimes that the prosecutions attempt to address?
It’s interesting that even Ron Paul’s defenders are not willing to deal with his kooky claims that there’s a conspiracy to replace the United States with a new nation called the North American Union.
Comment by J. Clifford — 6/19/2007 @ 5:36 pm
The war criminal argument, Jclifford, is not about real war crimes like torture and massacres. It is about trying ordinary American soldiers becasue the U.S. supports Israel. It has nothing to do with actual real war crimes. It is meant only as a political trick for disagreement with U.S. foreign policy. That’s why the U.S. wants to keep its soldiers out of the international tribunals. And I might add is only too eager to prosecute soldiers like Lynddie England domestically as tht does call attention away from covert and not so covert U.s. policy.
Comment by Iroquois — 6/19/2007 @ 11:03 pm
Is it, Iroquois? I don’t think we really know what it’s meant for. It takes a lot of supposition to call it just a “political trick” and say that’s the real motivation of U.S. foreign policy… especially when the Military Commissions Act specifically gives amnesty for American soldiers accused of war crimes in the detention facilities, such of torture.
The American government was only eager to prosecute soldiers after the press exposed the crimes. Before the exposure, there was no interest in prosecution, and other war crimes, like those in Haditha, were covered up until the press hounded the story to death.
Comment by J. Clifford — 6/19/2007 @ 11:33 pm
Yes, it is, jClifford. Read some more international stuff and you will start picking up on it. There is an international viewpoint that is very willing to use individual soldiers as a pressure point for American policies, especially towards Israel. They don’t give a shit about torture. They just want to demonize America, not to influence American policy, but to find an object for hate in order to stay in power for themselves.
Mind you, I’m not all that thrilled about our policies toward Israel, but I do believe any soldiers accused of something should actually receive justice and be tried for what they are accused of, not be a show trial to question U.S. policy. To try to use an international trial against torture as a referendum on U.S. foreign policy is a frivolous treatment of the subject of torture.
The points you made about the press involvement would be true for international tribunals as well.
Comment by Iroquois — 6/20/2007 @ 12:19 am
Iroquois, that’s your opinion. It’s not established fact. It’s also one that I don’t share. I don’t see the evidence that the Bush Administration doesn’t give a shit about torture. I see a lot of evidence that they’re quite motivated to use it.
Comment by J. Clifford — 6/20/2007 @ 6:49 am
International, international. Bush is American. The world does not care about torture, they use it themselves. They only care about broad social and political movements and keeping themselves in power, not about justice for the little people, whether their own little people or American soldiers. How would international tribunals be any advantage? They would only be used by INTERNATIONAL, not American, players to advance their own personal agendas.
Comment by Iroquois — 6/20/2007 @ 9:53 am
The North American Union -> http://www.spp.gov
nuff said
Comment by collectivistkiller — 7/29/2007 @ 4:18 pm
Mexico’s “President Fox”?
Comment by Iroquoisnotakiller...yet — 7/29/2007 @ 5:04 pm
Uh, Collectivist, that’s a WEB SITE. I can set up a web site that says “North American Union” on it, and it doesn’t mean a thing.
Also, nowhere on that site does it say “North American Union”. You and Ron Paul are making that up in your little paranoid minds.
Comment by Fruktata — 7/29/2007 @ 7:21 pm
From the web site:
“Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at http://www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.”
What, do you think we can’t read?!? You and Ron Paul are wacko paranoid conspiracy theorists. Get real.
Comment by Fruktata — 7/29/2007 @ 7:24 pm
What a conspiracy. That website still thinks Vincente Fox is the president of Mexico. Felipe Calderon took office in December. If they’re going to have any kind of self-respecting Conspiracy, they’d better get on the stick and figure out who the presidents are.
Comment by Iroquois — 7/29/2007 @ 11:06 pm