Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul in 2009: “I Wouldn’t Have Risked American Lives” To End The Holocaust
Big Government ^ | 12/27/11 | Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

Posted on 12/27/2011 9:32:29 AM PST by Nachum

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.”

(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...


TOPICS: Israel; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911truther; apaulogia; apaulogists; doublezot; holocaust; israel; johnkerry; kenyanbornmuzzie; libertarians; lurch; onestatesolution; paul; paultards; randpaultruthfile; ron; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; zot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

1 posted on 12/27/2011 9:32:34 AM PST by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“Pearl Harbor is all America’s fault, right, Mommy?” - Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941


2 posted on 12/27/2011 9:37:02 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

PaulTards descending to call Jeffrey Scott Shapiro a liar in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ...


3 posted on 12/27/2011 9:37:08 AM PST by mkjessup (Jimmy Carter is the Skidmark in the panties of American history, 0bama is the yellow stain in front.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

4 posted on 12/27/2011 9:37:53 AM PST by VU4G10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Paul’s a loon,as if we needed further proof.His crazed supporters will ignore this as they have many other insights into his character.


5 posted on 12/27/2011 9:38:05 AM PST by Farmer Dean (stop worrying about what they want to do to you,start thinking about what you want to do to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

And this is the same Ron Paul who defends Iran’s right to a nuclear weapon while continually making the point that he wants the United States to cut aid to Israel.


6 posted on 12/27/2011 9:41:32 AM PST by TheBigIf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Reading the header sort of disgusted me. I only say sort of because, coming from RP, it doesn’t surprise me. Then I got to thinking how many pols today are actively doing their part to bring about a more thorough holocaust and RP’s comments seem almost tame.


7 posted on 12/27/2011 9:41:32 AM PST by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Knowing what he knows now, 6M slaughtered - he’s the heartless one Perry was speaking of! Strange comment for being a doctor, also.


8 posted on 12/27/2011 9:41:53 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Please do not take this as a defense of Paul (I do not like anything about him), but to be fair, what would have Roosevelt’s answer been? Or Clinton’s? I think Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushi would have done the right thing, as would have Truman, JFK and Johnson. Just my $0.02.


9 posted on 12/27/2011 9:42:07 AM PST by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt! 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This is consistent with paleo conservatives like Pat Buchannan. Not surprising at all. Isolationists in the 1930’s tended to be anti Semitic.


10 posted on 12/27/2011 9:42:07 AM PST by JimSEA (The future ain't what it used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Neither did FDR. FDR wouldn't even admit Jewish refugees, a population which vastly enriched the U.S. American efforts had a negligible effect on the outcome of the holocaust.
11 posted on 12/27/2011 9:43:36 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Ceterum autem censeo, Obama delenda est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This creates a huge problem for me (and other Virginians). Stopping Paul is my #1 priority, but if I want to cast a primary ballot my only choice will be Mitt.


12 posted on 12/27/2011 9:44:08 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
I realize the truth hurts BUT the US did NOT enter WWII to save the Jews, in fact the US for years denied entrance into the US for persecuted Jews. So Paul is merely speaking for the US Constitution and its separation of church and state. We are not to go to war over religion, period.

Maybe if more people read the Constitution in the eyes of the Torah as it was in those eyes that it was written & adopted in the 1st place, then YHVH could finally remove the blinders(2 Chron 7:14). It is so frustrating when a group that claims to be constitutional conservatives act as hypocrites, picking and choosing what parts of the US Constitution they like and which parts are dispensable for religious sake. Isn't that what we are fighting for? The restoration of that which was never meant to be dispensable?

13 posted on 12/27/2011 9:44:32 AM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It is bad enough our government is overrun by communist criminals, and we have to deal nutcases like Paul as well.

The American electorate are to blame for the condition of our government. This is what happens when you get lazy, complacent and ignorant. Freedom is lost.


14 posted on 12/27/2011 9:45:19 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“WE are the problem here!”


15 posted on 12/27/2011 9:46:41 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

? This, “Isolationists in the 1930’s tended to be anti Semitic.”

why single out one group. By definition wouldn’t isolationists be anti every group or nation but the USA?
Are you saying isolationists would not have to the aid of Ijews would have to the aid of muslims?

To be clear Paul’s position is abhorrent, but it is consistent to him.


16 posted on 12/27/2011 9:48:04 AM PST by RWGinger (Simpl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
FDR risked no Americans to stop it either!

And he could have done something!!

17 posted on 12/27/2011 9:48:37 AM PST by PALIN SMITH (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin
So Paul is merely speaking for the US Constitution and its separation of church and state.

LOLOLOL....what?

It is so frustrating when a group that claims to be constitutional conservatives act as hypocrites, picking and choosing what parts of the US Constitution they like and which parts are dispensable for religious sake.

LOL...FReep on!

18 posted on 12/27/2011 9:49:28 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Ron Paul in 2009: “I Wouldn’t Have Risked American Lives” To End The Holocaust.

Paul is so retarded.

19 posted on 12/27/2011 9:50:05 AM PST by CainConservative (Merry CHRISTmas and a Happy Newt/Marco 2012!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

FDR sent the SS St. Louis back to Germany and we knew about the camps as early as 1942 and said nothing because FDR didn’t want it to be “a Jewish war”.


