PoliticalAction.com Blog

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight, the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.

The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21,000 American service men and women to be deployed by November, which will increase our troop levels to 68,000. Will another 40,000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100,000 in addition to that? Why not 500,000 – just to be “safe”? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58 percent are now against it?

I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning. I have other questions. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10,000 American troops. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send, the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100,000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat, why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly, what is there to be gained from all this? We’ve invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives – for what?

The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan, but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence, leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind. War does not quell bad leaders. It creates them. And the more war we visit on this country, the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.

Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone, but the killers never face consequences. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled, what else is there to do, but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there, but we have to accept that when we push people, they will push back.

The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies. We have nothing left to win. We are only there to save face, and in the end we will not even be able to do that.

Texas Straight Talk – A Weekly Column
Rep. Ron Paul (R) – TX 14

What if tomorrow morning you woke up to headlines that yet another Chinese drone bombing on US soil killed several dozen ranchers in a rural community while they were sleeping? That a drone aircraft had come across the Canadian border in the middle of the night and carried out the latest of many attacks? What if it was claimed that many of the victims harbored anti-Chinese sentiments, but most of the dead were innocent women and children? And what if the Chinese administration, in an effort to improve its public image in the US, had approved an aid package to send funds to help with American roads and schools and promote Chinese values here?

Most Americans would not stand for it. Yet the above hypothetical events are similar to what our government is doing in Pakistan. Last week, Congress did approve an aid package for Pakistan for the stated purposes of improving our image and promoting democracy. I again made the point on the floor of the House that still no one seems to hear: What if this happened on US soil? What if innocent Americans were being killed in repeated drone attacks carried out by some foreign force who was trying to fix our problems for us? Would sending money help their image? If another nation committed this type of violence and destruction on our homeland, would we be at all interested in adopting their values?

Sadly, one thing that has entirely escaped modern American foreign policy is empathy. Without much humility or regard for human life, our foreign policy has been reduced to alternately bribing and bombing other nations, all with the stated goal of “promoting democracy”. But if a country democratically elects a leader who is not sufficiently pro-American, our government will refuse to recognize them, will impose sanctions on them, and will possibly even support covert efforts to remove them. Democracy is obviously not what we are interested in. It is more likely that our government is interested in imposing its will on other governments. This policy of endless intervention in the affairs of others is very damaging to American liberty and security.

If we were really interested in democracy, peace, prosperity and safety, we would pursue more free trade with other countries. Free and abundant trade is much more conducive to peace because it is generally bad business to kill your customers. When one’s livelihood is on the line, and the business agreements are mutually beneficial, it is in everyone’s best interests to maintain cooperative and friendly relations and not kill each other. But instead, to force other countries to bend to our will, we impose trade barriers and sanctions. If our government really wanted to promote freedom, Americans would be free to travel and trade with whoever they wished. And, if we would simply look at our own policies around the world through the eyes of others, we would understand how these actions make us more targeted and therefore less safe from terrorism. The only answer is get back to free trade with all and entangling alliances with none. It is our bombs and sanctions and condescending aid packages that isolate us.

Dear UFPJ Supporter,

In the next 24 hours, Congress is set to authorize
$550 billion in FY 2010 defense spending — and with it,
an additional $130 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This, on top of the $75 billion Congress approved for
continuing the wars and occupations last week. Not to
mention the fact that 6 million jobs have been lost and
our communities continue to face stiffening budget cuts.
To put it plainly, our nation’s priorities are out of whack.

The sole bright spot in this is the McGovern amendment.
House Representatives Jim McGovern (MA), Walter Jones (NC),
and Chellie Pingree (ME) have introduced an amendment to
the 2010 military authorization bill, requiring the Pentagon
to provide an ‘exit strategy’ to Congress by the end of this
year.

That’s why we need you to call your Representatives TODAY
and TOMORROW and urge them to vote for the McGovern
amendment. You can call the Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Supporting the McGovern amendment and forcing the
Defense Secretary to submit an ‘exit strategy’ will allow
us to insert our voices into the debate and push for a
complete and immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Before we can do that with success, though, we need
to ensure that the debate happens at all – and this
amendment is a step towards doing that.

