An attack on Israel is an attack on the US, says … Rand Paul?

posted at 8:31 am on January 25, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Allahpundit wrote Wednesday that Rand Paul is working hard to differentiate from his father’s brand, but … wow. Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro asked Paul the Younger about aid to Israel, which Paul says he’d like to eliminate only after eliminating all foreign aid — and that the effort should start with nations where the people “burn the American flag,” and perhaps Israel last. If President, Paul pledges to send a message that American troops will intervene on Israel’s behalf if attacked, regardless of aid decisions, using the NATO formulation:

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.

Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.

“Well absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said in an interview with Breitbart News, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

Can you imagine Paul the Elder ever saying, “An attack on Israel is an attack on the US”? I doubt he’d even say that about NATO countries.

Needless to say, this will go a long way with Republicans and conservatives to put their trust in Paul the Younger’s judgment. What, though, will it do for hopes that Rand Paul could create a fusion between traditional Republicanism and the more rational elements of Ron Paul’s followers? It’s one thing to establish a separate brand from his father, but this looks more like repudiation — and the Ron Paul Revolution will almost certainly feel the same way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Rand is the Brad Stevens of the 2016 campaign. Just beautiful.

Notorious GOP on January 25, 2013 at 8:35 AM

Wish our president would say it…

Kaptain Amerika on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

and that the effort should start with nations where the people “burn the American flag,” and perhaps Israel last

I’m getting a tingle down my leg but I will remain cautious. Still, yeah, WOW, when was the last time you heard talk like this from someone who seems to mean it.

Bishop on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

An attack on Israel is an attack on the US, says … Rand Paul?

Poor Dante. He had such hopes that the Paul brand of isolationism would jump from one generation to the next. Rand Paul even used the “I” word (intervention) which is like garlic to a vampire to Dante! Life is just that much better this morning.

Happy Nomad on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Any way to stop the autoplay on the video?

And yeah – I’m about to buy Rand a beer.

beatcanvas on January 25, 2013 at 8:39 AM

My daughter’s libertarian club hardest hit. I foresee a lot of write-in ballots in 2016.

Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I’m getting a tingle down my leg but I will remain cautious. Still, yeah, WOW, when was the last time you heard talk like this from someone who seems to mean it.

Bishop on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

I’m exactly where you are. I like what I hear from Rand Paul and this is the closest I can recall to him staking out a different foreign policy stance than his dad. Yet……the nut rarely falls far from the tree. I’m cautiously optimistic about Rand Paul’s positions on the issues but there is still a lot about the man we do not know.

Happy Nomad on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Poor Dante. He had such hopes that the Paul brand of isolationism would jump from one generation to the next. Rand Paul even used the “I” word (intervention) which is like garlic to a vampire to Dante! Life is just that much better this morning.

Meh, at least he didn’t vote for Mitt or John.

Notorious GOP on January 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Happy Nomad on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

Yep. I predict a meeltdown of epic proportions today. Should be fun.

I’m with you, Bish. I’m beginning to like this guy. But, I’m being wary.

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 8:42 AM

Rand-tastic!

HondaV65 on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Noted. Non-interventionism doesnt mean Americaland refuses to help her true allies.

Jeddite on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

My daughter’s libertarian club hardest hit. I foresee a lot of write-in ballots in 2016.
Archivarix on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I think Rand understands what it takes to be President. He can’t go out and say what his dad has said and think he can get ‘conservatives’ who voted for Mitt to vote for him.

Notorious GOP on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

This is what I wish the paleocons here would understand: Foreign relations involves military relationships. And part of a military relationship is the agreement to militarily defend our allies.

Sekhmet on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

As for the video autoplay — had to block newsinc.com in NoScript.

Jeddite on January 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Liking this guy…..

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM

..I’m REALLY starting to like Rand…more than “the young Republicans on the bench” everybody talks about!

KOOLAID2 on January 25, 2013 at 8:46 AM

Slowly we turn, step-by-step. . . .

