Ron Paul Denounces Reaction to N. Korean Launch

Rep. Ron Paul on US overreaction to the North Korean rocket launch:

32 thoughts on “Ron Paul Denounces Reaction to N. Korean Launch”

  1. I don’t know why America maintains this bizarre fascination with the Korean peninsula. It should have been evacuated years ago. It lost whatever strategic significance it ever had after the collapse of the USSR. South Korea has twice the north’s population, dozens of times its GDP, a huge technical lead and is not at the verge of starvation. Google a picture of the Korean peninsula at night to see the incredible difference between the two states. N.K. wins the Earth day award hands down! There is no need at all for U.S. troops to be deployed in S.K. The U.S. just can’t let go of its empire of military bases. After all without an imaginary “enemy” to fight the congressional-military-industrial complex would not be able to “justify” its parasitic existence.

  2. Dr. Paul is correct about the “threat” posed by North Korea, but it will be a cold day in hell before any of the power elites running the United States government pay any attention to his wise policy advice. In fact, I think the persons running the United States government would look at a military confrontation with the North Koreans as a godsend. It would serve as a distraction to the economic destruction these criminals have caused by the endless creation of bank credit not based upon real savings. It would cause the sheeple to rally around the flag, and support a further increase in the size of an already bloated military budget. Best of all, from the point of view of the criminals running the government, it would lead to a major expansion of the power of the Federal Government as has happened in all past wars. And as if this were not enough, it would secure Obama’s place as a great or near great President in the eyes of the court historians. We all know how much court historians just love wartime presidents, and presidents who expand the power of the Federal Government

    1. Yes sir Mr. Epstein,

      The US is looking for another patsy to lay on the Smackdown for all the reasons you accurately mentioned in your well written post. I agree.

  3. A reading (or re-reading) of the works of Ira Karp and Murray Rothbard would be good as a complement to the truths spoken by Dr Paul.
    Then…ask…how do we unwind over 100 years of control by an oligarchy that has us marching at increasing pace towards a fascist military dictatorship…with the acquiescence of a docile, mind-numbed populace?

  4. Our shadow governmnent, of think tanks and media, was counting on the Korean missile to get us into a larger war but somehow the country is too numb for such dramatics. They will have to do better than this if they want bigger and better Iraq conflicts. I am sure they will kick up something sensational soon.

  5. I live in Japan which this missile overflew. On the news, people interviewed on the street confessed to being ‘scared’. They didn’t actually look scared at all. They aren’t afraid of crossing the street where they face a much greater risk of death. It’s just that people aren’t used to thinking rationally about missiles and what they can and can’t do.

    Ron Paul is doing a good job trying to get people to think about it, but he needs to keep his video messages more concise and maybe try bulleted lists of his points.

  6. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve Banking Scam would be a good start towards unwinding that almost 100 years of Federal Banking created inflation. Requiring(demanding) honesty and responsiveness to the wishes of legal Americans from those we send to Washington would help, but honesty is not known as a socialist trait and most of them seem to convert into socialists once they have gone through the Congressional orientation.

    Next, put a stop to the Federal Government over stepping its Constitutional powers, or maybe that should be first. These socialists give me reason to question their interpretation of the Constitution. By their actions, they say James Madison didn’t know what he was talking about:

    ““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.””

    I think it is a certainty that the last word of that quote does not refer to the “Federal State” the socialists have created, but to the individual States that make up the United States. If so, the socialists are in violation of The Constitution of The Sovereign United States of Ameria. The socialists and the Federal Reserve Banking Scam have put America in a state of entitlements, misery, manipulation, war, inflation, and excessive taxation, for so long that most Americans don’t remember anything else. They have also destroyed a once first class educational system by turning it into a subtle and not so subtle indoctrination process.

    Socialists see the truth as they want it to be instead of what it actually is, they love the lie, they live the lie, and want to force us to live their lie also as they seek their fantasy utopian paradise at our expense. Can’t we all just get along? No, in reality, we cannot when the truth is surpressed and we are being robbed by legislated theft.

