• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ron Paul would not stop the Holocaust or slavery

Help Support Ranchers.net:

cutterone

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
484
Reaction score
0
Location
Frankfort, Indiana
EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul in 2009–‘I Wouldn’t Risk American Lives’ to End the Holocaustby Jeffrey Scott Shapiro


On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.

I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.

I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”


And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”





Paul then looked at me, and I politely thanked him for his time. He smiled at me again and nodded his head, and many of his young followers were also smiling, and nodding their heads in agreement. Clearly, I was the only one in the room who was disturbed by his response.

When I first presented the story of Paul’s comments about the Holocaust to major news media outlets two years ago, they were so stunned they were afraid to publish my story, and as a result it has remained unpublished until now.

I went to great lengths afterwards to learn more about the basis for Paul’s comments. I spoke to Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Paul, in February 2010. Dondero is quoted in a Weekly Standard article today about Paul’s isolationist beliefs.

When I called Dondero again this morning, and told him I was finally going forward with the story, he told me that Paul had made similar comments to him.

“He told me numerous times it was not worth it to intervene to save the Jews in World War II,” Dondero said. “I don’t think that’s because he’s an antisemite. It’s because he’s an extreme isolationist and he’s trying to be 100% principled–he doesn’t think there’s any reason to intervene for human rights or any other reason anywhere on the planet.”

Calls to Rep. Paul’s congressional office and campaign office last week and this morning were not returned.

The Holocaust of World War II is not the only historical tragedy that Paul’s isolationism would disregard.

In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

Editors told me two years ago that they couldn’t believe Paul would respond in the same way to a question about the Holocaust, but I wasn’t surprised. Paul’s answer is actually consistent with much of what he’s been saying for years.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
as I recall history the U.S. Congress didn't declare war on Japan untill AFTER we were attacked, and didn't declare war on Germany untill AFTER Germany declared war on us. It had nothing to do with the holocost or defending the jews. it was for OUR national defense. So how can you fault Ron Paul for his Constitutionally correct answer?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
while I don't disagree that slavery could have been ended peacefully, Paul is not the only one who would make the decision.. as he often does..
In 2007, the Congressman actually faulted Abraham Lincoln for using military force to end slavery in the Civil War: “He shouldn’t have gone to war… Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world and the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British Empire did; you buy the slaves and release them.”

could someone explain where in the Constitution it gives the authority for the President to buy what was considered a persons' property and release it?

and since it was within the constitution at the time, how would Paul seize private property?

does he do it with eminent domain?

how does he appropriate the taxpayer funds?

are not both the actions Paul suggests doing the responsibility of the congress?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
as I recall history the U.S. Congress didn't declare war on Japan untill AFTER we were attacked, and didn't declare war on Germany untill AFTER Germany declared war on us. It had nothing to do with the holocost or defending the jews. it was for OUR national defense. So how can you fault Ron Paul for his Constitutionally correct answer?


Paul didn't say he would abide by the congress war deceleration.. he said he wouldn't send US troops to end the Holocaust



“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

so how is Paul following the Constitution by taking it upon himself to make a decision that is not his to make?



it is a disturbing answer.. but the fact is it was not a Constitutionally correct answer to either situation..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
as I recall history the U.S. Congress didn't declare war on Japan untill AFTER we were attacked, and didn't declare war on Germany untill AFTER Germany declared war on us. It had nothing to do with the holocost or defending the jews. it was for OUR national defense. So how can you fault Ron Paul for his Constitutionally correct answer?


Paul didn't say he would abide by the congress war deceleration.. he said he wouldn't send US troops to end the Holocaust



“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

so how is Paul following the Constitution by taking it upon himself to make a decision that is not his to make?



it is a disturbing answer.. but the fact is it was not a Constitutionally correct answer to either situation..

I thought that was the point Steve- Ron Paul wasn't taking it upon himself to make a decision that wasn't his to make. it was/is Congress's decision to declare war and they didn't do it untill after we were attacked and had war declared on us. and it was for National defense. So why is that a disturbing answer for Ron Paul to say he wouldn't singlehandedly make that decision? Yes he missed a good teaching opportunity to explain our Constitution to this fellow, but maybe he did and this fellow just didn't report that part either?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
So why is that a disturbing answer for Ron Paul to say he wouldn't singlehandedly make that decision?

it isn't that he would not make a decision, he in fact states a decision, that he would not send troops.

Paul is clear on his decision.. that he would single-handily not send troops..



No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

he has decided what he wouldn't do.. a decision..

and a decision that is not his to make. so how would he be following the Constitution by deciding not to send troops? when it isn't his authority to decide to it is also not his authority to decide not to..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

no matter how you try to re-word it, Paul's words and decisions on the issue were clear..

he used the words I wouldn't three times.. not once did he defer to congress..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

and it still doesn't answer the question.. if congress authorized the war.. would Paul comply, or refuse?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

Every time I see this "follow our Constitution" argument put out by a radical politician or a Tea Partyier--- it makes me ask one question....

What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Oldtimer said:
Every time I see this "follow our Constitution" argument put out by a radical politician or a Tea Partyier--- it makes me ask one question....

What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:

our founders knew and understood the problems with common law and precedence.. so they wisely gave US a Constitutional Republic.