I’m warming up. Will continue to monitor him going forward. Remain caution that sometimes apples roll far away from the tree. Here is hoping.

D-fusit on January 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

Suicide alert! The Paulians would be contemplating it en masse today. On a more serious note, my confidence in Paul the younger is growing. Hes going mainstream GOP. Good to see. Yeah, I still have a bit of cynicism left. Lets see how it plays out.

tommy71 on January 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

His father may be a naive isolationist at best, and an anti-semitic apologist for Islamo-fascism at worst, but I am willing to give Rand Paul a chance to prove he can to correctly filter the good elements of his father’s worldview from the bad.

MidniteRambler on January 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM

The real question: does Rand have the courage to say deterrent? I think that should be our foreign policy, and I await his answer.

nobar on January 25, 2013 at 8:53 AM

I’m getting a tingle down my leg but I will remain cautious. Still, yeah, WOW, when was the last time you heard talk like this from someone who seems to mean it.

Bishop on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM

I’m exactly where you are. I like what I hear from Rand Paul and this is the closest I can recall to him staking out a different foreign policy stance than his dad. Yet……the nut rarely falls far from the tree. I’m cautiously optimistic about Rand Paul’s positions on the issues but there is still a lot about the man we do not know.

Happy Nomad on January 25, 2013 at 8:41 AM

We’ll see what he sponsors/introduces and how he votes. Time to review how he has voted so far. Beyond that, I couldn’t anything to the above expressed sentiment.

M240H on January 25, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Hes going mainstream GOP. tommy71 on January 25, 2013 at 8:48 AM

re-phrase please, the last thing we want is another mainstream GOP senator!!

chasdal on January 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM

What’s his position on womenens,gays,latinos,and welfare junkies?That’s what wins elections now.

docflash on January 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Alot of Israelis have American citizenship. Set aside diplomatic ties, or national alliances, or any of the rest of it. An attack on Israel is an attack on Americans.

Rand gets it right.

SAMinVA on January 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM

Future headlines where Rand Paul distances himself from his dad:

“Rand Paul states ‘We did NOT kill 1,000,000 or even 100,000 innocent Iraqis’”

” Rand Paul says in interview ’9/11 was caused by islamic terrorist’”

“‘I’m not a fan of Alex Jones’, declares Rand Paul”

DethMetalCookieMonst on January 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM

As for the video autoplay — had to block newsinc.com in NoScript.

Jeddite on January 25, 2013 at 8:45 AM

::cough:: AdBlockplus ::cough::

OldEnglish on January 25, 2013 at 8:57 AM

Cautiously optimistic.

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 8:59 AM

Nice! Great answer. Yeah, people burning our flag and chanting “Death to America!” maybe we can cut aid to them. Thank you Rand for the doses of conviction recently. It’s very refreshing.

Dongemaharu on January 25, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Rand has hit back to back home runs. He’s not just right but plain spoken.

Basilsbest on January 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM

Doesn’t Obama have to answer this question, now? Either way he answers it he’s screwed, so you’d want to force him to give a straightforward answer to this.

Buddahpundit on January 25, 2013 at 9:03 AM

re-phrase please, the last thing we want is another mainstream GOP senator!!

chasdal on January 25, 2013 at 8:55 AM

+1

Panther on January 25, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Don’t know that I’d go mutual defense treaty unless we first were assured we weren’t going to be pissing away blood and treasure in some politically correct war of attrition.

If the Israelis WANT to have peace they are going to have to destroy any and ever enemy around them. THAT I would support whole-heartedly. A 12 year war with a bunch of goat or camel herders that we don’t want to really WIN (Afghanistan) then NO, NO, NO.

PappyD61 on January 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM

What I am getting here is that the Rand Doctrine is close to the Jose Quiñones doctrine: Get out of entangling alliances, cut costs everywhere possible, including foreign aid, and treat Israel like an adult nation able to defend themselves. However, we cannot for one second pretend that Israel is not a unique case, worthy of special consideration for a variety of factors (Holocaust Never Again, democracy, religious ties, history, past promises and treaties, etc. etc.)

