1 vote

Ammo to fire back at the "Paul is an isolationist who blames America" crowd

So Glenn Beck was being an asshat and decided to post a video of a drunk Ron Paul supporter on his website and joke about it on the radio:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/09/13/wasted-ron-paul-supporter/
And you look through the comments and see the same "isolationist" BS that we've all seen before. I decided to take them on and attack militarism through the fiscal angle. If you saw my article that was frontpaged on Daily Paul back in January:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article8231_Ron_Paul_2012_The_Star...
http://www.dailypaul.com/153391/ron-paul-2012-the-stars-are-...
this should look pretty familiar. But I didn't write it just so the info could sit around, I wanted ready-made sourced info that we could all use to counter the anti-Paul nonsense we were sure to hear throughout the campaign. Anyway, here's what I wrote on the Beck site:

Ah, the old "Paul is an isolationist who blames America" nonsense. This has come up again since last night's debate when Paul said 9/11 didn't happen b/c they "hate our freedoms" but was a reaction to U.S. foreign policy. By the way, Glenn Beck said the exact same thing to Bill O'Reilly back in January: http://www.therightscoop.com/beck-debates-oreilly-on-egypt/

So Paul has said we should bring home the troops - the presence of troops over in the Middle East antagonizes the people of that region and that's why they attack us. Beck, BTW, also said we should bring the troops home:
http://www.therightscoop.com/beck-get-our-troops-out-of-the-...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFsL_Ee9BqE
*******
Beck: "if we're not going to fight this war to win it, Mr. president, please, bring our troops and our family members home... I've said on this program, several times, that I find myself becoming more and more libertarian all the time. It's b/c of our politicians - I don't seem to trust very many of them anymore. I don't think many of them have given us reason to trust them. We have troops all over the world right now putting their lives on the line and their families' lives on hold, and in return they're being treated like garbage in the countries they protect. South Korea, Japan, Germany - fund your own security, we're kind of busy now and a little tired"
*******

Paul has also stated that militarism is bankrupting America. Are you aware of bin Laden's stated goal of bankrupting America? If not, here you are:
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm
********
Bin Laden: "All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahidin, bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.

All Praise is due to Allah.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah."
*******

Glenn Beck knows it. Here's what he said
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmiyKOHH7q0
"Osama bin Laden said these words, that he would do to America what he did to the former Soviet Union. What is that? Bleeding it to death, financially."

I don't know if he's flip flopping now by playing this drunken Paul fan clip or what, but let me break down the reality for you. Conservatives always rightly complain about how liberals domestic policies will bankrupt the U.S., but they live in la-la land if they think we can spend as much money as we want on military and war. America has the largest military budget since World War II, but of course we're not fighting a war anywhere close to the scale of that. What could be the harm? Well we are already $14 trillion in debt and are borrowing from the future unborn generations (taxation w/o representation) in order to pay for the current wars and bases. And much of this money is being borrowed from China, which puts us at risk. Gregory Zerzan was Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the administration of President George W. Bush. In his October 2009 article entitled "Dollar is a National Security Issue", he wrote
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/dollar-is-a-...

*******
The ability to cripple the U.S. economy by massively devaluing the dollar is the type of "asymmetric warfare" that the People's Liberation Army has discussed openly in recent years. This is not to suggest that the People's Republic wants to destroy the dollar, nor that doing so would come without cost. But such power would clearly give China tremendous leverage.
*******

So by borrowing from China to pay for our foreign bases and wars, you are actually encouraging America to puts its security in the hands of China, and they could pull the plug on us any time they wanted. Still not convinced?

Dr. Jerome Corsi reported on a 2010 Joint Operating Environment report released by the United States Joint Forces Command concerning America's debt

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=128413

*******
With regard to national-defense implications of the deteriorating U.S. economic position, the JOE 2010 worried that should China demand higher interest rates as an inducement to continuing to buy the U.S. Treasury debt needed to finance continuing trillion-dollar U.S. federal budget deficits, the U.S. could suffer a "hard landing" that could increase the perception the U.S. no longer controls its financial future.

Noting President Obama's warning that the U.S. economy will add $9 trillion debt over the next decade, the JOE 2010 warned the result could be "a decreased ability of the United States to allocate dollars to defense."
*******

Or take it from a military man. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said America's militarism is leading to bankruptcy, and the libertarians are right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKR3L4drR7o
He mentioned the Tea Party supported cuts to the military, and he's right - nothing should be off the table to put the country's fiscal house back in order. What a great article this was:
http://www.theworld.org/2011/08/defense-budget-tea-party/

“We cannot possibly think about trying to help out other countries before we have our own backyards in order. It’s not about politics or picking one cause or one country, it needs to be cut across the board,” said Chris Littleton of Cincinnati. “This isn’t a personal decision, it’s a mathematical one. This is a financial decision that has to be made.”

So here's the deal: we bring home the troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. We close down bases from around the world unless absolutely vital - let Germany, Japan, France and everyone else pay for their own security. Let's see how much their citizens complain about America's "barbaric" lack of socialized healthcare when suddenly they find themselves having to pay for their own troops. We focus our military on intelligence and defense. If something slips by and we are attacked (like 9/11), we counterattack. Ron Paul supported the authorization to use military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. We DON"T try to police the world as progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt advocated. We can't afford it anyway b/c we don't have enough money - James Delingpole agrees:
"Ron Paul is right. Military adventurism is a luxury we can no longer afford"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100103756/...
"Spreading democracy" is unaffordable and we are broke. Where would the money come from anyway? From the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto (income tax) and 5th plank of the Communist Manifesto (money printed by a central bank - in our case the Federal Reserve). You're not a Communist are you?

We follow what Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson advocated: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Remember the words of Ronald Reagan, who very rarely sent troops into the foreign countries, and when he did he got the mission over with very quickly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liIlS1Rhezk
Reagan: "Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today."

Reagan: "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he has always put them first." http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/the-tea-...

Learn more about Ron Paul and why he can win in 2012: http://www.nolanchart.com/article8231_Ron_Paul_2012_The_Star...



Trending on the Web