    1. Pragman,
      I appreciate your comments regarding our country’s sad state – debasement of our Constitution, our corrupt banking system, and our militarism. But, why do you call all of this “socialist”? I quibble with your label. It is inconsistent with the nature of socialism to have all of the country’s wealth going to the very few at the top; inconsistent for it to have no national health care; inconsistent for it to have an imperialistic military-industrial complex; inconsistent for it to have federal policing besot with surveilance, SWAT team mentality, and willingness to use torture.
      I suggest that (for me) more appropriate terms would be fascist, plutocratic, or even reptile. You don’t see true socialist countries like the Scandanavians acting like we do. Socialism may be a poor substitute for true freedom, but I think its sins are less than those of the fascist plutocracy that runs America today.

      1. Richard- I would go even further, and argue that socialism, as originally defined, is ownership of the means of production by the immediate producers themselves-that is to say, the workers- usually in a collective capacity. It is my view that the indiscriminate application of “socialism” to any form of statism, social democracy, or redistributionism empties the term of its original meaning and perhaps actively degrades the term. Accordingly, a “socialist state”- a term that I, as a left-libertarian, consider something of an oxymoron- has not existed anywhere on Earth. For me, the closest thing to real socialism in the world would be the Mondragon Co-operative Complex in Spain or the worker-controlled factories and firms in parts of Argentina.

        1. Kenneth:

          One can imagine examples of voluntary socialism within a capitalist context and not violate the principle of private ownership of all property. For example, condominium residences are individually owned while all parts of the building outside the residences and grounds outside the building are owned and managed collectively by the residents. This form of ownership can even be extended to, say, entire subdivisions. It is not inconceivable that any number of workers can pool their money, purchase land and build a factory which they can collectively own and operate and share in the profits and losses. There have also been examples of voluntary socialist communities set up in the U.S. during the 19th century. Maybe it is even possible for an entire country to be organized in such a manner. In every instance the property rights of each socialist enterprise would be acknowledged and protected from encroachment.

          Where socialism flies off the rails is when the principles of freedom of association and voluntary cooperation are violated, and coercive methods, in the name of some collective, are used to realize someone’s vision of how society should be organized. Such an approach will inevitably attract violent, power hungry psychopaths which is what too much of the last century of world history was about.

          To govern collectively is ultimately an unrealizable utopian dream. As in all human enterprises, division of labor will assert itself and a small group of managers will eventually emerge who gradually amass the power to boss around everyone else. That was the theme of Orwell’s Animal Farm. It seems that power, exercised by a few on behalf of even a small scale voluntary collective such as a condo association, is corrupting. I’ve witnessed this phenomenon in my condo building and have heard of even worse horror stories from condo owners in other buildings.

          Maybe all voluntary collectives and forms of government contain the seeds of their own destruction. No one would ignore a tiny cancer or a small fire, yet humans are collectively indifferent to serial encroachments on their liberty and property until they wake up too late behind barbed wire. Eternal vigilance is indeed the price of liberty.

        2. MetaCynic-

          Here, I must voice some disagreement. The condo association you describe suffered, in my view (and based on your description) from a delegation of power, not a true direct or council democracy wherein the barriers between rulers and ruled is broken down and eventually eliminated altogether. My counterpoint to this example is the Mondragon Co-operative Complex, a federation of workers’ co-operatives that has remained remarkably stable over the course of several decades and maintained a high (by the standards of more conventionally organized firms) degree of economic equity. Indeed, it is appreciably more productive, on average, than ordinary corporations. Certainly, some division between administrative/supervisory and ordinary work is inevitable even within a cooperative venture- although I would argue that many existing technologies and forms of organization are designed to accentuate this- but the concentration of power is not. It can only happen if people allow it to. And given an environment in which they were highly engaged in decision-making, rotated such supervisory tasks, reaped all the dividends of production and productive efficiency, and whatever else, they would have both the knowledge to and the very strong vested interest in stopping any tendency toward oligarchy. If you feel some level of hierarchy is unavoidable, would it not be more just and wise to draw leaders from the ranks of ordinary people, rotate leadership positions and subject the leaders to the same conditions they may create for the workers or citizens in a firm or municipality? Would it not tend inhibit any tendency toward despotism or the uneven distribution of costs and benefits that is characteristic of states and corporate entities in our day and age?

