Val Venis runs his own libertarian blog which is actually pretty good: THE FREETARIAN
YouTube video of Val Venis endorsing Ron Paul:
Posted on 11/09/2007 5:37:10 AM PST by George W. Bush
Paul: My policy benefits Israel
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says his foreign policy would benefit Israel.
Mainstream Jewish groups have shunned Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas upsetting his party's presidential field. His lonely anti-war candidacy, once thought of as a long shot, is now competitive with front-runners in fund raising.
Paul has long opposed defense and other assistance to Israel, a policy consistent with his opposition to all foreign aid. He also has said the pro-Israel lobby is too influential in Washington, another statement that is consistent with his disdain for foreign policy lobbying.
In a statement released Wednesday to JTA, the Paul campaign cast those beliefs in a pro-Israel light. It reads, in part:
"I do believe that our current policies toward Israel are doing more harm than good to those we profess to support. Our foreign military aid to Israel is actually more like corporate welfare to the U.S. military industrial complex, as Israel is forced to purchase only U.S. products with the assistance."
Paul said, "We have adopted a foreign policy that has left Israel surrounded by militaristic nations while undermining Israel’s sovereignty by demanding that its foreign and defense policies be essentially pre-approved in Washington."He adds later, "The United States should take care of its own sovereignty while at the same time respecting the sovereignty of nations like Israel. That is the best way to preserve security and prosperity for all."
As for SELLING folks like the Israelis out toyz? Oh hellz yeah! Let them handle the Islamic extremists for us...
I would have no problem with us telling the Palestinian “Authority” to take their begging bowl and head for Saudi Arabia. But considering that most of the rest of the Arab world thinks the Palis are no better than scum, I doubt they’ll get far. The racism that other Arabs feel toward the Palestinians is pretty extreme, from things that I have read. The Arabs will prop the Palis up as long as they’re useful cannon fodder against the Jews, and not one second longer. They don’t care if they live or die.
}:-)4
Hope is a wonderful thing to have. But don't hold your breath. Some of Paul's more Constitutional stances will upset a LOT of Nanny State apple carts. Therefore, he is an "enemy" even when he's right.
The political Left does the same thing, but for their pet socialist causes.
PS... I still don't like his WoT stance. It's enough of a deal breaker that I could not vote for him in a Primary.
It has always been about the destruction of Israel. I say we arm up Israel and let them try and re-establish their pre-Christian claim to pretty much everything West of the pre-1994 Treaty line of the Jordan river.
A simple but glaring truth
Abbas is as much an enemy of Israel as Hamas leadership. Call me a skeptic but I've a feeling this 468 million will only be turned into guns and bombs...and the alleged Pali "refugees" will still live in their mud huts. Meanwhile no news from the Arab world as to when they'll recompense 865,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands around the time of may 1948. Yes, it's insane, shallow, stupid and foolish.
Gee, it sounds like we got up on the cranky side of the bed this morning.
You’r no skeptic.
Lets add 20 Billion military equipment sale to Saudi Arabia. Another insane move. These weapons will one day be pointing directly at our american troops. Give it a few years.
I've been pretty clear on this, Pauls juvenile view of Islamic terror, sorry, US empire building, would lead to disasterous policies for the free world, Israel included, were he to gain office. Fortunately he's still within the margin of error of most polls.
Since this is somehow being presented as a pro-Israel I will note that one of my favorite pro-Israel radio personalities refers to him as the neonazi’s candidate. Due to his role as columnist for Willis Carto’s American Free Press and the Council of Conservative Citizens, and support from Stromfront, David Duke, et al. All of which he refuses to reject.
Since thanks to LSUfan we’re now able to read some of the good Congressman’s long “lost” newsletters, I’m going to post a comment I’ve added to a thread or two and links to his “positions” below.
I’m reminded of the damage done to America by the KKK in the late 19th and early 20th century America.
Were all Americans Kluckers, of course not. All southerners, of course not. The most generous estimates show support of maybe 10% to 15% at their peak.
How did they work their evil, with the cooperation of those willing to avert their eyes.
Public officials and just plain folk.
That’s Ron Paul and his supporters. Support from purveyors of hate, not my problem. I’m looking over here, thank you. And it’s really not my business. An embarrassment to the Republican Party.