So make sure to call your Member of Congress and urge
them to support the McGovern amendment. Call the
Congressional Switchboard at 202-224-3121. Tell them
we need to end the wars and occupations and redirect
spending to our urgent domestic needs!

Thanks,

United For Peace and Justice

John Shanahan is a licensed practicing engineer, member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and co-founder of Inland Empire 9/11 Truth. The following is an open letter to the city of Pomona, CA regarding the case of Mohammed Abdullah.

June 11, 2009

City of Pomona, City Manager’s Office
Linda Lowry, City Manager
City of Pomona
505 South Garey Avenue
Pomona, CA 91766

Subject: An Open Letter
Restraining Order filed against Mohammed Abdullah by City Attorney’s Office, Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

Dear Linda Lowry,

As a result of various emails that I have received in the past week, I have been made aware of the subject case. I understand that this case will be heard in Pomona Superior Court at 8AM tomorrow.

I have viewed various videos of Mr. Abdullah that are available on the internet. I have never met Mr. Abdullah and most importantly, never discussed with him any issues which I believe to be important before writing a letter such as this one. In one of these videos, Mr. Abdullah describes himself as an African-American; it has never been clear to me whether Mr. Abdullah is trying to set himself apart from people like myself. It is very clear to me, however, that at this time in our young country’s existence, we need more people who will think of themselves as Americans and not hyphenated-Americans. At another point in the video, Mr. Abdullah discusses how he changed his name to a Muslim name (after he converted to the Muslim religion) and abandoned his “slave” name. The interviewer does not follow up with the obvious question that if he had a “slave” name, was he actually a slave? If so, on what plantation did he perform his slave services? I have been told by various people who have expertise and knowledge of various religions that it is written in one of the core Muslim documents (Koran?) that this “religion of peace” actually calls for the death of non-believers of the Muslim faith. I have no idea how Mr. Abdullah justifies his membership in this religion. I believe that it is important to add that I have met a number of Muslims (several of them are my engineering clients) and I have never felt my life to be in danger when I am in their presence. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that most Muslims are probably decent people, who, like many Christians, believe in certain fundamentals of their professed religion and ignore other precepts.

I have expressed the above reservations only because Mr. Abdullah publicly discussed them in his videos. The purpose of this letter, however, is to strongly support the positive activities in which Mr. Abdullah has been engaged on the streets of Pomona in his commendable attempts to overcome the most insidious vice of most Americans of any religion – IGNORANCE!

Just so that you understand the main point of my letter to you, Linda Lowry, I am convinced that we are all in the process of losing our country; the country that your parents gave to you and the country that my parents gave to me. Many people with blinders over their eyes simply don’t want to admit the written evidence on the website of the Council on Foreign Relations that relates how George Bush, Vicente Fox (President of Mexico) and Steve Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) met several times between March and May of 2005 to set up what is called the North American Union. This is a melding of the 3 countries in which the internal boundaries will be de-emphasized and the external borders of all 3 countries combined would be treated as sacrosanct. The 15 page document is called, “Building a North American Community”. They scheduled completion by 2010.

I have read through various portions of the temporary restraining order issued to Mr. Abdullah. The portions of this restraining order were made public in one of the emails that I received from a fellow 9-11 truther. It is my understanding that the wording of the restraining order was prepared by the City Attorney’s office for the City of Pomona. The City Attorney’s office was probably directed to do so by the police department, under the leadership of the Acting Police Chief, David Keetle. According to the City of Pomona website, the City Attorney is Arnold M. Alvarez.

The quotation below is supposedly from the restraining order and I have found it to be extremely offensive on a number of levels:

“During the last several months defendant has lectures (sic) passersby over the wrongful acts of the U.S. government and the war in Iraq.”

Does Mr. Alvarez actually contend that there is some moral justification for the war in Iraq? If so, what is it? I will not within this letter attempt to spend several pages reviewing all of the lies used by George Bush in order to justify the March, 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Is Mr. Alvarez so naive and ignorant as to NOT believe that rape and torture are part of any war? Has Mr. Alvarez never heard of the Rape of Nanking? Is Mr. Alvarez completely unaware of the torture of various German Nazi officers during the International Military Tribunal after WW2 so as to obtain testimony that would buttress the story of the Jewish Holocaust?