        3. Richard:

          I agree that rotating leaders and drawing them from the ranks makes sense as a means of minimizing corruption. I am for term limits wherever people are elected to positions of power. I recall someone once facetiously proposed that lotteries be used to fill all political ranks. Such a system would certainly be an improvement over what governs us now.

          It can be argued that psychopaths, hungry for unearned wealth and power, comprise some small percentage of all societies and should be guarded against. It is they who work tirelessly to create crises and then manipulate any system in order to concentrate power in their hands.

          However, I am not optimistic about the long range success of any sort of democracy limited by rules. What stands in the way of any majority from violating the rights of a minority in the name of majority rule? The Bill of Rights is very clear in its protection of individual rights and yet, over time, these protections have been severely eroded by the process of democracy massaged by the machinations of the political classes. What practical options are available to abused minorities other than armed rebellion and secession from the majority?

          The problem with law makers is that they feel compelled to make laws in order to justify their existence. Has any legislature ever declared that we are sufficiently guarded by laws and then dissolved itself?! Very few laws are needed to safeguard our rights. The rest are an assault on liberty and property. Yet the existing mountain of laws is added to every year, and we are sternly admonished not be ignorant of any of it! Every law has someone enforcing it, punishment for all who violate it and death for those who resist the punishment. How often is any unjust law repealed? And how much time, effort and expense by the ruled is required to do so?

          It seems to me that, however constrained by rules, unlimited majority rule along with its consequence, unlimited lawmaking, will ultimately burst its chains and ruin us all.

        4. MetaCynic,

          Great post.

          I have long thought that before creating a new law, there should be a requirement that an older law has to be taken off the books since we do have that “mountain of laws”. That might put a bit more constraint and consideration into the process. But laws are like taxes, once legislated, the politicians are very reluctant to remove them. With taxes, they prefer to change the name and reroute the funds. With laws it is a means of control.

      2. I call it socialist because it forcibly takes from one citizen to give to another citizen, that is not democracy, nor what I expect from a democratic republic. We could call it a fascist socialist reptilian government and not be wrong I think.

        I am not a socialist, I do not believe in forcibly taking from one to give to another. I do not want other people robbed by legislation or gunpoint to give to me and vice versa. As for the nation’s wealth, we could evenly divide all the wealth and start over, within a few years, most of the same people would again be the rich people and most of the poor people would be the poor people again, unless the socialists legislate that no one can amass more that a specific net worth.

        On the other hand, I see a problem with CEOs being paid millions even after running a corporation into the red. I also see a problem with a leftist government that wants to dictate pay. I was totally against bailing out any bank or corporation. Government does not bail me out and I would not ask, nor should anyone else, individual, group, bank, or corporation. I see a problem when pro athletes are paid millions to play a game while occupations much more important to the nation and society are paid peanuts by comparison, but I understand why it is that way.

        I am totally opposed to the illegal alien invasion and the importation of foreign workers. It would save this country an estimated $350 billion per year if all illegal aliens were deported back to their countries of origin. They add nothing but criminals to our population, they willingly and knowingly become criminals the moment they break our laws by entering the USA illegally, every action they partake from that point on compounds their criminal enterprise. We have far too many legal Americans out of work to be importing slave labor, legal or illegal.

        I have no love for what is passed off as “free trade” or “fair trade”. Balanced trade should be the rule for all nations. I oppose trading with communist red china altogether, cheaper is not better, for the most part it is trashier. And if we are going to trade with communist red china, why shouldn’t we trade with communist Cuba.

        But all this is drifting away from the little pissant communist dictatorship of North Korea. North Korea is no more of a threat to this nation than Clinton, Bush, or Obama, and the Congressional Mafia. Mafia is the correct descriptor since Congress prefers to rule rather than serve the American people. America doesn’t need rulers in Washington, it needs honest elected servants that have an ability to lead. I haven’t had the impression of that from the federal government in a long time.

        Tear it apart, I probably erred somewhere in this post.

      3. richard vajs, I agree that the term socialism doesn’t quite explain what we have. However, you must agree that some nations have been socialist and fascist at the same time. It seems to me that that is what we are curretly headed for if not already there. Fascist Plutocracy is probably the most correct term. However, the well meaning Dems, who know almost nothing about how true Socialism or even Communism is supposed to work don’t really see the difference. Socialism or class warfare is alive and well in this country. However, isn’t it fairly unique? we steal from the middle class and productive workers to pay for the unproductive poor and rich? That is NOT Socialism or Communism. It’s truly a new hybrid that almost defies definition.