To Rand’s doctrine, let me add this addendum: Pull out of Europe. Close bases in Asia. Keep up on the development of awesome space-based weaponry like Reagan said. And finally, choose one of our innumerable little islands in the Pacific. Drop our biggest H-Bomb on it. Tell the world, “This will happen to any nation or terrorist group that dares to touch a hair on the head of any of our allies.” Then we list those allies. And we shut up. The dog that barks the least is the scariest.

Isn’t that the whole point of speak softly and carry a big stick?

JoseQuinones on January 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM

CRUZ doesn’t have to run for re-election in 2016. Rand and Rubio do.

Ted, me more likey.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will not vote for the House-passed debt-ceiling bill because it does not include spending cuts, his office said on Wednesday.

“For four years, the Senate Democrats have refused to pass a budget, and the House plan may well force them to finally do their job,” Cruz said in a statement Wednesday night. “However, suspending the debt ceiling without significant cuts or spending reforms just doesn’t make sense, and I intend to vote no.”

Cruz earlier this week, on Meet the Press, said the House bill was a good first step but that it did not go far enough. He had not, however, stated whether he ultimately would support the legislation if it came to the Senate floor.

PappyD61 on January 25, 2013 at 9:08 AM

Slightly OT – but a win in my book. Probably even mentioned already.

Senator Ma’am was upset with Paul and his grilling of Secretary VRWC on Wednesday. :)

22044 on January 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM

I wish people would stop assuming all libertarians are like Ron Paul. Ron Paul had his own brand of naive thought processes.

Anyone that claims individual liberty and freedom stops at our borders and refuses to lend a helping hand to those asking for it are not true libertarians. They’re hypocrites.

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 9:23 AM

Slightly OT – but a win in my book. Probably even mentioned already.

Senator Ma’am was upset with Paul and his grilling of Secretary VRWC on Wednesday. :)

22044 on January 25, 2013 at 9:22 AM

The bitter old harpy let go of the bourbon bottle for long enough to comment on Paul? Now that’s a WOW.

Bishop on January 25, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I wonder where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to fight wars on the behalf of another country?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Alot of Israelis have American citizenship. Set aside diplomatic ties, or national alliances, or any of the rest of it. An attack on Israel is an attack on Americans.
Rand gets it right.
SAMinVA on January 25, 2013 at 8:56 AM

I’m sure there are quite a few Americans who have dual citizenship with Iran or Saudi Arabia. By your logic, should an attack on Iran or Saudi Arabia be considered to be an attack on Americans.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I wonder where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to fight wars on the behalf of another country?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM

The Treaty Clause. Article Two, Section Two, Clause Two.

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I wonder where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to fight wars on the behalf of another country?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Israel is not “another country.” Israel is a country that the USA fought and bled red American blood to found, as a haven for a persecuted people and religion. If that is not what America is about, what is America about? Pick up a history book sometime. Consider that if the USA had not intervened in Nazi Germany, there would be no Israel today. Consider that if the USA had not shielded Israel time and time and time again, whether we speak of the constant UN sniping or the endless attacks on their very national existence by terrorists surrounding them, they would not exist. To abandon them now would be the most perverse abandonment of friends ever. I know some people like to see the Constitution in terms of black and white, but we live in a real world. There are some exceptions. Not many, but some. Israel is one.