Mr. Alvarez has used the term irrational behavior to describe the actions of Mr. Abdullah. Does Mr. Alvarez have access to a dictionary? Does he not know the definition of the word “irrational”? The actions and statements made by Mr. Abdullah, on the surface, appear to be very rational and logical. Mr. Abdullah has determined by his own reasoning, investigation and thought processes that there is no valid reason for the war in Iraq. After coming to that conclusion (correctly, in my opinion), Mr. Abdullah has taken positive high-profile steps to make this information as public as possible to as many as possible of the generally, dumbed-down sheeple who pass by his soapbox in the City of Pomona. How could anyone possibly apply the word irrational to these actions?

Mr. Alvarez has also used the word “offensive” to describe Mr. Abdullah’s speech. What is the matter with the City Attorney for the City of Pomona?! Doesn’t Mr. Alvarez know that the first freedom, freedom of speech, as given in the First Amendment (total of 5 freedoms) of the Constitution was enacted to protect that very type of speech. The most offensive type of speech (without being obscene) occurs when people in government (generally powerful people) are being criticized. There is no need to protect nice speech or complimentary speech or backslapping speech or other accolades. I don’t know exactly what Mr. Alvarez’s knowledge is of the Constitution, but judging from the wording he used in this restraining order, it might need improvement. An excellent website can be obtained (many resources) by performing a browser search on the “Institute on the Constitution” (Mike Peroutka, former Presidential contender in 2004). If Mr. Alvarez really still thinks that certain speech is unlawful that offends people because it criticizes the government , he should become familiar with the Federalist Papers and just as importantly, the Anti-Federalist Papers. I am having a difficult time believing that an attorney representing a large city as Pomona could show so much ignorance of the background to the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Since we are discussing offensive speech that is critical of the government especially as it relates to government policy in promoting unjustified foreign wars, I would like Mr. Alvarez and everyone reading this letter to consider the Vietnam War. It has been more than 30 years since the fall of Saigon and various books have been written and LBJ’s phone tapes have become public, but I still don’t believe that most people in this country will admit that over 58,000 of my American contemporaries as well as several million Vietnamese and Cambodians all died for a LIE! Before Mr. Alvarez sends the Pomona police to Rancho Cucamonga to issue a “letter-writing restraining order” to me, Linda, please ask Mr. Alvarez to consider reading a book. The book was written in 1984 by James Stockdale. James Stockdale was a US Navy fighter pilot who was assigned to the Gulf of Tonkin. The book is entitled “In Love and War”. Part of Stockdale’s mission included flying over a portion of the Gulf on August 2 and August 4, 1964 in response to requests from 2 US warships, USS Turner Joy and USS Maddox. On August 2 he engaged the fleeing North Korean torpedo boats who had attacked the US ships because of an earlier provocation of the US Navy (admitted by LBJ in his tapes released in 2000). On August 4 he responded to another emergency call from the 2 destroyers and spent about an hour flying low over the area watching the destroyers fire at an enemy that was NOT there. Mr. Stockdale spent the first chapter of the aforementioned book detailing the above incidents. The audio tapes of LBJ released in 2000 (for his library) clearly indicate that, as a minimum, it was the US Navy ships that were conducting “aggressive” operations at that time and LBJ acknowledged on the tapes, with a chuckle, that this undoubtedly resulted in the attack on August 2. Most people in this country who were alive and functioning on August 5, 1964 continue to wallow in their ignorance and believe LBJ’s national speech on that date when he exclaimed “We’ve been attacked!”.

I could go on in my attempt to provide offensive speech for the benefit of the Pomona police department and Mr. Alvarez by destroying other canards involving the “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, the “surprise” invasion by the North Koreans of South Korea in 1950, a false flag plan known as Operation Northwoods that involved the destruction of commercial airliners with passengers, blowing up US ships, covert attacks on Trinidad-Tobago with much loss of American lives all in an attempt to blame Castro and justify military action to remove him from power, the direct involvement of the FBI in a sting operation that resulted in the 1993 explosion of the World Trade Center WTC1 tower, the internal bombs inside the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that caused the damage to the building and loss of life all of which were blamed on Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols in 1995 as well as the original Persian Gulf War in 1991 in which Saddam Hussein was suckered into attacking Kuwait so that our government would have reason to engage in military activities in the Middle East.

