Here is the latest video

You have never heard a politician talk like this in America

Stll Dreaming

WHY DOES THE ESTABLISHMENT HATE RON PAUL?     By Pastor Chuck Baldwin January 8, 2008 NewsWithViews.com What is it about Ron Paul that the Establishment finds so disturbing? This is a man who perhaps personifies Christian character and integrity, American patriotism, and family values more than any other public figure. Ron Paul is a committed family man whose marriage to Carol has lasted for more than 50 years. He is a lover of families and children. As an OB/GYN physician, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies into this world. His life demonstrates a commitment to life and marriage. Furthermore, Ron Paul's devotion to Christ is very personal and deep. Unlike many politicians (especially in the Republican Party), Ron Paul does not wear his religion on his sleeve. He doesn't need to. Anyone who knows him knows his faith is exhibited on a daily basis. His life and family are testaments to his Christian faith. Beyond that, Ron Paul's record in Congress is so unblemished, so honest, so full of integrity that it is difficult to describe. This is a man who actually takes his oath to the Constitution (an oath every congressman, senator, and President also takes--but then ignores) seriously. So much so that he has never voted to raise taxes, never voted for an unbalanced budget, never voted for a congressional pay raise, never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, and never voted to increase the power of the executive branch of the federal government. In addition, Ron Paul has never taken a government-paid junket. Even though he is a 10-term congressman, he is not accepting a government pension. He also returns a portion of his office budget every year to the taxpayers. No wonder Ron Paul was declared to be the "Taxpayer's Best Friend." Now, how in the name of common sense can a man such as Ron Paul be hated? Maybe it is because he is a man of integrity and honesty. Remember, our Lord said that men who love darkness hate the light. And if there is a word that describes the Establishment in America today, it is DARKNESS. Name it: the establishment Democrat and Republican Parties, the establishment media, the establishment financial institutions, and even the establishment churches all seem to be run by people who exude the power of darkness. It should not surprise us, therefore, when a man arises who personifies the light of integrity and honesty, that the powers that be should hate him--and hate Ron Paul they do. Conservative Republican Ron Paul is loathed as much by members of his own party as he is by liberal Democrats . Even though he is the epitome of a Christian gentleman, Ron Paul is despised by Christians and pastors as much as he is by pagans--maybe more. The media despises him--especially Fox News. The so-called conservative Fox News celebrity Sean Hannity practically goes ballistic at the mere mention of Dr. Paul's name. Ron Paul has been categorized with the Ku Klux Klan, brothel owners, and Skin Heads. He has been called practically every name in the book. Conservatives and liberals alike rail against Dr. Paul in a manner never seen before in modern politics. Again, why does the Establishment hate him so much? I'll tell you why. The Establishment hates Ron Paul because his honesty and integrity expose the rest of them for the moral reprobates they are. Their own conscience cannot bear the sight of him. His very presence condemns them. Their personal greed and ambition cringe at the very thought of Ron Paul. If Dr. Paul became President, the Gig would be up! It would be Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday at Tombstone all over again. They know it, and they will fight like mad to keep their corrupt stranglehold on American politics.  Another reason the Establishment hates Ron Paul is because he is a true American--and there are not very many true Americans left in Washington, D.C., these days. You see, Ron Paul has read and studied American history. He understands constitutional government. He knows what real money is--and is not. As historian and author Thomas DiLorenzo said, Ron Paul is a modern-day Thomas Jefferson. (See his column here ) Unfortunately, most of what we have in Washington, D.C., these days (in both parties) is a bunch of internationalists who cannot see past their own selfish interests. They are consumed with greed and power. They are slaves to Big Business and special interest groups. They are petty, shallow hirelings who care nothing for constitutional government, the principles of liberty, or the American people. To them, Ron Paul represents everything they hate: limited government, freedom, selflessness, humility, and integrity. Furthermore, Ron Paul is not interested in creating a world empire. Neither is he a warmonger. He would squash the burgeoning New World Order in its tracks--and the globalists ensconced in Washington and New York City know it. There is only one Presidential candidate who would bring a modern-day revolution to Washington, D.C., and it is not Barack Obama or Mike Huckabee. It is Ron Paul. Obama and Huckabee--along with the rest of the Democrat and Republican contenders--are only more of the same. The same Nanny State, the same unconstitutional laws and regulations, the same advances toward global government, the same attacks against individual liberties, the same arrogance, the same hypocrisy, the same social programs, the same back-breaking taxes, the same jack-booted federal police tactics, the same IRS, the same lobbyists, and the same corrupt Washington politics. That the Establishment would hate Ron Paul should not surprise us. It does not even surprise me that many pastors and Christians despise Ron Paul. (After all, many of them still worship at the altar of George W. Bush.) What is yet to be seen is, How will the American people receive him? His strong showing in Iowa surprised most of the "experts." I believe he will do even better in New Hampshire today. How Dr. Paul's campaign fares in future primaries is still to be seen. Should Ron Paul fail in his bid to become the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, I believe it is critically important that he continue his bid as a Third Party candidate. His campaign is more than a campaign--it is a movement. People by the thousands and money by the millions is pouring in, and it will continue to pour in all the way to the general election. It is essential that Ron Paul stays in the race all the way to November. Remember, when Abraham Lincoln won in 1860, there were four strong Presidential candidates, and Lincoln won with just 39% of the popular vote. With New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg seriously considering an independent bid for the White House, and if Ron Paul, likewise, runs as a Third Party candidate, 2008 could see another race with four strong Presidential contenders. In such a case, anything is possible--including a Ron Paul victory. The fact is, Ron Paul does not need the support of the Establishment to win. With God's help--and with the help of millions of fed-up and tireless average Joes--anything is possible. Anything. Here is another thing: the fact that the Establishment hates Ron Paul so much must mean that there is ample reason for ordinary people like you and me to love him! *If you enjoyed this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, please send your check or Money Order to: Chuck Baldwin Live P.O. Box 37070 Pensacola, Florida 32526 © 2008 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.  Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, "Chuck Baldwin Live" This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.   To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state. E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

