Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 ...

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 previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last
To: RWGinger

I singled that group in the 1930’s out because Paul’s and Buchannan’s positions come from these isolationists. There seems to be nothing entirely new in the “something new and different” of the Paulists. Just as the OWS recycle the 60’s radicals who recycled the 30’s communists who, in turn, “discovered” the IWW and Bolsheviks.

Also, the 30’s isolationists favored the rise of the fascists in Europe. So, isolationism was often more, “don’t get in the way” than “don’t influence”.

61 posted on 12/27/2011 10:27:26 AM PST by JimSEA (The future ain't what it used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

Buchanan, like many Irish Catholics (including Joe P. Kennedy), had a hatred for all things British, They would have loved seeing the swastika flying over Buckingham Palace.

62 posted on 12/27/2011 10:31:03 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative
Paul is so retarded.

His supporters are even more retarded.

63 posted on 12/27/2011 10:36:20 AM PST by petercooper (2012 - Purge more RINO's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

You bet. Kennedy is a great example.

64 posted on 12/27/2011 10:36:39 AM PST by JimSEA (The future ain't what it used to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
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.

Mitt is not my first choice, but he is much better than the surrender monkey. At least Mitt will defend our country. Cut and Run would rather surrender than fight for what is right.
65 posted on 12/27/2011 10:42:11 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CainConservative
Paul is so retarded.

This statement represents the typical level of discourse on these Ron Paul threads.

66 posted on 12/27/2011 10:42:32 AM PST by mas cerveza por favor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

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

In all fairness, this statement is not a fair extrapolation from what Paul said in the article.

Do you think America has the obligation to intervene to prevent genocide? Anywhere and anytime? I don’t.

67 posted on 12/27/2011 10:43:06 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ex-expromissor

[ Psssst.... Nobody around here wants actual “facts” or a “logical” debate in response to the Anti-Paul flame throwers who dominate this forum. Now you HUSH and sit yer azz down... drink the G.O.P. Kool Aid... and go vote for Newt or Mitt... or whomever you are told to vote for by the machine. *-) ]

Both corps of “the machine” inhabiting the Beltway have recently joined to codify the means for future presidents and the present occupant of the office to select you or me for “indefinite detention” at his discretion, not subject to judicial review. So screw the machine in all its manifestations.

In truth, none of the candidates on offer are very attractive, including Paul, but for all the craziness attributed to him he is the least insane and certainly the least erratic of the bunch. Perhaps our polity is so far gone that the candidate selection process inevitably filters out all sane individuals early on. This election may be like voting for the next captain of the Titanic after it struck the iceberg. It might be better to focus on access to the lifeboats and donning flotation gear. As in Acts 27, sometimes the ship goes down but the passengers and crew manage to make it through. Now there’s a cheerful thought for the new year!

68 posted on 12/27/2011 10:43:42 AM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Lib-Lickers 2

“but that’s really a moot point because this is about Ron Paul and the genocidal misery that will happen around the world if he has his way”

“Will happen”, as though it hasn’t been happening quite regularly and independently of who occupies the oval office. This is a very bizarre perspective on what has been and what will be happening in the world, Paul or no Paul. Well, enjoy your virtual world. The rest of us will just have to plod along in the real world without you.

69 posted on 12/27/2011 10:48:48 AM PST by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

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

No he would have apologized, blamed America for forcing Hitler to kill the Jews and then surrendered, saying America had no right to interfere with Germany's policies.
70 posted on 12/27/2011 10:49:24 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: John D
Mitt is not my first choice, but he is much better than the surrender monkey. At least Mitt will defend our country. Cut and Run would rather surrender than fight for what is right.

Glad someone here agrees with me. A candidate who is fine with Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely positively at the top of my must-stop list.

71 posted on 12/27/2011 10:50:08 AM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Here’s a little history lesson for the paultards: Germany declared war on the US BEFORE the US declared war on Germany.

72 posted on 12/27/2011 10:50:37 AM PST by matt1234 (Bring back the HUAC.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Our only hope, is the 40% or so, “undecided”, who are not being counted in the polls. There has never been a number in that category this high in American election history from what I gather from reputable pundits.

Hopefully, they will also become disgusted with just Romney and Paul and come out, to the surprise of FOX and the rest of the RINO fixated media.

Just to watch FOX try to explain a Newt win would be PRICELESS!

73 posted on 12/27/2011 10:51:26 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
Let me expound on what I said regarding separation of church and state.

Scripture teaches us to rely on no man, but to put all our trust, aka faith, in God. We think we go to the polls to vote and it is our vote that elects leaders. How inflated is that? God clearly says it is He that selects ALL leaders and thus He sent us a HUGE message in giving us Obama who was never and never could be qualified to be president according to the US Constitution.

What has happened since? All who have gone up against the machine, even before the so called conservative operatives of that machine, have been shot down as lunatics who have no standing.

The Constitution & Bill of Rights places responsibility for self with self who is to rely on God, not government. The foundation for that comes from Torah. But we now live in a world where govt has become the man-god that man puts his trust in thereby casting off the Constitutional protections that our Creator put in place through our founding fathers.

Therefore, what I mean by separation of church and state is taking what was meant to be for God to do away from an all powerful central govt and putting that govt back in its tiny box where it belongs. And that means getting rid of the IRS and its draconian laws that force churches to register with the government and thus ties the hands of the pulpits from preaching truth.