It would good if Acting Police Chief David Keetle were much more aware and knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution. I have checked with various government sources within the State of California (San Bernardino Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County Sheriff) and it is provable that all police officers and government officials in California take an oath of office that requires them to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America”. The problem that I have found is that most police officers and deputy sheriffs are not aware of the oath that they have sworn when they became part of the law enforcement community. If they are not knowledgeable of the U.S. Constitution and the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights), how can they possibly have the correct opinion of law enforcement on simple issues as freedom of speech which is the subject of this letter? How could they possibly understand that when they participate in DUI checkpoints and/or cite drivers solely for seat belt violations, they are actually engaging in the destruction of the 4th amendment to the US Constitution? If a police officer thinks that his main job is simply the enforcement of laws as dictated to him by others, what will his reaction be when the federal government declares martial law? As I have asked various police officers when I have been stopped for minor traffic violations in the past 5 years, which way will their guns be pointed when the big event comes? On an optimistic note, will the local police point their guns at the tyrants of the federal government in order to “protect and defend” the civilian population against the imposition of the one world government?

Acting Police Chief David Keetle should be aware that over the past 8-10 years especially, we have come closer and closer to losing our country to the globalists who are promulgating the one world government. It is extremely important for the sovereignty of our country that our local sheriffs and police start doing some investigation of their own and start paying attention to what is happening on a daily basis. One good way for Chief Keetle’s police to start doing this would be to visit the website, www.oath-keepers.blogspot.com. This is a growing website of people involved with law enforcement and military. They have taken a 10 statement oath:

(1) We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people. (2) We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. (3) We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. (4) We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. (5) We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. (6) We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. (7) We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. (8) We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on US soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control”. (9) We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. (10) We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

It is quite well known that it is the Pomona mayor and the city council that ultimately directs the police department and the city attorney’s office takes its orders from both of these groups.

I am asking and hoping that the mayor and the city council will review the content of this letter and consider changing its policy regarding basic freedoms within Pomona to be more in line with the US Constitution. The idea that people like Mohammed Abdullah would be prosecuted instead of being thanked for their patriotic efforts involving the exposing of the militaristic, empire-building, slaughtering-of-human-life activities in foreign countries being conducted by our government shows exactly how upside-down things are within Pomona and probably most other cities.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

John F. Shanahan
9581 Business Center Drive, Suite J
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
email: jfshanahan@earthlink.net
Member: Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, www.ae911truth.org
Co-founder: Inland Empire for 9-11 Truth, www.911truthie.com

Distribution by city manager’s office to the following:
Elliott Rothman-Mayor
Danielle Soto-District 1
Freddie Rodriguez-District 2
Cristina Carrizosa-District 3
Paula Lantz-District 4
Tim Saunders-District 5
Stephen Atchley-District 6
Acting Police Chief David Keetle
City Attorney-Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman

Pomona Police Vs U.S. Marine Vet 9/11 Truther, … Friday June 26th 2009 9AM
LibertyFight.com Mohammed Abdullah had a court hearing on 6-12-09 to respond to allegations levied by the Pomona City Attorney in their attempt to file a restraining order on behalf of the Pomona Police dept. The complaint claims that some city employees and Police Dept. employees became afraid of Abdullah, who had been standing outside the department with signs and dvds contending that 9/11 was an “inside job”, as well as protesting the rape and torture of Iraqi Muslims by U.S. soldiers. The city had failed to provide
copies of the complaints despite numerous requests, so on 6-12-09 Abdullah had asked for a continuance. During the hearing the judge stated that “there are constitutional issues here”, referring to Abdullah’s right to free speech, and encouraged the city attorney and Abdullah to come to some sort of compromise.

No agreement has been reached, so Abdullah is fighting these charges as originally planned. The original restraining order demanded that Abdullah surrender any firearms he owns. Abdullah, who works as a security officer, says that relinquishing his right to bear arms as a result of his political activism is not only unfair and completely unjustified, but will impede his ability to work as an armed guard and possibly prevent him from finding employment. He continues to maintain, as he always has, that he never did anything wrong, and that he never “stalked’ “followed” or “harassed” anyone. Abdullah says that although his speech and presentation may be passionate and theatrical, it is his God given right to do so, and he considers it his moral obligation to expose the government lies and corruption.
He will fight these charges to the end and deserves your support. Court is Friday 6-26-09 at 9AM.

* Mohammed Abdullah’s Court Date is This Friday June 26th at 9AM.
Pomona Superior Court

400 Civic Center Plaza

Pomona, CA 91766

“Third Floor – Department G (Check the Docket)”

by Ron Paul

Statement before the US House of Representatives opposing resolution on Iran, June 19, 2009

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Last week Congress passed the war supplemental appropriations bill. In an affront to all those who thought they voted for a peace candidate, the current president will be sending another $106 billion we don’t have to continue the bloodshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, without a hint of a plan to bring our troops home.

Many of my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration seem to have changed their tune. I maintain that a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse, and as long as Congress continues to enable these dangerous interventions abroad, there is no end in sight, that is until we face total economic collapse.

From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration. Washington spends with impunity domestically, bailing out and nationalizing everything they can get their hands on, and the foreign aid and IMF funding in this bill can rightly be called an international bailout!

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan, and $420 million to Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders. Nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu” which could result in mandatory vaccinations for no discernable reason other than to enrich the Pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccine.

Perhaps most outrageous is the $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund. These new loan guarantees will allow that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt leaders and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

Not only does sending American taxpayer money to the IMF hurt citizens here, evidence shows that it even hurts those it pretends to help. Along with IMF loans comes IMF required policy changes, called Structural Adjustment Programs, which amount to forced Keynesianism. This is the very fantasy-infused economic model that has brought our own country to its knees, and IMF loans act as the Trojan Horse to inflict it on others. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that leaders in recipient nations tend to become more concerned with the wishes of international elites than the wishes and needs of their own people. Argentina and Kenya are just two examples of countries that followed IMF mandates right off a cliff. The IMF frequently recommends currency devaluation to poorer nations, which has wiped out the already impoverished over and over. There is also a long list of brutal dictators the IMF happily supported and propped up with loans that left their oppressed populace in staggering amounts of debt with no economic progress to show for it.

We are buying nothing but evil and global oppression by sending your taxdollars to the IMF. Not to mention there is no Constitutional authority to do so. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact undermines our national security. I vehemently opposed this Supplemental Appropriations Bill and was dismayed to see it pass so easily

National Call-In Day Today! Demand an Exit Plan from Afghanistan!

This week, the House passed the war-funding Supplemental bill, providing $79.9 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With this vote, the House has effectively ratified the escalation of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It has done this — without any indication of an ‘exit plan’ from the Obama administration.

Tackling this problem is Congressman Jim McGovern’s bill HR 2404, which would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress outlining an ‘exit plan’ for U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan no later than December 31, 2009. Congressman McGovern’s bill is gaining support and now has 87 co-sponsors. And we’re urging your support now, too.

Today is National Call-In Day to Congress on the McGovern bill – and UFPJ urges you to contact your members of Congress to sign-on as a co-sponsor, if they have not already done so.

The Congressional Switchboard number is 202-224-3121. Be sure to pass this Action Alert on to others in your group, your friends, and your family. (And if you make your calls, please click on the UFPJ logo in this email.)

Click here for the text of the McGovern bill and a list of co-sponsors.

Building support for an ‘exit strategy’ is a first step for us in mounting an even stronger opposition to the Obama administration’s next war-funding request — $130 billion for the wars in FY2010. We are disappointed that Congress has once again rubber-stamped a president’s request to fund the wars. But we – thousands of peace activists across the country – made it extremely difficult for them to do so. The White House expected a slam dunk on the Supplemental bill, but was forced to resort to threats to pass it. And still we were able to maintain 32 antiwar Congressional representatives on our side.