HUCKABEE BROKE, ROMNEY BORROWS, GIULIANI DUCKS TERRORIST TIES       By: Devvy December 13, 2007 © 2007 - NewsWithViews.com "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." George Washington, letter to James Madison, March 2, 1788 Something is very strange about the GOP presidential race. Mike Huckabee, kissed and blessed by the treasonous Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is in Iowa begging with a new slogan: Tanks for Huck. According to reports, Brother Huckabee has a skimpy $650,000 in the till and needs gas money to campaign. Flip Romney, on the other hand as reported on December 11, 2007, has loaned his campaign some $17 MILLION dollars from his own personal stash of bling. That's not to say Romney hasn't raised other funds, because he has and most likely will continue to do so. Recently, war monger and staunch supporter of illegal aliens, John McCain, was in the process of borrowing $3 million dollars to prop up his monotonous bid for the Oval Office. Of course, since McCain is part and parcel to the U.S. Congress writing hot checks and sacking the people's purse, what's a little more debt to him? Cross-dressing, serial adulterer, pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-war, Rudy Julie Annie, has taken in a considerable chunk of cash and is still considered by polls the front runner. His big money and support is coming from liberal Republicans and big business. Rudy Julie Annie has filled his pockets by playing 911 hero; a trashy and untrue concoction. But, his cozy relationships with certain countries and business dealings are beginning to stink up his carefully crafted image. This column is long, but you will find it is accurate and this one could sink the 911 caped crusader. But what about the "maverick," "obscure," congressman from Texas, Ron Paul? Ron Paul not only broke the record for one day donations in the fourth quarter, $4.2 million in one day last month, it appears he will raise more than any other "Republican" candidate before the quarter ends. As I write this, donations to his campaign for this quarter are now at $11,380,325.69; watch the screen, it changes by the minute. His web site gets more hits than anyone hands down. This candidate continues to dominate in all these GOP straw polls over the so-called "top tier" candidates. Why, even people around the world want this man elected! The National Review just anointed Flip Romney. I watched one of their mouthpieces on FAUX (FOX) yesterday explain to the devoid of all brain wave activity anchor, John Gibson, one of the reasons. Willard represents their warped definition of conservative and that he will "hold together the national security hawks." That's right: Endless wars for the bankers. It is no secret Ron Paul has been blacked out by the corrupted "mainstream" media with FAUX (FOX) News leading the way. The amount of air time given to anything about Ron Paul's run for the White House by other than the Internet is unlike anything I've ever seen in my adult life. What all network channels have done to this decent man has really been shameful to their profession. These pitiful moderators at the debates have shown anyone with the ability to see, a cut and slash job each and every time, deliberately cutting Ron Paul off and squashing his rseponse time down to mere minutes for the entire debate. Is it any wonder Americans call it the "lame stream" media and have no respect for the whole stinkin' bunch of them? Every day on the FOX News web site for political articles, they list the "top tier" candidates, Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson and some days, McCain. Day before yesterday, they finally listed Ron Paul at the bottom of the heap from poll numbers. Almost every poll number coverage one sees on any network channel omits Ron Paul, which begs some questions: What other candidate has this kind of grassroots support, raising this kind of money - The blimp will fly! If Huckabee is so well loved, why is no one donating to his campaign? People know these candidates need money to run an effective campaign. I guess Brother Huck's supporters will pray on it! If Romney is so popular, why does he have to reach into his deep pockets and loan his own campaign $17 MILLION bux? Where are the donations from the little people? How is it John McCain shows higher in polls than Ron Paul, but no one will support him with the cash a candidate needs? If Fred Thompson is so popular as to be right up there with Rudy Julie Annie and Huckabee, why is it Ron Paul beats him in straw polls 32-15? Remember: These are Republican voters. How can Ron Paul continue to win all these straw polls by Republican voters, yet polls show no one would vote for him? How is it Ron Paul continues to raise so much money if no one except the "fringe" element out there supports him? Why does Ron Paul's web site and his campaign show such popularity and numbers? "Paul, 71, enjoys about 160,000 mentions on Digg.com, more than the next four most popular candidates combined. Alexa.com's statistics show Paul's Web site with a narrow lead over all the Democratic candidates and a sizable one over his fellow Republicans. Similarly, a report by Hitwise puts Paul's Web site ahead of other GOP candidates in terms of popularity. "The libertarian-minded Republican enjoys a hefty lead in two unscientific online polls: 56.3 percent in one hosted by the conservative group FreedomWorks.com, and 56 percent in a poll created by GOPstrawpolls.com, with undeclared candidate Fred Thompson coming in second at 18.7 percent. Paul is Technorati's most searched-for term, in front of stalwart contenders such as "iPhone" and "Paris Hilton," and recently reclaimed the spot after briefly falling behind a Puerto Rican singer with the undeniable advantage of having a sex tape on the loose. He's a close second to Barack Obama (and far outpaces Hillary Clinton) on Eventful.com's list of in-demand politicians, and, as The New York Times notes, is the most "friended" Republican on MySpace.com." How about those all important "meet-ups" that define grassroots politics? Click here and scroll down for a map of the number per candidate. It's a real eye opener and the numbers grow by the day. These meet up groups are the foot soldiers of the candidates. A picture is worth a thousand words. One thing Congressman Paul won't be lacking is media attacks on him, eventually dragging out the no longer tried and true, "anti-semitic." That one isn't washing anymore, especially when it applies to a man of such principled beliefs and convictions, the way he has led his life and his statesman legacy in Congress. Americans are tired of these labels tossed around for "scorched earth politics" which don't benefit we the people, only the money brokers behind the scenes. How is it this fringe candidate won this one: National Presidential Caucus Announces Results From First-Ever National Caucus Barack Obama Wins Democrat Caucuses; Ron Paul Dominates Both GOP And "Open" Caucuses -- "Washington, DC (December 12, 2007) -- On December 7, 2007 in cities and small towns across the country, Democrat, Republican and "Open" Caucus groups formed independently online and Caucused face-to-face on National Caucus Day. The first-ever National Presidential Caucus is now history and the results are in. "Barack Obama wins over Democrat voters generating 40% of Democrat Caucus voter preferences. Obama was followed by a three-way tie for second, with John Edwards, Bill Richardson and "Undecided" each generating 20% of Democratic Caucus preferences. "On the Republican side, Ron Paul obliterated the field for the GOP generating the preference of 50% of GOP Caucuses. Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson follow, generating 33.3% and 16.6% of Republican Caucus preferences, respectively. Among votes in Open Caucuses, Ron Paul wins with 62.5% of Open Caucus votes, followed by Barack Obama (18.75%), Fred Thompson (12.5%), and Hilary Clinton (6.25%). "Results were tallied from 19 independently formed Caucus groups (Republican, Democrat, and Open) that met on Friday, December 7th, 2007 in Dallas, TX (2D); Sarcoxie, MO (O); Boise, ID (R); Needham, MA (D); Carthage, MO (O); Manhattan, KS (D & R); Pineville, MO (O); Richmond, MO (O); Costa Mesa, CA (O); Springfield MO (R); Winston-Salem, NC (O); Overland Park, KS (R); New York City, NY (O); and Joplin, MO (R), Warrensburg, MO (R), Roselle Park, NK (D), and Philadelphia, PA (O). "Issue results reflected opposition to Iraq involvement, foreign intervention in general, and health care, immigration and erosion of civil liberties rounding out the top concerns of all caucusers." If Dr. Paul is such a "fringe" candidate, a "maverick" candidate that no one is interested in, how come he continues to lead in all these areas? Are all Ron Paul supporters, you know, doctors, lawyers, scientists, bank tellers, farmers, ranchers, homemakers, fire fighters, school teachers, brick layers, nurses, - Americans from all walks of life - "fringe element" voters? How about one American, Lawrence Lepard, who put up $100,000 bux in cold, hard cash to buy a full page ad for Congressman Ron Paul, which appeared November 21, 2007, in USA TODAY? (A fabulous ad; check your library for back issues of that paper.) Is he also a fringe element, "disenfranchised" voter? Why are Democrats, independents and voters of other parties rushing to change their voter registrations so they can vote for Congressman Paul in the primaries - which is not happening for any Democrat candidate? Are they all part of this fringe element of voters who don't understand the issues? Are they all "dangerous" as gab fest CNN News network anchor, Glen Beck honks on his show? The polls say no one wants Congressman Paul. If one goes to this web site, Ron Paul isn't even mentioned. How many voters were contacted for these polls? Well, the first one, CNN, says 1,002, described as 'likely' would 'support' a candidate. You have to scroll way, way down on the ABC/Washington Post poll to find 1,136 polled. Close to 100 MILLION Americans vote in the presidential elections, yet we're to believe that a 'random' sampling of a little over 1,000 voters from who knows where represents the choices of a nation the size of America? Do these companies who make big mullah with this polling really believe people like me care how the people in Iowa or New Hampshire vote? Their vote is theirs and mine is mine. Despite the putrid attempt by what passes itself off as fair and balanced or a free press, the Ron Paul run for the White House is making history and it is being done, not by special interest groups, but by we the people. Would it fair to say that Dr. Paul is truly the people's candidate? While he might not be the high gloss, buffed up peacock staying in five star hotels paid for by campaign donations, his message is resonating because he talks to the people with respect and knowledge of the issues. Those who research his life and terms in Congress know he is not for sale. In the end, your vote is yours and yours alone. I hope you will make it for America first. If you would like a comprehensive look at the candidates, you might visit my column here. I will be updating it monthly with new items for the candidates remaining in the race. With everyone's busy lives trying to put food on the table and deal with life's issues, it's easy to miss a great deal. If you would like to discuss this and other issues, I will be hosting Larry Becraft's radio show again this Saturday, December 15th while he's in trial. I hope you will call in and discuss these issues with me. Click here for instructions on how to tune in. I love to take callers because that's what talk radio is all about! Larry's time slot is 9:00 am - 10:00 am CST. The toll free number to call in: 1.800.313.9443. Important links: 1 - 4 minute Land of the Free video - excellent 2 - CNN polls show people want Ron Paul to lead Revolution - Short 1:20 video 3 - Race for the White House Financial breakdowns 4 - Stop spreading the big lie: America is not a democracy © 2007 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved

Open Letter to Mormons Regarding Ron Paul by Robert Higgins by Robert Higgins To my fellow Latter-day Saint brothers and sisters, this letter is a pleading with each of you to consider supporting Congressman Ron Paul in his candidacy for President of these united States of America. Congressman Paul is THE only candidate, from either of the two major political parties, that has shown he understands the proper role of government and that he understands and adheres to the principles written in our Constitution. All the other Republican and Democratic candidates reveal themselves as lusting for power, to be in various stages of corruption, using weasel words with coached speeches and phrases intended to deceive a dumbed-down American public. This deception is facilitated by a mainstream press that has become dominated by a corporate establishment that has a globalist agenda. This agenda requires reduced national sovereignty. All these other candidates approve of this agenda. The only things that stand between this agenda and it's ultimate goal of centralized global governance are; a militarily strong America a financially solvent America an economically strong America an independent America and .. the Constitution of the United States of America Congressman Ron Paul's candidacy is a direct threat to this agenda for he alone, among these "establishment candidates," supports all five of the above. Most importantly, his voting record as a Texas Congressman, his speeches as displayed on his website, and his responses during the primary "debates," reveal him to be candid, honest, wise and uncorrupted by the temptations of power that swirl about Washington D.C. He understands the founding principles of this nation and has the integrity to support and defend the Constitution. Specifically, we Latter-day Saints have been called upon to support and defend our Constitution and this nation, both of which have unique roles to play. President Ezra Taft Benson counseled the LDS faithful as to their "civic responsibilities" in July 1972's Ensign, writing; "We honor our founding fathers of this republic .. God raised up these patriotic partners to perform their mission, and he called them "wise men." (See D&C 101:80.)" "The First Presidency acknowledge that wisdom when they gave us the guideline a few years ago of supporting political candidates 'who are truly dedicated to the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers.' (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)" "Our wise founders seemed to understand, better than most of us, our own scripture, which states that 'it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority . . .they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.' (D&C 121:39.)" "To help prevent this, the founders knew that our elected leaders should be bound by certain fixed principles. Said Thomas Jefferson: 'In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'" "These wise founders, our patriotic partners, seemed to appreciate more than most of us the blessings of the boundaries that the Lord set within the Constitution, for he said, 'And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.' (D&C 98:7.)" "President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., put it well when he said: 'God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall not run to individuals ... our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens ... of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up ... This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this 'land of liberty' from other countries.' (Improvement Era, July, 1940, p. 444.)" "The warning of President Joseph Fielding Smith is most timely: 'Now I tell you it is time the people of the United States were waking up with the understanding that if they don't save the Constitution from the dangers that threaten it, we will have a change of government.' Conference Report, April, 1950, p. 159.)" "Another guideline given by the First Presidency was 'to support good and conscientious candidates, of either party, who are aware of the great dangers' facing the free world. (Deseret News, November 2, 1964.)" "President Clark warned us that 'we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we in this church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known...' (CR, April, 1944, p. 116.)" "The Lord holds us accountable if we are not wise and are deceived." We LDS have received much counsel regarding our responsibilities toward government, almost too many to list in this letter, however, I add a few more: "Next to being one in worshipping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." (Statements on Communism and the Constitution of the