20 posted on 12/27/2011 9:50:18 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PALIN SMITH
FDR risked no Americans to stop it either!

So the Normandy Landings had nothing to do with stopping the Holocaust?

21 posted on 12/27/2011 9:50:18 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This approach Paul has is exactly the approach FDR had before Pearl Harbor. Screw the Jews in Germany occupied lands. How many ships of Jewish refugees did FDR turn away?


22 posted on 12/27/2011 9:50:50 AM PST by Cyber Liberty ("If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." --Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
if I want to cast a primary ballot my only choice will be Mitt.

Plan on staying home, I hear there will be a blizzard that day and roads will be hazardous causing much destruction. Possibility of electrical outages.
23 posted on 12/27/2011 9:51:03 AM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Absolutely Nobama; MestaMachine; BlackElk; Allegra

Ron Paul does his impression of the Post Modern Neville Chamberlain.

Somehow I have no problem believing this anecdotal story. It fits in perfectly with his pronouncements today.


24 posted on 12/27/2011 9:51:57 AM PST by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
what would have Roosevelt’s answer been

I think we have a pretty good answer as to what FDR's answer was or would have been. Or, more precisely, his "striped-pants boys" advisors, as Truman referred to them.

And if, as the author of this article claims, this is Paul's position on the Jewish community, he's no better in my book than nObama, regardless of any of his domestic spending positions.

25 posted on 12/27/2011 9:52:17 AM PST by ssaftler ("John Galt, we need you!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Could more have been done? Sure....but it’s folly to think that it could have been stopped....the only thing we could do is try to end the war as soon as possible.

Paul if he were President probably would have negotiated a truce with the Nazis, and left Hitler in power.


26 posted on 12/27/2011 9:52:31 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Assuming this happened, the question asked was a very loaded question - and a very discriminatory one at that:

1. Why only for Jews? What about Gypsies and Gays in the camps?

(Perhaps Mr. Shapiro is a bigot?)

2. Declaration of War would be required.

3. Does the Constitution authorize us to be the policeman of the world?

4. Should we have done the same for Cambodia? Christians in a particular Southeast Asian country and particular African countries?

5. How about the Balkans?

Ron Paul simply gave the usual Ron Paul answer...

Why is everyone acting shocked?

=8-)


27 posted on 12/27/2011 9:53:31 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m surprised he even believes the Holocaust occurred.


28 posted on 12/27/2011 9:53:44 AM PST by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

pinging for later, interesting comments on here.


29 posted on 12/27/2011 9:54:02 AM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlin

I realize the truth hurts BUT the US did NOT enter WWII to save the Jews..

Not only that but the progressive in the US prior to Hitler were flirting with eugenics.
Hitler was impressed with what the American Progressive were doing with eugenics.
Still, whats that does have to do with Paul’s seeming dislike of Israel? He sure reads like a anti-semitic?


30 posted on 12/27/2011 9:54:28 AM PST by Leep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

My gut says that in reality, Ron Paul is not libertarian but anarchist.


31 posted on 12/27/2011 9:54:32 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (I am Roman Catholic, US Citizen, Patriot, TEA Party Alumni, Oath Keeper, Voter, Auburn Fan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
This little turd is certifiable insane. Isolation will eventually destroy America.
32 posted on 12/27/2011 9:55:03 AM PST by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
And this is the same Ron Paul who defends Iran’s right to a nuclear weapon while continually making the point that he wants the United States to cut aid to Israel.

His position is even more extreme than that. Paul doesn't think Israel should exist, according one of his former aides.

33 posted on 12/27/2011 9:55:51 AM PST by Kazan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: patlin

nobody knew there was a true Holocaust that had been occuring until the allies started liberating the death camps..

the question to Paul was if he knew 6 million innocent persons were going to be murdered if the US didn’t do some thing about it would he try to help those people and he said he wouldn’t risk one American life to do so


34 posted on 12/27/2011 9:56:38 AM PST by Lib-Lickers 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I’m not defending Paul,but History is littered with examples of leaders who failed to stop genocides.

1) Clinton did NOTHING to stop the slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda

2) Ford/Carter did nothing to stop the Khmer Rouge

3) No One is stopping the killing of Christians in the Middle East RIGHT NOW.


35 posted on 12/27/2011 9:57:00 AM PST by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“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.”

In other words, Paul would have made the same decision as the actual president at the time, FDR, made, e.g., ashcanning the proposed air attacks on the Auschwitz facilities, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01610.html

and the same decision that each of the allied powers made at the time the Ottomans were slaughtering the Armenians in round I of the 20th Century world wars,
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Education.56/current_category.117/resourceguide_detail.html

and the same decision that the Clinton administration made with respect to the massacres in Rwanda.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/09/bystanders-to-genocide/4571/

And so your point is . . . what? That US presidents are bound to put US troops at risk to satisfy your sense of moral outrage at the behavior of the Nazis, or some other band of murderous thugs? Are you volunteering for a mission to root out the North Korean oppressors who are starving their population today? Or to suppress the various slaughters underway in Africa and the disintegrating Middle Eastern states? If you are divinely called to mount such a mission, more power to you. A US president doesn’t have such a mandate. Several have ignored that limitation on their authority, but Ron Paul seems unlikely to follow suit.


