YES! Ron Paul Says It, No More AIPAC [Jew Lobby] in HIS Administration

Muckraker Report: You seem to have a stronger anti-war stance than even many of the Democratic candidates: unlike Hillary Clinton, for instance, you voted against the Iraq war. In terms of foreign policy, what would a Ron Paul presidency look like?

Congressman Ron Paul: Well, it certainly wouldn’t involve going to war with countries that pose no threat to us. The 2002 Iraq war resolution transferred the authority and responsibility for waging war from the legislature to the executive branch, which is a total breach of the principles of the U.S. Constitution. James Madison pointed this out in 1798, that because the executive is the branch of government most interested in war, the question of war must be vested in the legislature – “with studied care,” I believe his exact words were. You can’t have presidents waging war willy-nilly for reasons that are fundamentally at odds with the basic interests of the American people. I voted against that resolution because I believe strongly that we should avoid getting entangled in foreign alliances and instead seek peace and trade with all nations. This is a reflection of the wisdom of the Founders, who advocated a non-interventionist foreign policy, the most eloquent expression of which can be found in George Washington’s Farewell Address. So to answer your question, if I were president, I would do my best to follow in the footsteps of the Founders by abiding by the rules laid out in the U.S. Constitution, which means limiting the power of the executive to wage war.

Muckraker Report: Each year, the U.S. gives billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel, which, many academics have argued, not only fuels anger and hostility towards the United States among Muslims in the Middle East, but places a heavy burden on the U.S. taxpayer. As president, would you do anything to address this imbalance in America’s foreign aid policy?

Congressman Ron Paul: I’m with the academics on this one. Anyone who is even remotely aware of the facts knows that American foreign policy in the Middle East has stirred up enormous anger among Muslims, our support for Israel included, and you’re correct to say that it’s the American taxpayer who’s shouldering much of the burden. Also, the sanctions in Iraq during Clinton’s presidency, which killed nearly as many Iraqis as have died under the Bush presidency, and the presence of our military bases in Saudi Arabia – together with the situation in Israel, these actions are used by extremists and jihadists as justification for killing Americans. Just look at bin Laden’s public statements throughout the nineties. Can you imagine what it would be like if parts of the United States were occupied by a foreign power, if China was building military bases the size of the Vatican in Kansas? People would be up in arms! This isn’t to say that we “invited” the attacks of 9/11, or any other terrorist attacks, but simply that our policy decisions have certain consequences that we might wish to avoid. The CIA has given a name for this – “blowback.” This was the subject of my recent disagreement with Rudy Giuliani in the debate, who has no idea what he’s talking about. On a global playing field, deeds can have a way of rebounding on the doer, which is why the older imperial powers tended to be very cautious in their dealings with strange peoples in foreign lands. The Clinton and Bush administrations have been absolutely incompetent in comparison. This doesn’t mean that I’m against the idea of spreading the concept of freedom, just not with the barrel of a gun. Like I said, my solution would be to follow the wisdom of the Founders, which means a non-interventionist foreign policy, getting rid of foreign aid to all nations, including Israel. We ought to lead by example, not by coercion or special interest: this was what the Founders had in mind.

Muckraker Report: Where do you stand on Guantanamo?

Congressman Ron Paul: Shut it down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility.

Muckraker Report: In his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,” former president Jimmy Carter has argued that AIPAC, the so-called “Israeli Lobby” in Washington, exerts an undue influence on America’s foreign policy decisions in the Middle East. Do you agree?

Congressman Ron Paul: The First Amendment grants all citizens the right to petition the U.S. government, and this applies to AIPAC as much as anyone else. However, I oppose certain lobbying groups having more of an undue influence than others, and since one of the main purposes of AIPAC is to lobby for generous taxpayer subsidies to Israel, that portion of their influence would end under my administration.

Muckraker Report: Would you advocate trading with Iran?

Congressman Ron Paul: I believe in free-markets, and I think the goal of the United States should be to have a friendly trading relationship with all nations. Look at how much we accomplished in Vietnam since we stopped fighting with them and started trading with them. I believe that it’s wrong for the government to encourage or discourage trade with anyone. So while I do not advocate trading with Iran in any special or exclusive sense, I would look at how best to remove government limitations on international trade. If this should result in increased trade with Iran, then so be it.