JoseQuinones on January 25, 2013 at 9:39 AM

I wonder where in the Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to fight wars on the behalf of another country?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Artical 2, Sec. 2. Second para. “Treaties”

Pretty sure this is understood to mean “Mutual Defense” as well.
Think NATO.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM

and the more rational elements of Ron Paul’s followers

Ed, you say this as though supporters of Dr. Paul (of which I am one) are generally irrational. As often as the left paints conservatives irrational for their beliefs you would think that conservatives would be slow to do the same to others.
Just because we have different opinions on a handful of issues does not make us irrational.
I think that when you conservatives begin to realize that our leaders foreign policy is nearly identical to that of the leaders of the left… they may start to question our irrationality.
Rand Paul’s message on Israel may sound different then his father’s but in reality it’s not much different.

therambler on January 25, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Artical 2, Sec. 2. Second para. “Treaties”

Pretty sure this is understood to mean “Mutual Defense” as well.
Think NATO.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Yeppers, which is why I continuously remind people like Dante that Iran doesn’t need to hit the US to drag us into a war. All that it has to do is to attack Turkey and that would trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty. If Turkey sought aid and assistance, the US would become involved — and, of course, we provide the majority of troops, materiel, and funding.

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Blue Buddha!

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Israel is not “another country.” Israel is a country that the USA fought and bled red American blood to found

No, the US did not fight any war for the purpose of founding Israel. Please go read a history book.

To abandon them now would be the most perverse abandonment of friends ever.
JoseQuinones on January 25, 2013 at 9:39 AM

The term “friend” is used very loosely when it pertains to Israel. What have they done for us that is above and beyond what any other country has done for us? Oh, do “friends” create false flag attacks in order to draw us into their wars?

Israeli Attack on USS Liberty

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1

# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Second look at Paul?
Maybe he is different. Or maybe this is just simply an act to placate people after he ruffled too many feathers.
Will keep watching.

astonerii on January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Artical 2, Sec. 2. Second para. “Treaties”
Pretty sure this is understood to mean “Mutual Defense” as well.
Think NATO.
Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Care to explain how Israel can come to the defense of the US when they can barely defend themselves. Or why does the largest, most expensive, most powerful, most technologically advanced military in the world need to be in a mutual defense pact with any other country? You neocons demand that there be no substantial cuts in the DoD budget lest we gut defense. The US spends almost as much on defense as all other countries combined. Why do we have to be a party to a mutual defense pact with any other country. We are more than capable of defending ourselves.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Ed, you say this as though supporters of Dr. Paul (of which I am one) are generally irrational.
therambler on January 25, 2013 at 9:55 AM

He says that because the VAST majority of Herr Doktor’s supporters are nuts. A few of them, (if you genuinely happen to fit in that catagory) are naive poorly informed denialists.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Israeli Attack on USS Liberty

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1

# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Shut your effing piehole you ignorant racist bigot. My dad was on the USS Liberty when it was attacked. You don’t have the slightest glimmer of a hope of knowing what happened or why.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Yeppers, which is why I continuously remind people like Dante that Iran doesn’t need to hit the US to drag us into a war. All that it has to do is to attack Turkey and that would trigger Article 5 of the NATO treaty. If Turkey sought aid and assistance, the US would become involved — and, of course, we provide the majority of troops, materiel, and funding.
Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

And why hasn’t NATO been disbanded? The Cold War is over.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

You (we ) can remind Dante of this until we are blue. He will not bite. It sees MD agreements as the boogyman. Cites “Sovereign Nation” bs.

BTW- Where is Dante ? Thought this thread would have him in an Inferno.

Tailor made for him.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 10:09 AM

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Ahh so we just should toss them under the bus because of that right?

Anyways, If it was one on one with likes Iran, Israel will show you exactly how well they defend themselves. Actually, they been doing that for years already.

watertown on January 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Shut your effing piehole you ignorant racist bigot. My dad was on the USS Liberty when it was attacked. You don’t have the slightest glimmer of a hope of knowing what happened or why.
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Strong words for a blog post little man. By the way, I love how you instinctively throw out charges of racism while at the same time b!+ch and moan when the left does it to you. And not that I care, do you mind highlighting those supposed “racist” comments of mine.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Ahh so we just should toss them under the bus because of that right?

