Ron Paul was a practicing OB/GYN for many years and has delivered over 4,000 babies. He has never accepted payments from Medicaid, instead offering discounted or pro-bono services to his patients in need.
Ron Paul has five children, all of whom attended college. He did not allow them to take out federally backed student loans.
Ron Paul has served ten terms in the House of Representatives. He has never participated in the pension program for Representatives, saving taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Ron Paul's Congressional office returns a portion of its budget to the U.S. Treasury every year.
He has a long history of forgoing significant personal gain in order to follow his principles. This is the type of man I would like to see as President of my country.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The question of Israel
I emailed my rabbi asking his opinion on Ron Paul and Israel. My rabbi was kind enough to reply. For him, Paul's non-interventionist position toward Israel was a deal breaker, although he acknowledged there are other issues important to Jews when voting.
For myself, I do not see Paul's position toward Israel as something I disagree with but will put up with because of other strong points. Rather, Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is one of the big reasons I like him, and that includes its application to Israel. Here's a summary of my rabbi's arguments for the U.S. giving preferential treatment to Israel, and my own reasons for disagreeing:
Non-interventionism is not always the right policy
Even before Pearl Harbor prompted the U.S. to enter its own military into WWII, we supported our ally Britain against Nazi Germany. Pearl Harbor was in part prompted by our economic sanctions of Japan opposing their side in the war. And the Holocaust was certainly something where intervention was the right thing to do.
However, we are currently not facing anything like the Holocaust - except in Sudan, where our current interventionist government is not doing anything anyway. (If you're not familiar with the horrors that have occured in the Darfur region of Sudan the past few years, I encourage you to read some of the resources offered at Save Darfur.) In the world today, absent a candidate willing to send military force into Sudan, non-interventionism is the best policy for the United States.
Israel is one of the most committed allies to the United States
They like our money and the implication of our military protecting their interests in the region, sure, and will use whatever influence they have to support the U.S.'s interests in return. However, I'm not impressed with the influence Israel has in international politics. If anything, the international community's negative opinion of Israel is spread to the United States because of our strong relationship, actually weakening America's position in defending our own interests.
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
If America wants to promote democracy around the world, my rabbi argues we should support countries that are democracies. That's a nice sentiment, but the truth is Israel's form of government has nothing to do with our support for them. The influential neoconservative movement believes we need to put our military bases all around the world anywhere anyone will let us - especially in the Middle East which has all that oil the neoconservatives believe we can't live without. Many evangelical Christians, also an influential group in America, believe the existence of the State of Israel is necessary to set the stage for the Second Coming of Jesus. Combined, the influence of these two groups mean the U.S. would support Israel even if it were a bloody dictatorship.
Supporting Israel as a democracy while supporting an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia and using the CIA to install a dictator in Iran (overthrowing a democratically elected government in the process) is not a way to spread democracy. The U.S. breaks everything it touches when it comes to international intervention. We need to start spreading our values by example, not at the point of a gun.
Withdrawing U.S. monetary support for Israel would be a death sentence for that country
Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, two important neighbors. Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world. Israel has nuclear bombs. I do not believe losing a few billion dollars a year would cause a state with a GDP of $170 billion to collapse. Operating without that support would actually free Israel to pursue its own interests, rather than feeling forced to toe the U.S. line - a line at least some Zionists are not happy about.
Withdrawal of U.S. support for Israel would cause WWIII
Israel has nuclear bombs and, my rabbi believes, would be more likely to use them if it were not assured of U.S. military support. I think it equally likely that Israel would use nuclear bombs because it believed the U.S. would help it avoid the consequences. Because I believe these two situations have the same probability, if WWIII is going to happen, I would really rather not be the ally of the country that starts it.
Paul's assertion that the Israel lobby has undue influence in Washington is anti-Semitic
Paul is not criticizing the Jewish people and never has. He is a strong critic of the neoconservative movement, and that includes their interventionist position toward Israel. This is in no way, shape, or form antisemitism. More details on Paul's record regarding Israel can be found in this Haaretz article.
