Ron Paul On The Failures Of U.S. Intervention In Libya

From : The Daily Bail

Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - Aug. 29, 2011 Full transcript is below. This is outstanding.



Source - Ron Paul Mission Accomplished in Libya? Mission Accomplished in Libya?

Even as a major hurricane hit America's eastern seaboard, the administration is determined to expand the war in Libya while threatening the regime in Syria. Is there any limit to government's appetite to create more problems for our nation and economy?

Americans may be tempted to celebrate the apparent victory of US and NATO backed rebels in Libya, since it seems the Gaddafi regime is overthrown. But I believe any enthusiasm for our Libyan misadventure is premature.

The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress -- and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate. It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress.

Are we better off as a nation by ignoring and debasing our Constitution? Are we better off having spent more than a billion dollars attacking a country thousands of miles away that had not threatened us? Are we more financially sound having expanded the empire to include yet another protectorate and probable long-term military occupation? Are we more admired throughout the world for getting involved in yet another war?

Still, many will claim that getting rid of Libyan ruler Gaddafi was worth it. They will say that the ends justify the means. As the civilian toll from NATO bombs adds up in a war started under the guise of protecting a civilian population, even the initial argument for intervention is ridiculous. We should not forget that there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack. The attack was a dubbed a preventative humanitarian intervention. But as soon as NATO planes started bombing, civilians started dying.

Gaddafi may well have been a tyrant, but as such he was no worse than many others that we support and count as allies. Disturbingly, we see a pattern of relatively secular leaders in the Arab world being targeted for regime change with the resulting power vacuum being filled by much more radical elements. Iraq, post-Saddam, is certainly far closer to Iran than before the US invasion. Will Libya be any different?

We already see grisly reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents. There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness on the part of the rebels. We know that some rebel factions appear to be allied with Islamic extremists and others seem to have ties to the CIA. They also appear to have a penchant for killing each other as well as supporters of the previous regime. The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.

What is next after such a victory? With the big Western scramble to grab Libya's oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?

Neo-conservatives continue to dominate our foreign policy, regardless of the administration in power. They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the US moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the US. Already the US president has called for "regime change" in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime. Are US bombers far behind?

Ron Paul wants FEMA OUT of the disaster relief business

On Saturday, FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate gave Obama a tour of the agency’s command center for the storm. The president, who was with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and his assistant for homeland security, John Brennan, told workers that “everybody here, you guys are doing a great job.”

Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Ron Paul wants FEMA out of the disaster relief business, and claims federal disaster relief is “bad economics, bad morality, and bad constitutional law.” There is a lot of evidence to back up his claims.

FEMA's reputation for making bad situations worse is legendary, FEMA’s emergency housing program, was a massive waste of taxpayers’ money: FEMA paid out nearly a third of a billion dollars over three years for temporary housing for displaced disaster victims of the 2005 hurricane season. These housing units were also declared by FEMA to be unsuitable for housing because of formaldehyde contamination and are awaiting disposal.”

In addition to that, it took FEMA six years to figure out that it overpaid and mistakenly awarded money to victims of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma $600 million.

MSNBC reported :

“Up to 900,000 of the 2.5 million applicants who received aid under FEMA’s emergency cash assistance program-which included the $2,000 debit cards given to evacuees-were based on duplicate or invalid Social Security numbers, or false addresses and names…Thousands of additional dollars appear to have been squandered on hotel rooms for evacuees that were paid at retail rather than the contractor’s lower estimated cost. They included $438 rooms in New York City and beachfront condominiums in Panama City, Florida, at $375 a night.”

Noting these various issues, Paul hopes to pre-empt similar problems in the wake of Irene. He claims:

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960.”
There is historical evidence to support the notion that Americans were better off before the inception of programs like FEMA.

Ron paul is not the only critic of Federal response to natural disasters, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, in discussions regarding earthquake aid to his own district in Virginia following the recent earthquake, said,

“There is an appropriate federal role in incidents like this….all of us know that the federal government is busy spending money it doesn’t have.”

FEMA right now is woefully underfunded. Republicans have called on the Democratic-controlled Senate to pass an annual spending measure for the Department of Homeland Security that provides a total of $3.65 billion to FEMA’s disaster relief fund -- $1 billion in emergency funding and $2.65 billion for the 2012 fiscal year. The GOP-led House approved the bill in early June.

Again Obama throws lot of talk and promises at the problem, but has yet to take any action. Obama requested $6.79 billion for FEMA in 2012, down slightly from the 2010 budget, which was $7.1 billion. But the administration has yet to submit a supplemental budget request to cover additional emergency costs, sound familiar ?

Ron Paul thinks that the best people to deal with a problem are those in the community that are impacted by the problem, not a federal government which is so far removed from the scenario that they are incapable of understanding the needs to be met, or of meeting those needs.

In 1794, when Congress estimated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from San Domingo, James Madison stood on the House floor and declared,

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents…Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

There are much better ways to handle such things. Making people dependant on the federal government and locking them up for years of red tape and paper work for help that may not be adequate or even forthcoming is waste of money and resources. Ron Paul believes that the States and local communities could a much better job of identifying where resources are needed and allocating them more efficiently.

I agree it's worth a try. The couldn't do much worse than FEMA has done, and could save us a lot of money, as well as reduce the misery index for people who are already suffering, which should be the goal in the first place.

Thanks to : The New American and Foxnews

Atheist rants against Ron Paul [VIDEO]

I came across this video after I had been discussing the apparent blacklisting of Ron Paul by the lame-stream-media with a friend. I really thought he would get more coverage in this election considering his economic views are solid, he is honest, and has a long proven track record of consistency. Some personal qualities that have been in very short supply the last three years, okay, non-existent

My search for the answer turned up this gem, and atheist ranting about the evils of Ron Paul. I do not particularly like Paul for president, however in a match up against Obama he has my vote. His views on defense, immigration, and international politics are a little fuzzy, and too, well, "whatever dude" for my tastes and I don't think he has the gravitas to be a strong leader, maybe a Vice President ?



What was striking about this rant was the absolute intolerance that this guy has for anyone that does not share his core beliefs, which seem to be Ron Paul is the devil, but there is no devil because there is no god, so that means killing babies is okay, a fetus in not alive so get over it, I mean geeeeeez, and anyone who believes in a God is just stupid as rock, I created this world, I know the "truth" I don't need to search for it, so don't tell me anything.... cool ?

Actually I find atheists to be as silly as religious fanatics - both make a leap of faith, faith something exists and faith something doesn't. And both are convinced they know the truth. I've got no clue - physics implies both are possible - so you got me. But I tend to believe that the honest ones are the ones that are seeking truth, not ranting that they have found it.

He doesn't mention Islam, but these cowards never do.