How about they be treated like every other country. They have the responsibility to defend themselves.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 9:56 AM

And why hasn’t NATO been disbanded? The Cold War is over.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Maybe because the purpose of NATO was never just about Soviet Russia, but was designed to prevent the national militarization of Europe which caused WWI.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:13 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Strong words for a blog post little man. By the way, I love how you instinctively throw out charges of racism while at the same time b!+ch and moan when the left does it to you. And not that I care, do you mind highlighting those supposed “racist” comments of mine.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Don’t need to, they are right there for everyone to see. Pretending to be wise, you expose yourself as a fool. The only people who ever bring up the USS Liberty incident are anti-Semitic a$$holes. Those who know what happen, as opposed to the anti-Semitic fools, leave it alone unless some anti-Semitic fool insists on bringing it up.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM

Care to explain how Israel can come to the defense of the US when they can barely defend themselves. Or why does the largest, most expensive, most powerful, most technologically advanced military in the world need to be in a mutual defense pact with any other country? You neocons demand that there be no substantial cuts in the DoD budget lest we gut defense. The US spends almost as much on defense as all other countries combined. Why do we have to be a party to a mutual defense pact with any other country. We are more than capable of defending ourselves.antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:04 AM

I am not a “neocon”.

It’s called “Sphere of Influence”.

Not trying to incite here, but :

If defending ourselves is your sole, myopic view, there is not much I can say to you.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM

He says that because the VAST majority of Herr Doktor’s supporters are nuts. A few of them, (if you genuinely happen to fit in that catagory) are naive poorly informed denialists.
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Funny, the people I consider to be “nuts” are those who fall for their Dear Leader’s claims that Iraq had WMDs hook, line, and sinker. And those same nuts supported a war that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, scores more maimed for life, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, only to be left with a country that’s torn apart with sectarian strife.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Don’t need to, they are right there for everyone to see.
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I see. You’re channeling your inner Maureen Dowd. You don’t actually need any actual prof, you can just sense it just like Maureen Dowd. Have you ever thought about writing for the New York Times?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:28 AM

If defending ourselves is your sole, myopic view, there is not much I can say to you.
Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 10:19 AM

More like you don’t have much of an argument.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Funny, the people I consider to be “nuts” are those who fall for their Dear Leader’s claims that Iraq had WMDs hook, line, and sinker. And those same nuts supported a war that resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, scores more maimed for life, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, only to be left with a country that’s torn apart with sectarian strife.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Let’s be perfectly clear here, it never occurred to me that you were anything but one of Herr Doktors useless brain damaged imbeciles. Ignorant, poorly educated unable to comprehend what you read even less capable of discerning truth from misinformation you trudge painfully and drearily through life suffering under the delusion of being intelligent and enlightened. You are neither.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Bottom line is you don’t like the Constitution. You asked where in the Constitution it gave any president the authority to fight for another nation and you were provided with the answer.

If you don’t like the answer or the ramifications of it, then you have a problem with the Constitution, not those who make legal choices via it’s construct that disagree with your moral fiber.

If you’re a pacifist or isolationist, that’s cool. It’s your thing. But don’t pretend a nation that was founded on bloodshed in order to provide liberty and freedom is not going to provide for a means to do it again if needed. Whether that be within our borders or outside.

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I see. You’re channeling your inner Maureen Dowd. You don’t actually need any actual prof, you can just sense it just like Maureen Dowd. Have you ever thought about writing for the New York Times?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Have you ever thought of writing for Art Bell?

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:31 AM

More like you don’t have much of an argument.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Actually, I do. And it’s called History.

We can start in 1800 or so and consider the formation of our Navy.
It goes from there.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 10:37 AM

An attack on Israel is an attack on the US, says … Rand Paul?

NEOCON!!!

Ed, you say this as though supporters of Dr. Paul (of which I am one) are generally irrational.

therambler

I wonder why, lol?

Oh, do “friends” create false flag attacks in order to draw us into their wars?