        It’s easy to see the appeal of Socialism, Communism, or even Democracy. Enlightened Anarchy would be great and should be our goal but we are just not ready for it yet (too many unelightened people). For now our only hope is to demand a return to a Republic form of Government. Unfortunately we are stuck with electing representitives, if we can’t constrain them with the Constitution we are headed for complete Fascism (if we are not there already). It’s past time that we take to the streets and demand that our “rulers” obay the Constitution.

        The Fourth of July at your state capitols would be a good start, if you can’t make it at least pass on the word.


        1. I don’t like using the term “socialism” to define our present government because “socialism” carries the connotation that the governing group has as its primary goal the well being of the average person. I think that most assuredy, everyone can agree that that is not the goal of our Congress, nor the Administration (past and probably also the present), nor the financial Establishment. So what do you call government of the privileged, for the privileged, and by the privileged? I am starting to like the term “reptilian”.

        2. Richard,

          Reptilian is starting to sound like a better description for our present government, but socialism does describe forcibly taking from one to give to another via legislation. It may not be true socialism or communal socialism, maybe it should be called politicized socialism when one is forced to participate no matter how much the participation goes against the Constitution and what he believes.

          I think I will start using the term “reptilian” when I write the creatures inhabiting Congress. When I look at the eyes of most of them, there is a definite resemblance to repitiles.

  7. Yet another great speech by Ron Paul. Isn’t it nice to have at least one man in Washington who has common sense? Great comments by Andy and Ira Epstein also.

    As for the Korean war, I had two Uncles who fought that proxy war with China. They told me years ago why we still have troops in South Korea. It’s rediculously simple, we are maintaining a presence of troops on the China border. Thats what it’s about and has been about. It doesn’t make much sense now that China has us by the balls, but there it is. Of course we are not afraid of North Korea, but we take the stance that they are a threat so we can keep our bases open. It’s also a nice place to be stationed, with the cheap hookers, beer, and electronics. I think its even fairly safe to patrol the DMZ now, in the past we were still killing each other almost daily there. Who cares about the billions that it costs, we can always just print more (sarcasm implied).

    In an earlier post I suggested that we take to the streets and protest, demanding an end to our wars and empire. This Forth of July it’s on, but instead of trying to march on Washington DC. we are going to our State Capitals! Most people can easlily afford to travel within thier state and we will get local coverage rather than just being ignored by the main stream media.

    I know a lot of Dems want to give Obama time for a change. Well just let him know the time is now. I know most people are burnt out on protests, it’s hard to commit when your broke and it just gets ignored anyway. But think about it, instead of watching the fireworks with your kids you take them to their first demonstration (peacefull of course) they will have a blast and learn a great lesson too. Call everyone you know blog all the sites and get people going, I will be in Lansing Michigan on the Forth right in front of the State Capital building. I’ll be with the Ron Paul group, just ask for Brad Smith.

    “It has to start somewhere
    It has to start sometime
    What better place than here
    What better time than now”.

    Rage against the machine, guerrilla radio.


    1. James Madison wrote this while vetoing a bill trying to give taxpayer dollars to those who “needed it”:

      “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

      If I am not mistaken, Madison had a little bit to do with drafting The Constitution.

      Protests at State Capitols will have more effect than protesting in Washinton where any conservative view will be ignored. If this country is to have any chance at real change, it will have to come from a grassroots level, it is not going to come from those in Washington.

      People no longer realize what a socialist is, they are being paid or influenced with taxpayer dollars to be blind, nor do they have the slightest idea of what a conservative is. I cannot believe that anyone in a sane state of mind can honestly call George Bush a conservative, he is more of a slightly conservative liberal or socialist. I do not think there are more than 100 members of Congress worthy of being called conservatives, if that many. People confuse the near left(RINOs) for conservatives, while ignoring that the far left constitutes the Democrats, or Democrat Socialists as I think they should be called, although there is very little I can see that is democratic about either faction of our one party system. “Neo-CONS” is another name for RINOs and Democrats, especially the CON part.