One of the beefs anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have is the perceived out of proportion influence the Jewish people have in U.S. policy toward Israel. How could 1.4% of the population cause the U.S. to commit so many resources to a small country halfway around the world? Truth is, they don't. It's the neoconservatives and certain evangelical Christians driving U.S. policy toward Israel. But because they funnel their support through Jewish lobby agencies, they give the appearance of the Jews calling the shots and actually drive the growth of these hate groups. Removing the appearance of undue Jewish influence would force these groups to resort to less facially plausible excuses for their hate.
Jews need a place where they will always be safe.
During the Holocaust, Jews had no place to flee. A Jewish State would always be a refuge against future persecution. Genocide is not unique to the Jewish people, however. Even in the past century, we have had the Armenian genocide, the Khmer Rouge, the Holodomor, and I'm sure others I can't list off the top of my head. None of those other groups got their own state separate from that of their oppressors.
I live in a country that values separation of Church and State. The U.S. is majority Christian, but if I follow my partner's Jewish faith the government treats me no differently. If I adopt a child internationally, I would be under no pressure to convert that child to Christianity. But if an Israeli couple adopts internationally, they have to convert that child to Orthodox Judaism to have it gain Israeli citizenship.
I'm glad I don't live in a country that identifies itself with a particular religion, therefore I don't feel compelled to support Israel in identifying itself with Judaism. I support the right of the Israeli people to self-determination, I just don't want the U.S. government to be enforce its view of how Israel should be on that region.My own view: even from the perspective of an American Jew, Ron Paul is the best choice to lead America.
For myself, I do not see Paul's position toward Israel as something I disagree with but will put up with because of other strong points. Rather, Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is one of the big reasons I like him, and that includes its application to Israel. Here's a summary of my rabbi's arguments for the U.S. giving preferential treatment to Israel, and my own reasons for disagreeing:
Non-interventionism is not always the right policy
Even before Pearl Harbor prompted the U.S. to enter its own military into WWII, we supported our ally Britain against Nazi Germany. Pearl Harbor was in part prompted by our economic sanctions of Japan opposing their side in the war. And the Holocaust was certainly something where intervention was the right thing to do.
However, we are currently not facing anything like the Holocaust - except in Sudan, where our current interventionist government is not doing anything anyway. (If you're not familiar with the horrors that have occured in the Darfur region of Sudan the past few years, I encourage you to read some of the resources offered at Save Darfur.) In the world today, absent a candidate willing to send military force into Sudan, non-interventionism is the best policy for the United States.
Israel is one of the most committed allies to the United States
They like our money and the implication of our military protecting their interests in the region, sure, and will use whatever influence they have to support the U.S.'s interests in return. However, I'm not impressed with the influence Israel has in international politics. If anything, the international community's negative opinion of Israel is spread to the United States because of our strong relationship, actually weakening America's position in defending our own interests.
Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East
If America wants to promote democracy around the world, my rabbi argues we should support countries that are democracies. That's a nice sentiment, but the truth is Israel's form of government has nothing to do with our support for them. The influential neoconservative movement believes we need to put our military bases all around the world anywhere anyone will let us - especially in the Middle East which has all that oil the neoconservatives believe we can't live without. Many evangelical Christians, also an influential group in America, believe the existence of the State of Israel is necessary to set the stage for the Second Coming of Jesus. Combined, the influence of these two groups mean the U.S. would support Israel even if it were a bloody dictatorship.
Supporting Israel as a democracy while supporting an oppressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia and using the CIA to install a dictator in Iran (overthrowing a democratically elected government in the process) is not a way to spread democracy. The U.S. breaks everything it touches when it comes to international intervention. We need to start spreading our values by example, not at the point of a gun.
Withdrawing U.S. monetary support for Israel would be a death sentence for that country
Israel has peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, two important neighbors. Israel has one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the world. Israel has nuclear bombs. I do not believe losing a few billion dollars a year would cause a state with a GDP of $170 billion to collapse. Operating without that support would actually free Israel to pursue its own interests, rather than feeling forced to toe the U.S. line - a line at least some Zionists are not happy about.
Withdrawal of U.S. support for Israel would cause WWIII
Israel has nuclear bombs and, my rabbi believes, would be more likely to use them if it were not assured of U.S. military support. I think it equally likely that Israel would use nuclear bombs because it believed the U.S. would help it avoid the consequences. Because I believe these two situations have the same probability, if WWIII is going to happen, I would really rather not be the ally of the country that starts it.
Paul's assertion that the Israel lobby has undue influence in Washington is anti-Semitic
Paul is not criticizing the Jewish people and never has. He is a strong critic of the neoconservative movement, and that includes their interventionist position toward Israel. This is in no way, shape, or form antisemitism. More details on Paul's record regarding Israel can be found in this Haaretz article.
One of the beefs anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists have is the perceived out of proportion influence the Jewish people have in U.S. policy toward Israel. How could 1.4% of the population cause the U.S. to commit so many resources to a small country halfway around the world? Truth is, they don't. It's the neoconservatives and certain evangelical Christians driving U.S. policy toward Israel. But because they funnel their support through Jewish lobby agencies, they give the appearance of the Jews calling the shots and actually drive the growth of these hate groups. Removing the appearance of undue Jewish influence would force these groups to resort to less facially plausible excuses for their hate.
Jews need a place where they will always be safe.
During the Holocaust, Jews had no place to flee. A Jewish State would always be a refuge against future persecution. Genocide is not unique to the Jewish people, however. Even in the past century, we have had the Armenian genocide, the Khmer Rouge, the Holodomor, and I'm sure others I can't list off the top of my head. None of those other groups got their own state separate from that of their oppressors.
I live in a country that values separation of Church and State. The U.S. is majority Christian, but if I follow my partner's Jewish faith the government treats me no differently. If I adopt a child internationally, I would be under no pressure to convert that child to Christianity. But if an Israeli couple adopts internationally, they have to convert that child to Orthodox Judaism to have it gain Israeli citizenship.
I'm glad I don't live in a country that identifies itself with a particular religion, therefore I don't feel compelled to support Israel in identifying itself with Judaism. I support the right of the Israeli people to self-determination, I just don't want the U.S. government to be enforce its view of how Israel should be on that region.My own view: even from the perspective of an American Jew, Ron Paul is the best choice to lead America.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
A big tent
A comment by "Steve" on this LA Times article summarized one of my great hopes for a Ron Paul Presidency:
When I search Google News for "Ron Paul" recently, I see overwhelmingly positive coverage - most of it from people who disagree with his positions. I believe a majority of Americans agree with Paul's positions. Although he is not well-known enough (yet) to test this belief, the success of his meme is supporting evidence. More profoundly, I believe that the vast majority of Americans can respect Paul as a leader and be proud of America with Paul as head-of-state.
Isn't a united America, in all its diversity, a vision worth working for? To me, it's a vision worth voting for.
I have never seen so many people from all sections of our society come together for a common cause before like I see with the Ron Paul movement. In my meetup group there are doctors, lawyers, cooks, nurses, teachers, bus drivers, highway patrolman, 2 electricians, a WW2 vet and several Vietnam vets. Rich poor, young and old are coming together under the banner of freedom, it's the American way.
When I search Google News for "Ron Paul" recently, I see overwhelmingly positive coverage - most of it from people who disagree with his positions. I believe a majority of Americans agree with Paul's positions. Although he is not well-known enough (yet) to test this belief, the success of his meme is supporting evidence. More profoundly, I believe that the vast majority of Americans can respect Paul as a leader and be proud of America with Paul as head-of-state.
Isn't a united America, in all its diversity, a vision worth working for? To me, it's a vision worth voting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