=================
On top of the Willis Carto/American Free Press/Council of Conservative Citizens columns/Stormfront-David Duke support, this doesn’t surprise me at all, and personally I think an explanation of this and his 1992 “expose” of the fleet footed, politically foolish, largely criminal population of blacks living among us. Full newsletter article here
The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.…
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows, black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be the major problem of the 1990s.
The good news, Paul (or someone) does correct predict the rise of a terror threat in the 1990s. Of course it’s the blacks and their ideology and culture, not the rational Islamists reacting to colonialization.
The Paul excuse is that though the article is signed by Ron Paul, and printed in the $50 per year Ron Paul Political Report, those aren’t his statistics and opinions, he didn’t actually write it, and apparently never read it.
The remedy, an apology, appropriate. A refusal to identify the individual Paul trusted with his name. IMO, unacceptable for a Presidential candidate. This individual was obviously close to Paul, given the years long gap between publication and discovery may reflect Paul’s views, and may well still be close to him. And a refusal to release other copies of the publication so the public can see just what Paul was advocating over those years. And yes, the link above, the only complete article from the newsletter was posted to usenet by a well known white supremacist.
These excerpts clearly address the issue of newsletter content. From a NYT magazine interview, The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement- Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul , earlier this year,
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”
Paul’s ideological easygoingness is like a black hole that attracts the whole universe of individuals and groups who don’t recognize themselves in the politics they see on TV. To hang around with his impressively large crowd of supporters before and after the CNN debate in Manchester, N.H., in June, was to be showered with privately printed newsletters full of exclamation points and capital letters, scribbled-down U.R.L.’s for Web sites about the Free State Project, which aims to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian enclave, and copies of the cult DVD “America: Freedom to Fascism.”
It strikes me that a request to release the newsletters is perfectly reasonable, but in no way could be an attempt to paint him as an anti-Semite. Racist, I suppose you could make that charge, but why antisemite? Unless unbeknownst to the world they contained questionable antisemitic content.
All in all, an embarrassment for the Republican Party. Paul should make his newsletters public and name the author, else the charge that they were simply survivalist/white supremacist/militia garbage will stick. The GOP doesn’t need what Medved refers to as a candidate for neonazis in the race. Paul needs to clear these issues as best as he can.
===============
More Ron Paul Bull Sh*t
My unanswered questions from another thread.
Interesting letter.What is Walter Block's relationship with the Paul campaign?
Does Paul endorse the letter?
Are Block and Paul contending that Tancredo and Hunter were barred from the RJC because of their anti-Israel positions?
If so, convince me.
If not, this is just another piece of Ron Paul world class whining.
I'll add a few more in case you care to answer.
Personally, do you condemn Paul's role as an advertised columnist for the American Free Press, published by Willis Carto, neonazi/Holocaust denier of a half century standing.
Personally, do you condemn Paul's refusal to reject support from David Duke, neonazi, Holocaust denier, former former Grand Wizard of the KKK.
Personally, do you condemn Paul's acceptance of support, including financial, from Don Black, Grand Wizard of the KKK and a felon, and his organizations, Stormfront
I don’t know that Block has any relationship with the Paul campaign, I’d guess not, since most Paul supporters are unaffiliated (proudly) with the offical campaign. The difference is the RJC has specifically said that is why he was excluded, Hunter and Trancredo are being excluded cuz they are deemed not ‘top tier’ I guess.
I am sure you could find KKK members who donated to many other candidates if one looks hard enough. I don’t know enough about the Willis Carto thing, but unless there is something I am unaware of, anyone can take anyone’s column and reprint it on their site. I do it all the time on my blog.
These smears were done on Buchannon and will happen on the eventual republican nominee whoever he is.
For example, check this out:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/rep-duncan-hunter-opposes-amnesties-396796.html
I have just seen a program on CNN hosted by Wolf Blitzer. He interviewed a Republican called Duncan Hunter.
Duncan Hunter said there should be a border, and that there should be no conditions for it, such as an amnesty.
He also said there should be no amnesties, as they would attract more immigrants, who would believe that they would be able to become US citizens in future amnesties, if there were one, now.
He seemed to be a very reasonable and personable man. I think you should vote for him to be your president!
OOOHhhhhh! Stormfront supports Duncan Hunter! What if this man donated to his campaign! Oh no! Duncan Hunter must be a racist and antisemite and what not.
Of course, I am being sarcastic. Obviously Duncan Hunter is none of these things, and neither is Paul. Let Stormfront and the wackos support whom they will and let us support whom we will and leave it at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.