      1. you can count 100 conservatives in congress. as a liberal (and i agree all of these lables seem meaningless today). i can count 5 or 6 plus or minus 3 or 4 liberal in congress. so just imagine how a liberal feels trying to be heard in washington. i assume that most of your true conservatives are repubs. it seems to me that for the past 8 years all repubs (except ron paul) have acted more like lock step nazi’s . with the patriot act and the MCA.of course there were plenty of nazi’s amoung the dems also. it is very clear that repubs and dems put thier party 1st .only a couple repubs put the constitution ahead of party when a repub is in the oval office , which is also true of putting party first liberal or conservative? i think niether. i do think that ,it is possibly treason or at at minimum it is a deriliction of duty.

        1. As far as counting conservatives and liberals, almost all of them are too liberal for my tastes, and I am slightly right of what should be considered the middle between communism and dictatorship and that puts the Repubs and Dems both left of center. I don’t really think there are more than ten members of Congress that are conservative in most respects. I don’t think we have a two party system, we have a two-tongued system, both parties working in concert against the people, more to manipulate the people than anything. Neither party obeys the Constitution, nor is either party what I consider honest. Maybe honesty from politicians is too much to ask, Ron Paul proves that in rare cases, the people don’t have to ask, it is given.

          When it comes to warfare, neither party fights to win. When the Iraq war was started, I said it will appear to go well until the concession stands are opened with no one guarding the till. And so it came to pass. The money became more important than anything else, including America, a quick effective convincing win was not even on the table, all that kept the table supported was the money flow and the lies.

          Iraq was a farce, the people are already demonstrating against America. We cannot give other countries freedom, they won’t appreciate it unless they have to fight to attain it for themselves. And now America has a naive president that probably isn’t Constitutionally qualified to hold office bowing and scraping before a muslim dictator in Saudi Arabia, I find that disgusting and treasonous. The man should resign, but that would put Biden in a postition he should never have gotten close to holding.

        2. “We cannot give other countries freedom, they won’t appreciate it unless they have to fight to attain it for themselves”. The same might be said about the US.

          “Every generation needs a new revolution”.
          Thomas Jefferson

          “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not”.

          “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”.

          “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”.

          As you can see from a few of these Thomas Jefferson Quotes he would agree with you and take it one step further. I don’t advocate violence but I do advocate revolution as long as it’s the Ron Paul kind.

          What’s funny is that I have more friends that I served in combat with who are consistantly anti-war, than my other friends. It’s seems it is also the case with Vietnam vets, I see more of them at rallies than I do aging hippies.


        3. “When the Iraq war was started…”

          The Iraq was based on lies and nothing but lies.And how would “a quick effective convincing win” make an illegal war of aggression right or good .A nuclear bomb would have made it quick!

  8. Leave it up to Obama
    To stir up such drama.
    Why sweat just a missile
    Unless it carries something fissile?
    Tell Kim Jong-Il: “Yo mama.”

  9. Yet we are putting a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Rep that the Neocons during the Georgian attack on Ossetia advocated equipping and using it as a first strike nuclear policy against Russia and we complain when they see it as a threat plus the fact the Obama senior foreign policy advisor Zbignew Brezinski wrote a book in 97 The Grand Chessboard which advocates supporting militant Islam to expel Russian influence out of Central Asian like he did in Afghanistan and the Balkanisation of Russia into three smaller independent states.

    1. “Missile shields” are a misnomer. They are not for defense. And they won’t work anyways. They are the 21st century equivalent of the Maginot line.

  10. Only the people can change this government, from the bottom up, Congress will NOT do it. But first people have to stop seeing one party as good and the other as evil. They are both bad, both political socialists, both corrupt, both anti-American, both anti-Constitution, both anti-people.

    The “two parties” are more one party than two, both are about the money and control, not the people; the smoke these corrupt creations blow doesn’t mask what they are about; the recent massive financial deceit and resultant legalized(in their minds) theft(bail out scam) from the American people along with their refusal to listen to the American people and obey the Constitution is proof enough what the “two” parties are about: control and money, little else. These greedy creatures are not going to give up either easily, they will have to have their power undermined at the grass roots level first.

Comments are closed.