United States. Deseret Book Co., 1966 p. 6) "We must choose righteous men, good men to fill these positions ." . (Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses. Vol. 25, p. 251) .".. the fundamental principle of the gospel, free agency..this principle is (1) essential to man's salvation; and (2) may become a measuring rod by which the actions of men, of organizations of nations may be judged." (Gospel Ideals, pp. 299-300) President David O. McKay ." We therefore commend and encourage every person and every group who is sincerely seeking to study Constitutional principles and awaken a sleeping and apathetic people to the alarming conditions that are rapidly advancing about us." (Improvement Era, June 1966, p. 477) President McKay "No greater immediate responsibility rests upon members of the Church, upon all citizens of this Republic and of neighboring Republics, than to protect the freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution of the United States." President David O. McKay If we sit idly by, unmoved by the special knowledge which has been given, we are told our state will be awful. Latter-day Saints have been directed to give heed to the Lord's commandments concerning the laws of the land. We have been told to support that law of the land which is constitutional and not tamper with it: "Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land: and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."(D&C 98:6-7) "Wherefore honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:9-10) ....... unless the people of America forsake the sins and the errors, political and otherwise, of which they are now guilty and return to the practice of the great fundamental principles of Christianity, and of Constitutional government... politically we shall lose our liberty and free institutions. Heber J. Grant Now, at the risk of offending, I submit to you that candidate Mitt Romney , even though he is LDS, is very much unacceptable. Please, compare his voting record, his speeches and positions to those of Congressman Ron Paul's and remember this: "We live in an age of deceit. .. Even within the Church we have been warned that 'the ravening wolves are amongst us, from our own membership, and they, more than any others, are clothed in sheep's clothing, because they wear the habiliments of the priesthood.' (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR, April, 1949, p. 163.)" November 29, 2007 Robert Higgins [send him mail] has been a frequent Republican delegate, whose writings have appeared in The New American magazine, through KSL-TV editorials and in many local Utah newspapers. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

An Open Letter to the Catholic Community in Behalf of Ron Paul In the tradition of Walter Block’s Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul and Laurence Vance’s Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul, I’d like to say a few words to my fellow Catholics. Never in my life have I felt as strongly about a presidential candidate – or about any politician, for that matter – as I do about Dr. Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas. I’ve gone from being someone so disgusted with politics that I can’t bear to read about it to being a political junkie, avidly following the activities and successes of this great man. As an American historian, I am not aware of any congressman in American history whose voting record is so stellar, and so consistently in accord with the Constitution. Beyond that, Ron Paul is not a panderer. He’ll speak to an interest group and tell them to their faces that he has opposed and will continue to oppose funding their pet projects. Lobbyists know they’re wasting their money if they try to wine and dine him. He recently spoke before the national convention of an organization aimed at protecting the interests of a particular ethnic group, and began by saying: "Somebody asked me whether I had a special speech for your group, and I said, no, it’s the same speech I give everywhere." Already by 1981, Ron Paul had earned the highest rating ever given by the National Taxpayers Union, received the highest rating from the Council for a Competitive Economy, and won the Liberty Award from the American Economic Council for being "America’s outstanding defender of economic and personal freedom." Dr. Paul, who entered Congress in 1976 and returned to his medical practice in 1984, picked up where he left off when he returned to Congress in the 1996 election. I do not expect to see his like again. He is also a good and decent man, who really is what he appears to be when you hear him speak. As a physician at an inner-city hospital, Ron Paul provided medical care to anyone who needed it, regardless of ability to pay. He never accepted money from Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to provide free care instead. That’s what people in a free society are supposed to do: be responsible for themselves, and then lend their assistance to those who are vulnerable and alone. Ron Paul is a candidate who doesn’t insult his listeners’ intelligence, who answers the questions he is asked, and who doesn’t simply say whatever his audience wants to hear. And unlike other major names in the race, Ron Paul doesn’t have to run away from his record, which reveals an unswerving commitment to peace, freedom, and prosperity that is second to none in all of American history. Although I would have supported Ron Paul back before I converted to Catholicism, I think Catholics will like what they see when they examine his record. Over at Defend Life, Ron Paul comes out decisively on top in a study of the candidates’ positions on the issues according to the guidelines recently established by the United States bishops. (If anything, I think this study understates Paul’s compatibility with Catholic teaching.) On education and home schooling, Ron Paul is the clear winner. Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Duncan Hunter all voted for the execrable No Child Left Behind Act, and Governors Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have both come out in favor of it. Ron Paul – as did the Republican Party itself not so long ago – opposes any federal role in education, which is the responsibility of parents and local communities. In other words, Ron Paul believes in a little something called subsidiarity, which happens to be a central principle of Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity holds that all social functions should be carried out by the most local unit possible, as opposed to the dehumanizing alternative whereby distant bureaucratic structures are routinely and unthinkingly entrusted with more and more responsibilities for human well-being. On home schooling, Ron Paul has proposed legislation giving tax credits worth thousands of dollars to reimburse the educational expenses of home-schooling parents, as well as those of parents who send their children to other kinds of schools. What presidential candidate speaks like this? Parental control of child rearing, especially education, is one of the bulwarks of liberty. No nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family. By moving to restore the primacy of parents to education, the Family Education Freedom Act will not only improve America’s education, it will restore a parent’s right to choose how best to educate one’s own child, a fundamental freedom that has been eroded by the increase in federal education expenditures and the corresponding decrease in the ability of parents to provide for their children’s education out of their own pockets. When it comes to abortion, Ron Paul – an obstetrician/gynecologist who has delivered over 4,000 babies – has been a consistent opponent of Roe v. Wade, which he rightly considers unconstitutional. But he has no interest in the failed strategy of the past 35 years whereby we sit and wait for a remedy in the form of good Supreme Court justices. His HR 300 would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion, as per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That would overturn Roe by a simple congressional majority. Then we could see who is sincere on the issue, and who is just exploiting it for