Israeli Attack on USS Liberty

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1

# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist

Paulbots have earned every bit of their irrational label.

xblade on January 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM

antifederalist

Paulbots have earned every bit of their irrational label.

xblade on January 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Funny how everyone can see it, except them, and they insist that they are the sane rational ones.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Bottom line is you don’t like the Constitution. You asked where in the Constitution it gave any president the authority to fight for another nation and you were provided with the answer.
If you don’t like the answer or the ramifications of it, then you have a problem with the Constitution, not those who make legal choices via it’s construct that disagree with your moral fiber.
If you’re a pacifist or isolationist, that’s cool. It’s your thing. But don’t pretend a nation that was founded on bloodshed in order to provide liberty and freedom is not going to provide for a means to do it again if needed. Whether that be within our borders or outside.
ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

No, what you’re doing is what the left does. You’re taking some new interpretation of the Constitution in order to fit your agenda. But I’m going to stay with your logic. Would it be Constitutionally permissible to enter into a treaty with another country to ban all firearms? Using your logic, it would be. A one-sided mutual defense pact is not functionally a mutual defense pact. It’s just a one sided agreement for the US to provide for the defense of another country.

In the end, your empire will crumble. The US is well beyond broke. It has $1T deficits, over $16T in debt and $100T -$200T in unfunded liabilities. Israel better start preparing to defend herself because the sick man of the West won’t be able to come to her aid at some point in time in the future.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

In the end, your empire will crumble. The US is well beyond broke. It has $1T deficits, over $16T in debt and $100T -$200T in unfunded liabilities. Israel better start preparing to defend herself because the sick man of the West won’t be able to come to her aid at some point in time in the future.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

When the economic collapse comes, it’s not just the United States that will crumble. The political structure of the entire earth will change drastically as it will be a worldwide depression like never imagined before.

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Paulbots have earned every bit of their irrational label.
xblade on January 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM

One word for you buddy, scoreboard!!!! Our “friend” Israel is kicking Iran’s @ss

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1
# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:30 AM

No, what you’re doing is what the left does.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Wrong answer moron.

United States Constitution Article 2 Section 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

When the economic collapse comes, it’s not just the United States that will crumble. The political structure of the entire earth will change drastically as it will be a worldwide depression like never imagined before.
ButterflyDragon on January 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I don’t know if or when such an event will occur but from what I can tell nothing the US does is at all sustainable. I recommend having plenty of food, ammo, and hard currency stocked.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

And how many mutual defense treaties did the US enter into during the founding generation?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM

And why hasn’t NATO been disbanded? The Cold War is over.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Of course it is, dear. Now run along

katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Looks like Dante’s little brother has arrived.

katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM

One word for you buddy, scoreboard!!!! Our “friend” Israel is kicking Iran’s @ss

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1
# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Ignorant imbecile… Here’s a hint… USS Samuel B. Roberts

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Tin foil hats! Get your tin foil hats here!

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:50 AM

And how many mutual defense treaties did the US enter into during the founding generation?

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Stupidity really is all you have going for you isn’t it.

1776–1799

1778 – Treaty of Alliance – American Revolutionary War alliance with France
1778 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce – with France
1782 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[2] – with Dutch Republic
1783 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[3] – with Sweden
1783 – Second Treaty of Paris Ended the American Revolutionary War
1785 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[4] – with Prussia

1833 – Siamese-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce – commercial treaty between the Kingdom of Siam

SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, will not vote for the House-passed debt-ceiling bill because it does not include spending cuts, his office said on Wednesday.

I like Cruz but this is typical politics. He knows it will pass so he’s building his conservative creds.

Vince on January 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM

From the article:

It’s one thing to establish a separate brand from his father, but this looks more like repudiation — and the Ron Paul Revolution will almost certainly feel the same way.

I supported Ron Paul during the primaries, because in my opinion, ‘it’s about the economy’. I am more hawkish than the ‘elder Paul’, but I still supported him. Four years of Paul’s FP wouldn’t have hurt too badly, and we would have had a much leaner government.