Precedence has been wrong in the past.. and once it veers off from the intent of the Constitution it can be used to further warp the guiding law.

our law books are filled with examples of bad and overturned precedence..

There is no case that represents this saying better than Buck v. Bell. This now infamous case dealt with a Virginia eugenics laws in which the Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision upheld that states could forcibly sterilized "feeble minded" people from "polluting" the gene pool.

sometimes even the "educated" get it wrong as well..
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
600
Reaction score
0
Location
SD
Be carefull lonecowboy.You may get lumped in with those crazy constitution supporters.
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

Every time I see this "follow our Constitution" argument put out by a radical politician or a Tea Partyier--- it makes me ask one question....

What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:


You may need to start with a more basic question, what does radical mean?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
okfarmer said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

Every time I see this "follow our Constitution" argument put out by a radical politician or a Tea Partyier--- it makes me ask one question....

What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:


You may need to start with a more basic question, what does radical mean?

good point- doesn't it seem a little bit "radical" to find a new power(obamacare- individual mandate to buy a product) in our Constitution after 230+ years of scrutiny? Was this power there all along and was just overlooked, or are some "radicals" trying to "interpret" in more powers for themselves?
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
I'm not sure why you want to start a word war- yes he has made a decision- a decision to follow his oath of office and support, protect and defend our Constitution and NOT singlehandedly send troops off to invede a foreign country that has not attacked us and that congress has not declared war upon.--- this is just quibling about verbage not the principle.

Ron Paul is following our Constitution by deciding to not singlehandedly make a decision that is not authorized for the president to make under our Constitution! there did I word it right for you this time?

Every time I see this "follow our Constitution" argument put out by a radical politician or a Tea Partyier--- it makes me ask one question....

What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:


Your arguments are the perfect example of why the consitution was written the way it was. How often do you get on here and try to tell everyone how much you know about the legal system because you were an elected official? You missed the most basic principal of our legal system. The pre-amble starts out "We the People".

Just because you are a simpleton does not mean the rest of us are. Most of us made it through grade school, where they begin teaching fundamentals of our government. We understand that it is our Constitution and our government. We the People run it. It does not run us. I am sure you could find a nice elementary teacher there in Montana that would be happy to explain the basics to you.

So yes, it is the duty of folks (we the people) to question and resist those who are uneducated (like you) in the Constitution and in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions. They (the folks) are responsible to make sure that the unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience (like you) do not decide that they (the unsilled, uneducated and inexperienced such as yourself) think they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than the folks who elected/appoint state and Federal Judges and those who decide on the appointees of the SCOTUS for the past 230+ years.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
8,645
Reaction score
0
Location
The good ole USA
Oldtimer said:
What makes these folks questioning this- most who are uneducated in the hundreds of years of precedence used for making Constitutional decisions, unskilled or inexperienced in any/much legal or courtroom experience--- decide that they can better interpret the meaning of the laws and Constitution than our elected/appointed state and Federal Judges and SCOTUS of the past 230+ years has :???:

What an elitist attitude. With your assumption the everday person can never challenge authority because he hasn't walked in their shoes.(unless you are a leftwingernut)

With ot's claim then he could never challenge Bush's actions
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
So what makes one Constitutional scholar right and the other Constitutional scholar wrong?

If their decisions fit your beliefs you say they are right in their interpretation of the Constitution- but if they go anti to your beliefs you immediately say they are wrong in their interpretation...

I do agree that much of the interpretation of the Constitution is shaped by the majority of the country- as they are the ones in position to elect legislators and appoint courts that more follow their beliefs... As the technology, knowledge, and thinking of the country changes-- the interpretation of the Constitution changes also- for good or for bad depending on which side you come from which is based on your philosophy...

But a person who does not interpret the Constitution the same as you (generic "you")- can still be a loyal supporter of the Constitution- and not have the same values and beliefs as you (generic "you") just because of a difference in life experiences and education/knowledge direction....
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Confusion is achieved when propaganda injects two opposing thoughts at the same time.

How our minds are conditioned and controlled: If a person believes a “fact” long enough, he or she cannot ponder or contemplate information or a question that challenges the fact. The mind simply cannot process information that conflicts with previously accepted data. Prior conditioning is difficult to challenge.

The same is true if we believe a lie long enough. We cannot ponder or contemplate information that challenges the lie, even if the lie is lethal.

Psychologists call this quirk of human nature cognitive dissonance. It means the rejection of information not in harmony with previous beliefs. Even when pointed out to people, they refuse to see it.

Confusion is achieved when propaganda injects two opposing thoughts at the same time. The elites use it to great advantage.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
Sotomayer claimed during her questioning that she thought D.C. vs. Heller was "Settled Law", yet turned right around and voted the opposite way in the Chicago case.

When you have SCOTUS Judges as wishy washy and dishonest as this, no one will ever be satisfied as to who is a scholar of the "Constitution".

Judges that use the method of making a decision based on what the Founding Fathers were thinking when writing the Constitution should always prevail over those who believe in the "Living" document theory. Ones own "Lifes Experiences" should never come to play.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
So what makes one Constitutional scholar right and the other Constitutional scholar wrong?

the scholar who tries to make the constitution fit his perception/agenda is often wrong,

The scholar who tries to make his perception/agenda fit the Constitution is often correct.
 

Latest posts

Top