Click here for Roll-Call on the Supplemental vote.

Will you call your Members of Congress and tell them to support HR 2404? Demanding an ‘exit strategy’ of the Obama administration is the responsible thing for every Representative to do!

Ron Paul, before the US House of Representatives, June 15, 2009:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report on the War Supplemental Appropriations. I wonder what happened to all of my colleagues who said they were opposed to the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder what happened to my colleagues who voted with me as I opposed every war supplemental request under the previous administration. It seems, with very few exceptions, they have changed their position on the war now that the White House has changed hands. I find this troubling. As I have said while opposing previous war funding requests, a vote to fund the war is a vote in favor of the war. Congress exercises its constitutional prerogatives through the power of the purse.

This conference report, being a Washington-style compromise, reflects one thing Congress agrees on: spending money we do not have. So this “compromise” bill spends 15 percent more than the president requested, which is $9 billion more than in the original House bill and $14.6 billion more than the original Senate version. Included in this final version — in addition to the $106 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — is a $108 billion loan guarantee to the International Monetary Fund, allowing that destructive organization to continue spending taxpayer money to prop up corrupt elites and promote harmful economic policies overseas.

As Americans struggle through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, this emergency supplemental appropriations bill sends billions of dollars overseas as foreign aid. Included in this appropriation is $660 million for Gaza, $555 million for Israel, $310 million for Egypt, $300 million for Jordan, and $420 million for Mexico. Some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for “peacekeeping” missions. Almost one billion dollars will be sent overseas to address the global financial crisis outside our borders and nearly $8 billion will be spent to address a “potential pandemic flu.”

Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us safer at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.

Ron Paul on Hypocritical Posturing Toward China

Ron Paul’s Statement on H Res 489 Regarding Tiananmen Square, June 3, 2009:

I rise to oppose this unnecessary and counter-productive resolution regarding the 20th anniversary of the incident in China’s Tiananmen Square. In addition to my concerns over the content of this legislation, I strongly object to the manner in which it was brought to the floor for a vote. While the resolution was being debated on the House floor, I instructed my staff to obtain a copy so that I could read it before the vote. My staff was told by no less than four relevant bodies within the House of Representatives that the text was not available for review and would not be available for another 24 hours. It is unacceptable for Members of the House of Representatives to be asked to vote on legislation that is not available for them to read!

As to the substance of the resolution, I find it disturbing that the House is going out of its way to meddle in China’s domestic politics, which is none of our business, while ignoring the many pressing issues in our own country that definitely are our business.

This resolution “calls on the People’s Republic of China to invite full and independent investigations into the Tiananmen Square crackdown, assisted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Committee of the Red Cross…” Where do we get the authority for such a demand? I wonder how the US government would respond if China demanded that the United Nations conduct a full and independent investigation into the treatment of detainees at the US-operated Guantanamo facility?

The resolution “calls on the legal authorities of People’s Republic of China to review immediately the cases of those still imprisoned for participating in the 1989 protests for compliance with internationally recognized standards of fairness and due process in judicial proceedings.” In light of US government’s extraordinary renditions of possibly hundreds of individuals into numerous secret prisons abroad where they are held indefinitely without charge or trial, one wonders what the rest of the world makes of such US demands. It is hard to exercise credible moral authority in the world when our motto toward foreign governments seems to be “do as we say, not as we do.”

While we certainly do not condone government suppression of individual rights and liberties wherever they may occur, why are we not investigating these abuses closer to home and within our jurisdiction? It seems the House is not interested in investigating allegations that US government officials and employees approved and practiced torture against detainees. Where is the Congressional investigation of the US-operated “secret prisons” overseas? What about the administration’s assertion of the right to detain individuals indefinitely without trial? It may be easier to point out the abuses and shortcomings of governments overseas than to address government abuses here at home, but we have the constitutional obligation to exercise our oversight authority in such matters. I strongly believe that addressing these current issues would be a better use of our time than once again condemning China for an event that took place some 20 years ago.

Heroically, he stands up for non-intervention and against hypocrisy on this resolution that passed 396 to 1.