36 posted on 12/27/2011 9:59:21 AM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
He gave the obviously correct answer. So what's the beef.

In reality we didn't enter the European war to liberate the concentration camps. We entered for far larger reasons of national security. Nice we were able to save a lot of innocent prisoners in the process, but that was, and should have been, a byproduct not a casus belli. Other wise we should have attacked the USSR and freed up the Gulags, right? Where does it end?

37 posted on 12/27/2011 9:59:28 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

That wasn’t Ron Paul, it was a ghost actor saying it was him. Paul isn’t responsible for any words that come from his mouth or his pen. He only says and writes things that make him look good, and as soon as it doesn’t look good, it is the responsibility of the ‘ghost’.


38 posted on 12/27/2011 9:59:37 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
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?”

Like it or not, the answer is that no American president would have. The American people would never have gone for that.

If there's a 'should have' then that's the 'should have offered sanctuary.'

Should we have militarily saved the Armenians from the Turks? The Kulaks from the Bolsheviks? The Chinese from the Japanese?

39 posted on 12/27/2011 10:00:11 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

We didn’t risk American lives to stop the Rape of Nanking, the starvation of the Kulaks, nor to aid the Nationalist Chinese even though the Maoist purges likely killed 30,000,000. Liberation of the camps was not the primary objective in WWII either, defeat of the Axis (after we’d been attacked) was.


40 posted on 12/27/2011 10:00:33 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leep

The thing is, even if we didn’t declare war on Germany, Hitler would have (and actually did) declare war on the US, precisely because Hitler believed the US was run by Jews.

Why would Hitler go through all of the trouble of killing Europe’s Jews, and leave the country that in his mind, was still run by Jews, alone?

To Hitler and the Nazis, the war was all about eliminating the Jews, and as a byproduct, gaining ‘lebensraum’ for the German people. That’s why the Nazis were willing to sacrifice resources, that normally would have gone to the military, for instituting the “Final Solution.”


41 posted on 12/27/2011 10:00:43 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Before anyone calls him carzy for saying so, each and every one of you are also crazy for saying so, unless you are saying we should invade countries like North Korea, China, many African nations and others that have and are still killing people. Should we have invaded the Soviet Union when they were killing millions? People are being slaughterd as I write this. Do any of you demand we invade those countries right now and stop it?


42 posted on 12/27/2011 10:00:55 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

There IS such a thing as a write-in candidate! We have to stop Romney by any (legal) means necessary!


43 posted on 12/27/2011 10:01:01 AM PST by getarope (I have come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass, and I am all out of bubble gum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
So the Normandy Landings had nothing to do with stopping the Holocaust?

Exactly correct.

US war aims in Europe had ZERO to do with "stopping the holocaust", except that (of course) once Germany was conquered and a US-Soviet military government was put in place, the holocaust would end.

But that's not why we went to war, and if fact, our government did NOTHING to call attention to the plight of the Jews, in fact, quite the opposite was true.

44 posted on 12/27/2011 10:01:31 AM PST by Jim Noble ("The Germans: At your feet, or at your throat" - Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Ron Paul is a true Libertarian. I would expect that answer from him. He should not be running in the Republican party but should instead be running for President in the Libertarian party.


45 posted on 12/27/2011 10:02:33 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

From our perspective, we knew the Nazis were evil in many ways, the treatment of the Jews at that time, was considered only as one aspect of that evil....of course after the Nuremberg Trials, we learned a lot more about just how evil they were towards the Jews.


46 posted on 12/27/2011 10:05:02 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
Plan on staying home, I hear there will be a blizzard that day and roads will be hazardous causing much destruction.

I expect to do same. Actually I feel like going into hibernation right now, for at least a year.

47 posted on 12/27/2011 10:05:56 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HighlyOpinionated

That right there is the one reason for the one area of caution I have for Ron Paul...

Immigration - both legal and illegal.

Anarchists are typically “open borders” types...

And of course, it’s the reason why we need better candidates of the like of McClintock, Tancredo and Hunter.

=8-)


48 posted on 12/27/2011 10:08:12 AM PST by =8 mrrabbit 8=
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
"So the Normandy Landings had nothing to do with stopping the Holocaust? "

That is correct!

The goal was to destroy the German war machine and defeat Hitler, not save the Jews.

By June 6, 1944 the Holocaust had been underway for 6 years.

There were opportunities to disrupt railways and the death camps, but the Allies did not seize the opportunity!

America turned away refugees.

FDR was complicit in the Holocaust.

49 posted on 12/27/2011 10:09:03 AM PST by PALIN SMITH (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: getarope
There IS such a thing as a write-in candidate! We have to stop Romney by any (legal) means necessary!

Virginia law prohibits write-ins only in the primary. Our choice will be Romney, Paul, or stay home.

I can't imagine that turnout will be anything short of pathetic.

50 posted on 12/27/2011 10:09:03 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson