I saw the clip with Paul at Bill Maher and look forward hearing the entire program when it is uploaded into the podcast. After the interview Maher said he had never heard so much applause for a republican in his show before. Maher was gracious and allowed Ron Paul to share his position. Even Ben Affleck seemed to look with admiration at Ron Paul. Paul was bold enough to tell the audience that Rudy (or “Rude” as Rockwell prefers) is probably reading the assignment he gave him on foreign policy. Keep it up Paul!<>
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility, and out of self interest — for himself, his family, and the future of his country — to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. — Ron Paul
I confess: I subscribe to Bill Maher’s podcast on HBO. I realize, Maher is an atheist and despises Christian morality, but Maher makes sense once in a while. According to Maher, Ron Paul is his new hero and as a result he is bringing Ron Paul to California to be a part of the panel of three on his show. Believe it or not, Ben Affleck will be seated next to the future president of the United States, Ron Paul (hope never dies).
The very first thing you see when you subscribe to Maher’s podcast is the word: EXPLICIT. Maher’s language is a bit strong and the sexual innuendos abound throughout the show, but I bear it, not because I like it, but because when you dig around the filth you find some nuggets of truth. Those nuggets that you do not hear in FOX or CNN. Nuggets like, “we have to leave Iraq immediately” or “Ron Paul makes more sense than the Democrats and Republicans combined”, or “The Drug war has failed, let’s re-think this strategy.” Frankly, I am not so sure how Paul will do tomorrow night. Here you have these trained comedians with their one liners and then there is Ron Paul who enjoys beginning conversations with: ” The Constitution of the United States says…” Hey Bill, let the man talk…then you will see how much sense he really makes.
Many of my colleagues, faced with the reality that the war in Iraq is not going well, line up to place all the blame on the president. The president “mismanaged” the war, they say. “It’s all the president’s fault,” they claim. In reality, much of the blame should rest with Congress, which shirked its constitutional duty to declare war and instead told the president to decide for himself whether or not to go to war.
More than four years into that war, Congress continues to avoid its constitutional responsibility to exercise policy oversight, particularly considering the fact that the original authorization no longer reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq.
According to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) passed in late 2002, the president was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only:
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”
I was highly critical of the resolution at the time, because I don’t think the United States should ever go to war to enforce United Nations resolutions. I was also skeptical of the claim that Iraq posed a “continuing threat” to the United States.
As it turned out, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, no al-Qaeda activity, and no ability to attack the United States. Regardless of this, however, when we look at the original authorization for the use of force it is clearly obvious that our military has met both objectives. Our military very quickly removed the regime of Saddam Hussein, against whom the United Nations resolutions were targeted. A government approved by the United States has been elected in post-Saddam Iraq, fulfilling the first objective of the authorization. (more…)
Video: People say to Ron Paul: “We gotta go over there and fight them there because we do not want them here. Paul says there is a great fallacy to that logic, mainly because they came over here because we were over there…there is one reason why the enemy, and they are our enemies, want to kill us and that is “occupation…” We tell people you either do it our way or we will bomb you; when they do it our way we subsidize them; how about avoiding both: neither bomb nor subsidize, but trade with them…one of our problems has been that we have had presidents that want to do too much…but the answer is that we should have a strong president, strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that the president shouldn’t have.” –Ron Paul
New Hampshire Liberty Forum in Feb. 2007 <>