Archive for December 16th, 2009

Ron Paul on MSNBC’s Morning Joe

Ron Paul on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. Ron criticizes Ben Bernanke and the Fed. Explains the Austrian Economic view of how the “system is evil.” Tells how he as President would have pulled all the troops home from wars and from all the foreign bases around the globe.


Ron Paul: “It’s Time to Leave Afghanistan”, 12-10-09

Ron Paul: Sanctioning Iran a Dangerous, Illegal Move

Sanctioning Iran a Dangerous, Illegal Move

URL to article:

Posted By Rep. Ron Paul On December 15, 2009

Before the United States House of Representatives, statement opposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act

I rise in strongest opposition to this new round of sanctions on Iran, which is another significant step toward a U.S. war on that country. I find it shocking that legislation this serious and consequential is brought up in such a cavalier manner. Suspending the normal rules of the House to pass legislation is a process generally reserved for “non-controversial” business such as the naming of post offices. Are we to believe that this House takes matters of war and peace as lightly as naming post offices?

This legislation seeks to bar from doing business in the United States any foreign entity that sells refined petroleum to Iran or otherwise enhances Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum such as financing, brokering, underwriting, or providing ships for such. Such sanctions also apply to any entity that provides goods or services that enhance Iran’s ability to maintain or expand its domestic production of refined petroleum. This casts the sanctions net worldwide, with enormous international economic implications. Recently, the Financial Times reported that, “[i]n recent months, Chinese companies have greatly expanded their presence in Iran’s oil sector. In the coming months, Sinopec, the state-owned Chinese oil company, is scheduled to complete the expansion of the Tabriz and Shazand refineries – adding 3.3 million gallons of gasoline per day.”

Are we to conclude, with this in mind, that China or its major state-owned corporations will be forbidden by this legislation from doing business with the United States? What of our other trading partners who currently do business in Iran’s petroleum sector or insure those who do so? Has anyone seen an estimate of how this sanctions act will affect the U.S. economy if it is actually enforced?

As we have learned with U.S. sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with U.S. sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the U.S. targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime.

This legislation seeks to bring Iran in line with international demands regarding its nuclear materials enrichment programs, but what is ironic is that Section 2 of HR 2194 itself violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which both the United States and Iran are signatories. This section states that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States … to prevent Iran from achieving the capability to make nuclear weapons, including by supporting international diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program.” Article V of the NPT states clearly that, “[n]othing in this treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the parties to the treaty to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this treaty.” As Iran has never been found in violation of the NPT – has never been found to have diverted nuclear materials for non-peaceful purposes – this legislation seeking to deny Iran the right to enrichment even for peaceful purposes itself violates the NPT.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that many of my colleagues opposing war on Iran will vote in favor of this legislation, seeing it as a step short of war to bring Iran into line with U.S. demands. I would remind them that sanctions and the blockades that are required to enforce them are themselves acts of war according to international law. I urge my colleagues to reject this saber-rattling but ultimately counterproductive legislation.

Read more by Rep. Ron Paul



House Overwhelmingly Approves More Sanctions Against Iran

Bill Aims to Bar Gasoline From Iran

Obama’s Foolish and Unjust Policy on Iran and Nuclear Weapons

Brzezinski: It’s Time for Obama to Channel His Hopes into Audacious Actions

Note what Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski so accurately conveys below with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being the primary motivation for the tragic 9/11 attack (and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 as well) as such is also conveyed via the exchange with 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton in the ‘What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t’ youtube linked on the right at http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM and at http://REPRESENTATIVEPRESS.ORG as well

The Bottom Line (to the Afghan quagmire):


Subject: January/February Pre-Release: Brzezinski: It’s Time for Obama to Channel His Hopes into Audacious Actions 


December 11, 2009

  Brzezinski: It’s Time for Obama to Channel His Hopes into Audacious Actions  

Biggest Tests are Middle East Peace, Iran, Afghanistan

In his first year as president, Barack Obama has “comprehensively reconceptualized U.S. foreign policy” and tried to “redefine the United States’ view of the world” observes former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. For his effort to turn a new page with the Muslim world, commitment to reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, treating China as a partner, and improving U.S.-Russia relations, among other things, Obama “did deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.”But so far, notes Brzezinski, Obama’s foreign policy “has generated more expectations than strategic breakthroughs”–in fact, the United States is already losing the renewed assurance of the Arab world and his “grand redefinition of U.S. foreign policy is vulnerable.” Obama must now turn to the three biggest challenges which will ultimately test his ability and his resolve to significantly change U.S. policy:

1. Israel-Palestine Peace Process:
“Paralysis over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has lasted far too long, and leaving it unresolved has pernicious consequences for the Palestinians, for the region, and for the United States, and it will eventually harm Israel. It is not fashionable to say this, but it is demonstrably true that–deservedly or not–much of the current hostility toward the United States in the Middle East and the Islamic world as a whole has been generated by the bloodshed and suffering produced by this prolonged conflict. Osama bin Laden’s self-serving justifications for 9/11 are a reminder that the United States itself is also a victim of the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum.”

2. Iran’s Nuclear Program
“Those advocating a tougher stance [on Iran] should remember that the United States would bear the brunt of the painful consequences in the event of an attack on Iran, whether the United States or Israel launched it. Iran would likely target U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly destabilizing both countries; the Strait of Hormuz could become a blazing war zone; and Americans would again pay steep prices at the gas pump. Iran is an issue regarding which, above all, Obama must trust himself to lead and not to be led. So far, he has done so.”

3. War in Afghanistan
“Obama has moved toward abandoning some of the more ambitious, even ideological, objectives that defined the United States’ initial engagement in Afghanistan–the creation of a modern democracy, for example. But the United States must be very careful lest its engagement in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which still has primarily and most visibly a military dimension, comes to be viewed by the Afghans and the Pakistanis as yet another case of Western colonialism and elicits from them an increasingly militant response. Brzezinski, who has advised presidents since 1977, concludes that “the optimal moment for blending national aspirations with decisive leadership is when the personal authority of the president is at its highest–usually during the first year in office. For President Obama, alas, that first year has been dominated by the economic crisis and the struggle over health-care reform. The next three years may thus be more difficult. For the United States’ national interest, but also for humanity’s sake, that makes it truly vital for Obama to pursue with tenacious audacity the soaring hopes he unleashed.”

  Media Inquiries  
  Nadine Apelian, Media Relations, Foreign Affairs: 917.710.7432 or   
  About Foreign Affairs  
  Published by the Council on Foreign Relations since 1922, Foreign Affairs is the leading publication on international affairs and U.S. foreign policy. The total paid circulation of Foreign Affairs has reached an all-time high of 161,000 per issue, a 43 percent rise since 2001. The premier business-to-business research firm Erdos & Morgan also ranks the magazine #1 in influence by U.S. opinion leaders in a national study of publications. Inevitably, articles published in Foreign Affairs shape the political dialogue for months and years to