Our country's branch that was grafted into the tree of life has been cut off and we no longer are under the full covering of His protection. Our founding fathers knew they were not the ones who won freedom from man made govt persecution. They all knew full well the freedom gained was of Divine Providence. And they knew and wrote what would happen should govt be placed in a position higher than God. They also knew that once the states gave up their independence to the central govt, tyranny would abound so that it would not matter where one chose to settle because the tyranny could not be escaped from.

It stymies the mind how conservatives do not understand what the founders meant when they wrote in the Declaration that we are now under the “Laws of Nature and of Nature's God”. The bible is the most oft cited reference in the debates of the continental congress and the constitutional conventions. And while doctrines may have differed, they ALL held to the same core values and those were the values given to man by God. And it was from those values that they never went to war except to protect US citizens(War of 1812).

The Torah gives us example after example of what happens to God's children when they place their trust/faith in man. In 1948 God allowed His children to gain their statehood back and what did they do? They turned around after God gave that rag tag group of men victory and gave God's temple land back to the adversary so excuse me if I do not sound sympathetic. While I do pray for Jerusalem and for the house of Judah(Jews who teach Talmud over Torah), their actions as God's children and the keeper of His Torah are not the actions of trusting and faithful children thus the dispersion continues & the temple remains under control of the adversary until the day Messiah returns.

Not until then will any peace be in the world, so says YHVH! He also says, blessed are those that are persecuted who put their complete trust/faith in YHVH. If we want our country back, then we had better learn what He had to say when He guided our founding father's into victory BEFORE we go to the polls to vote for someone who claims war in the name of religion is constitutional. Religion knows no boundaries and no war based on religion can ever be won by man. That alone is for YHVH for revenge belongs ONLY to Him.

Vengeance is mine saith YHVH

74 posted on 12/27/2011 10:51:26 AM PST by patlin ("Knowledge is a powerful source that is 2nd to none but God" ConstitutionallySpeaking 2011)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy; ssaftler
Yep...I think we know. And Roosevelt did indeed have some Jewish blood in him from a union of early New Amsterdam Jews with early the Dutch settlers.

And I could just see Truman calling them "the striped pants boys." Ha...I had never heard that before.

75 posted on 12/27/2011 10:56:46 AM PST by Pharmboy (She turned me into a Newt! 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Guess Ron Paul forgot that Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.


The Government of the United States having violated in the most flagrant manner and in ever-increasing measure all rules of neutrality in favor of the adversaries of Germany and having continually been guilty of the most severe provocations toward Germany ever since the outbreak of the European war, provoked by the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3, 1939, has finally resorted to open military acts of aggression.

On September 11, 1941, the President of the United States publicly declared that he had ordered the American Navy and Air Force to shoot on sight at any German war vessel. In his speech of October 27, 1941, he once more expressly affirmed that this order was in force. Acting under this order, vessels of the American Navy, since early September 1941, have systematically attacked German naval forces. Thus, American destroyers, as for instance the Greer, the Kearny and the Reuben James, have opened fire on German submarines according to plan. The Secretary of the American Navy, Mr. Knox, himself confirmed that American destroyers attacked German submarines.

Furthermore, the naval forces of the United States, under order of their Government and contrary to international law have treated and seized German merchant vessels on the high seas as enemy ships.

The German Government therefore establishes the following facts:

Although Germany on her part has strictly adhered to the rules of international law in her relations with the United States during every period of the present war, the Government of the United States from initial violations of neutrality has finally proceeded to open acts of war against Germany. The Government of the United States has thereby virtually created a state of war.

The German Government, consequently, discontinues diplomatic relations with the United States of America and declares that under these circumstances brought about by President Roosevelt, Germany too, as from today, considers herself as being in a state of war with the United States of America.

Accept, Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, the expression of my high consideration.

December 11, 1941

76 posted on 12/27/2011 10:59:38 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek

Good post (#58)... Some of the “conservatives” who yell the loudest about the constitution want to shred the constitution on this issue and be world police.

In years past, we were much more cautious about jumping into conflicts! When did the republican part become the war party? When did being the world police become the “conservative” position.

77 posted on 12/27/2011 11:10:18 AM PST by rokkitapps ( Hearings on healthcare waivers NOW! (If you agree make this your tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Moronic hypothetical question gets a moronic hypothetical answer.

78 posted on 12/27/2011 11:10:56 AM PST by DManA ( ex)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Sort of disagree. The American people accepted intervention in Kosovo for the very same stated purpose: to stop genocide. Also agree that genocide is going on all over the world and we do nothing. But we apparently are willing to draw the line at genocide in Europe.

The reason for "sort of" disagreement: Germany in 1939 was no Kosovo. Armed to the teeth with superior might to ours (at the time...our military was gutted after WWI) I don't imagine Roosevelt could have succeeded in rallying the nation around invading Europe at huge cost (dollars and lives) on moral grounds alone. Today, he might.

79 posted on 12/27/2011 11:11:02 AM PST by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: matt1234
"Here’s a little history lesson for the paultards: Germany declared war on the US BEFORE the US declared war on Germany."

History? Hitler would not have been able to become the threat to the world that he did without the help of the US foreign policy and Wall Street. Read WALL STREET AND THE RISE OF HITLER By Antony C. Sutton.

Paul's views on foreign is not an isolationist view any more than George Washington's was. SOS around here.

80 posted on 12/27/2011 11:13:12 AM PST by Ex-expromissor (Know Your Enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 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
Topics · Post Article

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