votes. Few in either party really want to see the abortion status quo overturned, since it means they can’t scare their supporters into sending them as much money anymore. Upon the Pope’s death in 2005, Ron Paul paid tribute to John Paul’s consistent defense of life. On another occasion, he offered an additional tribute, of the sort few politicians would utter: To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly. Speaking of John Paul II, it is important to remember that that pope was a strong opponent of the U.S. government’s attack on Iraq, sending his personal representative, Cardinal Pio Laghi, to Washington shortly before the commencement of hostilities in order to insist to the president that such a war would be unjust. The Pope’s first comments after the war broke out were these: "When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society." Before his election as Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked if a U.S. government attack on Iraq would be just. "Certainly not," came the reply. He predicted that "the damage would be greater than the values one wishes to save." After the war ended, Ratzinger said: "It was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction…. It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he elsewhere observed. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war.’" Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in this obviously avoidable war, a war that was based on falsehoods that we would have laughed at if they’d been uttered by Leonid Brezhnev. But since they came from the White House we cheer as for a football team, and duck the appalling material and moral consequences. A country that (by regional standards) once had an excellent health care system, opportunities for women, liberal gun and alcohol laws, and – yes – lots of immigrants, was turned into a disease-ridden basket case, filled with dead, wounded, and malnourished children, for no good reason. That’s just wrong, and it isn’t "liberal" to say so. Likewise, Ratzinger/Benedict is not a "liberal" for opposing the war. He is a moral conservative, but a man whose conservatism is more mature than the sloganeering jingoism of so much of what passes for conservatism in today’s America. Ron Paul is an equally sober and serious statesman, and for that reason was one of very few Republicans with the courage and the foresight to oppose this economic and moral fiasco from the very start. It is especially satisfying to learn that in the second quarter of 2007, Ron Paul received more donations from active duty and retired military personnel than any other Republican candidate. By the third quarter, he was receiving more than any other presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican. Want to support the troops? Then support Ron Paul. My main argument to you, though, is not a specifically Catholic one. It’s one that should resonate with anybody who values honesty, integrity, and decency. Ron Paul is a good man who believes in justice and the Constitution, and who cannot be bought. His ten terms in Congress have proven that again and again. And that is why the media fears him. Unlike the rest of them, Ron Paul is unowned. Now every establishment hack out there wants you to vote for one of the business-as-usual candidates. Are you really so happy with the establishment that its endorsement or cajoling means anything to you? If anything, it should make us all the more interested in Ron Paul – the one candidate the establishment fears, since they know their game is up if he should win. Far from being in the unhappy position of a candidate whose children won’t even speak to him, Ron Paul is fortunate to have family members all over the campaign trail on his behalf. He has been married to the same woman for 50 years, and has been blessed with five children and eighteen grandchildren. There are some family values. Just think: for once, you don’t have to choose the lesser among evils. You can finally vote for someone. You can not only be happy, but actually honored, to cast your vote for Ron Paul. But don’t just vote for him. Find out about him, and get out there and spread the word. November 21, 2007 Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [view his website; send him mail] is the author of How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. He won first prize in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards for The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, and his book The Church Confronts Modernity was published in paperback this year by Columbia University Press. An editor of The Latin Mass magazine for eleven years, Woods has appeared in Inside the Vatican, Catholic World Report, Catholic Historical Review, Catholic Social Science Review, New Oxford Review, Crisis, This Rock, and the Journal of Markets & Morality. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com Thomas Woods Archives

An Open Letter to the Protestant Community in Behalf of Ron Paul Member of Congress and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is the premier advocate for political and religious liberty in politics today. He is the most pro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-Constitution politician in history. If it is possible to be more Jeffersonian than Jefferson, then Ron Paul is the man. On issues that are dear to the vast majority of Protestant Christians, Ron Paul stands head and shoulders above the other candidates. Consider just a few. The Issues Abortion: Ron Paul is a physician who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He not only opposes federal funding of embryonic stem cell research and partial-birth abortion, he is against abortion itself. As he himself has said: In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control." Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn. Religion: Ron Paul has issued a statement of his personal faith that should satisfy Protestant Christians of any persuasion: I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator. The reason we do not find very many references to religion in his writings and speeches is because, unlike President Bush, Dr. Paul does not cloak his political proposals with religious rhetoric in hopes of beguiling Christians. Family values: Ron Paul lives his family values. Unlike Christian "leaders" like prophecy guru Hal Lindsey, who is on his fourth wife, and adulterous Republican politicians like the thrice-married Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years, and has five children and seventeen grandchildren. He also opposes same-sex marriage, and has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage. Gun control: Ron Paul is the gun owners’ best friend. Not only has he consistently opposed the expansion of federal gun control laws, he has introduced in Congress the Second Amendment Protection Act to repeal unconstitutional federal laws that allow bureaucrats to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. Dr. Paul opposes waiting periods, instant background checks, and government databases of gun owners. Illegal immigration: Ron Paul is opposed to "open borders." He believes that the U.S. government should fight terrorism by first securing its own borders. Because he believes that true citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States, he favors an end to birthright citizenship. And because he believes that it insults legal immigrants, he does not favor amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. But Dr. Paul is not anti-immigrant in any sense of the word. He believes that the immigration problem fundamentally is a welfare state problem. He joins the vast majority of Americans who welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. He opposes welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants that alienate taxpayers and breed suspicion of immigrants. Dr. Paul also believes that all federal government business should be conducted in English. American Sovereignty: Ron Paul is against any form of a world government or a new world order. Because he believes that the United Nations is a corrupt organization that was designed to undermine sovereignty and representative government, he has introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Dr. Paul likewise opposes the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SSP), the NAFTA Super Highway, and any form of a North American Union. He believes that these plans are the result of an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and government officials. Rather than resulting from the demands of the free market, they are an extension of government-managed trade schemes that benefit politically-connected interests. Dr. Paul also opposes foreign aid since it is generally nothing more than U.S. taxpayer dollars given away to corrupt foreign governments. The Questions So what gives? Why aren’t Protestant Christians lining up in droves behind Ron Paul? It turns out that because Ron Paul opposes constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning, some Protestants have been led to believe that he is not a real Republican. Some Christians think it inconsistent that Dr. Paul can oppose abortion but also oppose a constitutional amendment banning abortion, oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and oppose flag burning but also oppose a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning. Because Ron Paul ran for president in 1988 as a libertarian and opposes the war on drugs, foreign aid to Israel, and the war in Iraq, other Protestants have come to the conclusion that he is not a genuine conservative. They assert: Ron Paul is a libertarian so he must be a libertine, or at least an advocate of alternative lifestyles. Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs so he must support drug use. Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel so he must be either pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic. Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war so he must not support the troops. These are false assertions. The Answers But if anyone is a real Republican and a genuine conservative it is Ron Paul. He has been elected to Congress ten times as a Republican. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on the conservative New American magazine’s "Freedom Index." Unlike many in Congress who call themselves Republicans or conservatives, Ron Paul actually believes in strictly following the Constitution. Representative Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution – even if it means courageously casting the lone "no" vote. He has consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation. He has actively promoted the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. He is recognized as the leading spokesman in Washington for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency. He has also received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom. It is because Ron Paul adheres to the Constitution that he opposes the Patriot Act, domestic surveillance programs, warrantless searches, restrictions on freedom of speech, national ID cards, federal information databases, and what he calls the Homeland Security monstrosity. His congressional website lists "The Ron Paul Freedom Principles": Rights belong to individuals, not groups. Property should be owned by people, not government. All voluntary associations should be permissible – economic and social. The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud. Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges. The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s. Ron Paul believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because abortion is simply not a constitutional issue. He doesn’t think there is any serious argument based on the text of the Constitution that there exists a federal "right to abortion." He maintains that the federalization of abortion law is not based on constitutional principles, but on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Since the federal government has no authority to involve itself in the abortion issue, a federal law banning abortion in the states would be just as wrong as Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul believes that marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. He does not think social problems can be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Taken to its logical conclusion, the turning of regulation of domestic family relations over to the federal government means that presumably anything can be federalized. Because the federal government has only been granted limited, enumerated powers by the Constitution, Dr. Paul maintains that it has no role whatsoever regarding marriage law. Although the states should enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, they too should otherwise stay out of the marriage business. It should also be pointed out that Representative Paul was a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, which would have removed challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act (PL 104-99) was passed to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same-sex marriage, even if the said marriage occurred in another state. Although Dr. Paul was not in Congress at the time the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, he has stated that he would have voted for it. Like all patriotic Americans, Ron Paul despises flag burning. He believes that the offensive conduct of a few does not justify making an exception to the First Amendment protections of political speech that the majority considers to be offensive. Because he believes that freedom of speech and freedom of expression depend on property, Dr. Paul considers making flag burning a federal crime to be an attack on private property. However, he does support overriding the Supreme Court case that overturned State laws prohibiting flag burning. Ron Paul is against constitutional amendments banning abortion, same-sex marriage, and flag burning precisely because he is following the Constitution he swore allegiance to. Another reason he opposes these amendments is because he is an advocate of that forgotten constitutional principle of federalism. He considers the division of power between the federal government and the states to be one of the virtues of the American political system. To alter this balance would endanger self-government and individual liberty. Dr. Paul is in favor of letting state legislatures decide social policy because federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision-making. Following the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, he favors all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remaining with state legislatures. Although some Protestant Christians think that because Ron Paul holds to many libertarian ideals that he is also a libertine, nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of libertarianism is that it is wrong to threaten or initiate violence against a person or his property. Force is justified only in self-defense. Libertarianism, as explained by Murray Rothbard, the twentieth century’s greatest proponent of it, is a political philosophy that holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. Libertinism is a way of life that might be considered hedonistic or sympathetic to "alternative lifestyles." A libertine might be a libertarian, a liberal, a conservative, a socialist, a progressive, or an anarchist. He might be a member of the Libertarian Party, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, some lesser-known third party, or no political party. One does not have to be a Christian to oppose libertinism, as Walter Block has superbly shown. Conservative Republicans are not immune from libertine behavior, as we can see from the recent scandals in Congress. Other Christians falsely believe that since Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs that he supports drug use. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows firsthand the harmful effects of mind-altering narcotics. He believes that drug addiction is a social problem, not a crime. He has pointed out that for the first 140 years of our country’s history we had no federal drug war yet far fewer problems with drug addiction and crime. Dr. Paul opposes the drug war because it encourages violence, has led to the unnecessary prison overpopulation, has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money, has been used as an excuse to attack our civil liberties and personal privacy, has been an excuse to undermine our financial privacy, has promoted illegal searches and seizures resulting in innocent people losing their lives and property, criminalizes the actions of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing pain relief drugs, threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain, and corrupts our police, the military, border guards and the judicial system. Some Protestants who consider themselves evangelicals have wrongly concluded that since Ron Paul opposes giving foreign aid to Israel he is pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic. Congressman Paul is opposed to giving foreign aid to Israel for the simple reason that he opposes giving foreign aid to any country. Foreign aid is, after all, money that has been taken from American taxpayers – money that most of them would not voluntarily send overseas if they had a choice. Any individual American who desires to assist someone in another country is perfectly free to do so. Dr. Paul’s perspective is that of the Founding Fathers: America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. He believes that our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife, conflict, and violence. Both sides have more military weapons as a result of our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid. Some of our foreign aid even winds up in the hands of terrorists. For more on Ron Paul and the question of foreign aid to Israel, see Walter Block’s "An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul." Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war precisely because he supports the troops. He is a patriot in every sense of the word. He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance. And unlike many in the Bush administration who avoided military service, he served as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. Because Dr. Paul loves this country and all of its people, he is opposed to endangering the life of U.S. soldiers in unnecessary foreign wars that only enrich federal contractors. He is therefore pro-life in an absolute sense. He believes that the best way we can support the troops is to bring them home, not just from Iraq, but from all of the countries in which the United States has troops stationed. Then Americans can proudly serve in the military knowing that they are engaged in real national defense. It is conservative Republicans who support pre-emptive war, bloated defense and intelligence budgets, secret military tribunals, torture of "enemy combatants," extraordinary renditions, an increasingly militarized society, the violation of basic civil liberties, undue government secrecy, and domestic spying programs who are neither real nor genuine. Answer Protestant Christians who love liberty, respect the Constitution, and believe in the freedom to live their live and practice their religion without the heavy hand of government hanging over their heads should be drawn to Ron Paul like a magnet. As a Baptist myself, I realize that some Baptists don’t consider themselves Protestants. In this article I am using the term Protestant in its broadest sense. Therefore, this open letter is addressed to them as well. But religion or no religion, if your creed is liberty, then Ron Paul is the man. November 14, 2007 Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest publication is War, Foreign Policy, and the Church. Visit his website. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com Laurence M. Vance Archives

An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul Ron Paul favors the elimination of foreign aid to Israel. Many Jews, even those who favor free enterprise, individual rights and peace, thus oppose the most libertarian candidate ever to run for the Republican nomination for president. This enmity goes so far as to account for his being barred from the Republican Jewish Coalition’s candidates' forum. This is no doubt that this action was taken out of fear that if Congressman Paul’s policies are put into effect, they will be harmful to Israel. At first blush, this seems reasonable enough. The U.S. gives lots of money to the Israeli government for use by its military, and if this were totally eliminated, it is not unwarranted to think that this country would thereby be weakened. However, I contend that there are several good and sufficient reasons to doubt this popular belief. Consider the following. I. Relative statistics Dr. Paul by no means would single out the single country of Israel for an elimination of foreign aid. Much to the contrary, his is a thorough-going plan that would end this pernicious program for all countries. Indeed, each and every nation on the face of the earth that had been receiving U.S. tax dollars would be told that their ride on this particular gravy train had ended. Would this hurt Israel? Of course, at least in dollar terms (see below for the argument that foreign aid actually hurts the economies of the recipient countries). But, it would also harm every other recipient as well (I am still positing, arguendo, that foreign "aid" benefits recipient countries). In order to determine whether or not Israel would be better off or not, one must make a relativistic judgment. That is, will Israel lose more or less than its enemies? The facts for a recent year appear below. Here are the top 16 recipients of U.S. foreign aid for 2005: 1. Israel 2.58 Billion 2. Egypt 1.84 Billion 3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion 4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion 5. Colombia 0.57 Billion 6. Sudan 0.50 Billion 7. Jordan 0.48 Billion 8. Uganda 0.25 Billion 9. Kenya 0.24 Billion 10. Ethiopia 0.19 Billion 11. South Africa 0.19 Billion 12. Peru 0.19 Billion 13. Indonesia 0.18 Billion 14. Bolivia 0.18 Billion 15. Nigeria 0.18 Billion 16. Zambia 0.18 Billion Israel, as can be expected, is right at the top of this list. It would lose $2.58 Billion, under President Paul’s administration (I have to confess that I really like the sound of that phrase. I think I’ll repeat it: President Paul’s administration. Perhaps this sounds even better: President Ron Paul’s administration. Or maybe this: The Administration of President Ron Paul? Okay, okay, back to business, now.) However, let us add up the amounts received by only these few countries, all of them mainly populated by either Muslims and/or Arabs: 2. Egypt 1.84 Billion 3. Afghanistan 0.98 Billion 4. Pakistan 0.70 Billion 6. Sudan 0.50 Billion 7. Jordan 0.48 Billion If we do so, we arrive at the figure of $4.5 Billion. So, yes, Israel will lose $2.58 Billion, but its enemies, both actual and potential, are out of pocket a far larger $4.5 Billion. If we sum up the amounts received by all countries which harbor anti-Semites, we reach a much higher figure. If we define this broadly enough, this might well include just about every other nation on earth. No matter what statistics we consider, Israel is relatively strengthened by the Ron Paul policy on foreign aid. It loses, but its actual and potential enemies lose more. Thus, it becomes relatively stronger. Note, also, that these figures do not include the vast amounts currently spent by the U.S. on and in Iraq and Palestine, certainly no friends of Israel. II. Private giving There is nothing, nothing at all, in Ron Paul’s program that would even in the slightest interfere with private foreign charitable giving. In other words, Jews in the U.S., and non-Jewish American supporters of Israel, would be just as free as at present, to donate to this country. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that these private gifts to Israel would increase, not decrease. For one thing, with the slight (foreign aid comprises only in the neighborhood of 1% of GDP) reduction in taxes this would imply (in a Ron Paul administration, such savings would be funneled into lower taxation, not into other programs; did I mention that I really like the sound of that phrase, a Ron Paul administration?) more disposable income for all. Since Jews are in higher income brackets than the average person, and we presently suffer under a progressive income tax (which, by the way, would also be ended by President Paul) the largest donors to Israel would have even more income at their disposal. Then, too, this community might be so upset at this action of President Paul (I really like the way that phrase rolls off the tongue; ah, the sheer alliteration!), unwisely so, but still, so that they would donate additional monies. III. Foreign aid weakens the economy If we learn anything from Peter Bauer, it is that government-to-government transfers of income do not constitute foreign "aid." Very much to the contrary, they typically amount to foreign detriment. Much of the money goes to the three Ms: monuments, Mercedes and machine guns. The first need not be in the form of a statue of the leader: it could also take the form of a mill that produces steel at a multiple of the price available on world markets. The second includes not only automobiles, but also, invariably, engorged Swiss bank accounts. And the third is usually utilized by third-world dictators to keep the citizenry in thrall. Then, too, while foreign "aid" is a small part of the donor’s economy, it accounts for a large percentage of that of the recipients’. Instead of the best and brightest of their young people aiming at careers that can help economic development (doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs), they engage in training that will help them divert some of the boodle to themselves, and their relatives and friends (civil servants, lawyers, bureaucrats). In Israel, the main negative implication of U.S. largesse has been promotion of socialism. Had our country not been financially supporting a heavily unionized and socialized economy in Israel, these policies would likely have never been as large as they were, and would have diminished much sooner. There are strong empirical illustrations attesting to the correlation between size of government and economic regulations, on the one hand, and attenuation of the economy on the other (Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975–1995, Vancouver, B.C. Canada: the Fraser Institute. For a non-empirical treatment of this phenomenon, see Smith, Adam. [1776] 1979. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund). That is, without U.S. "aid" to Israel, the economy of the latter would have been stronger. But a richer country is usually a safer country. One of the effects of Dr. Paul’s policy, then, would be the strengthening of the Israeli economy. IV. The U.S. handcuffs Israeli policy Because of its monetary transfers to Israel, the U.S. is in a position to dictate policy to its client state. Sometimes, perhaps, maybe, this is in the best interests of the nation of Israel. At least, it does not constitute a logical contradiction to entertain such a notion. But there are numerous cases where the U.S. has obviously handcuffed the Israelis, not to the benefit of the latter, at least as the Israelis saw their own best interest. Perhaps the most famous example of this phenomenon is when Eisenhower forced the British, French and Israelis to pull back from their invasion of Suez in 1956. According to one historian: "President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt." Forget about the rights and wrongs of the matter; they do not concern us. My point is that it is extremely difficult to interpret this little episode as being in the best interests of the security of the state of Israel, at least insofar as the leaders of that country saw their own best interests in this regard. A more recent case in point took place when Condoleezza Rice forced the Israelis to postpone the bombing of a possible nuclear facility in Syria. This was done in the context when the Israelis certainly saw quick action as being in their national interest. According to a news report: "A mysterious Israeli military strike on a suspected nuclear site in Syria last month was opposed by Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, because she feared it would destabilise the region, according to a report this weekend. "Rice persuaded the Israelis to delay their operation…" Say what you will about these two events, which are only the tip of a very large iceberg, it cannot be denied that they constitute a serious drawback to the safety of Israel, at least in terms of how the Israelis themselves see their own best interest. Needless to say, this sort of interference would come to a complete, abrupt and utter halt under a Ron Paul presidency. V. Guarantor Forget about the money, at least for a moment. The U.S. also provides Israel with a guarantee: any country trying to overrun Israel will have to deal with the armed might of the U.S. Iran, the member of the "evil axis" du jour, had better watch out. But just how good are U.S. guarantees? As but one example you can ask the Vietnamese who supported the U.S. incursion into their country all about that. Would an Israel completely untied to the apron strings of the U.S. be able to take care of itself? There seems little doubt that not only would Israel be able to defend itself, it would be more able to do so without the U.S. continually orchestrating matters in a paternalistic manner. How about in the face of nuclear-armed Iran? An Israel able to operate on its own, without a by your leave from Uncle Sam, might be better able to prevent just such an occurrence. If not, that nation has its own nuclear weapons at its disposal. If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could endure decades of cold war, with only Mutual Assured Destruction keeping the "peace," it may well be that Israel and its Arab neighbors will have to go through the same process. At the very least, this present tossing of missiles from Gaza over to Israel would have to come to an end; it would be far too dangerous in a Middle Eastern MAD. Without the U.S. in the neighborhood, the major Muslim/Arab powers such as Iran/Egypt, Syria would never tolerate such risky acts. Having given several reasons for doubting that Ron Paul’s program would harm Israel, let us move on to a conclusion. Perhaps, if Ron wanted to help Israel vis-à-vis its enemies, it would end government to government transfers of income to that country, and double or triple it to every other nation, particularly to its most vociferous enemies. With the poison of foreign "aid" applied to its enemies, but not to Israel, the latter might become even the more strengthened relative to them. This is an interesting speculation. But this is not part of Ron Paul’s program. For one thing, there is nothing in the Constitution allowing, let alone requiring, such a policy. (Ron really ought to give a free copy of this document to his Republican debating partners.) For another, it is highly incompatible with libertarian prohibitions against stealing. The action of the Republican Jewish Coalition in barring Ron Paul from their debate was thus a shonda for the goyim. A disgrace. We Jews are supposed to be the people of the book. That is, open to intellectual dialogue. How is it possible to reconcile this with a refusal to hear out one of the major Republican candidates for the presidency. I urge all Jewish Republicans and libertarians to express their dissatisfaction with this act, and to join Jews for Ron Paul. Note the narrow scope of this article. I am not engaged in any discussion of shoulds or oughts. I take no position, whatsoever, on whether Eisenhower was justified in forcing an end to the Suez crisis, nor whether Condoleezza Rice was justified in postponing the more recent Israeli bombing of (possible) Syrian nuclear installations. I am addressing myself solely to the narrow question of whether Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate all foreign aid will likely help or hurt Israel. The mainstream Jewish community fervently believes the latter. And this to such a degree that they have acted disgracefully by barring Dr. Paul from their debate. With leaders like that, the Jewish community in the U.S. hardly needs enemies. November 3, 2007 Dr. Block [send him mail] is a professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending the Undefendable. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com Walter Block Archives