I have no problem with Rand’s statements on Israel.

And even if the statement did bother me, the economy is still the most important issue. Rand Paul has demonstrated a commitment to reduce federal intrusion into the market. How many other Republican politicians share that trait?

Chris ‘Obama’s outstanding’ Christie? John ‘compromise’ Boehner? Eric ‘party line’ Cantor?

Nephew Sam on January 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Stupidity really is all you have going for you isn’t it.
1776–1799
1778 – Treaty of Alliance – American Revolutionary War alliance with France
1778 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce – with France
1782 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[2] – with Dutch Republic
1783 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[3] – with Sweden
1783 – Second Treaty of Paris Ended the American Revolutionary War
1785 – Treaty of Amity and Commerce[4] – with Prussia
1833 – Siamese-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce – commercial treaty between the Kingdom of Siam
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Lots of friendship and commerce treaties. Nothing wrong with that. I can’t find a mutual defense treaty that infers an attack on France would be treated like an attack on the US. Try again dipstick.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Ignorant imbecile… Here’s a hint… USS Samuel B. Roberts
SWalker on January 25, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Does running into a mine field count as an attack? There was an active hot war at the time between Iran and Iraq. By the way, the US harshly retaliated against Iran via operation Praying Mantis. Should the US have retailiated against Israel in the same fashion?

By the way, the scoreboard remains the same

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1
# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Nothing wrong with that. I can’t find a mutual defense treaty that infers an attack on France would be treated like an attack on the US. Try again dipstick.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:34 AM

And what does that mean to you?

anuts on January 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

And even if the statement did bother me, the economy is still the most important issue.
Nephew Sam on January 25, 2013 at 11:14 AM

You can’t separate the two. Israel’s war with her neighbors will be eternal. By promising to go to war on Israel’s behalf means that the US will have to maintain a perpetual war machine. You can’t effectively address budget problems while trying to maintain a $1T/yr national security state.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:46 AM

And what does that mean to you?
anuts on January 25, 2013 at 11:42 AM

My Federal income tax bill is not insignificant. When any politician pledges to fight wars on behalf of another country they are pledging my resources, labor and time that has nothing to do with the defense of my property, life , or family. Also, by engaging with foreign people, I become a party to all the resultant death and destruction whether I agreed to it or not.

That’s what it means to me.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 11:57 AM

No, what you’re doing is what the left does. You’re taking some new interpretation of the Constitution in order to fit your agenda. But I’m going to stay with your logic. Would it be Constitutionally permissible to enter into a treaty with another country to ban all firearms? Using your logic, it would be.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

The problem with that logic is that a treaty to override the Second Amendment would be in contravention of the US Constitution itself. It would have the effect of amending the Const, without actually going through the process prescribed within the Const to change the Const.

There is nothing, explicitly, within the US Constitution that prohibits the POTUS from making a defense pact, nor the US Congress from ratifying such a treaty.

However, absence of such a prohibition does not mean it is a wise thing to do. People here bring up NATO. I think that bolsters the non-interventionist point. Twenty years + after the demise of the USSR, and we are still stuck with a commitment to defend nations that are demonstrably unwilling to expend what is necessary to defend themselves. It’s just like any other government program… once created, it never goes away.

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Can you explain to me how Israel, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan can offer the US any defense if it is attacked? Just because a sheet of paper says “mutual defense” does not make it so.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1

# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Wow. Someone check his meds. That’s some high-quality derangement there. How about the number of attacks against Americans by Iranian proxies? There are a number of Iranian expatriots where I work, and every one of them would laugh at your attempt to paint Israel as anything less than our friend, or the Iranian government as anything less than our dire enemy.

Whatever else is or isn’t true, there is one nation in the Middle East, and one only, which prizes liberty of the individual and which has tried to conduct itself peacefully with its neighbors.

If the U.S. doesn’t support that nation as a true friend, declaring to the rest of the world that we have our friend’s back, we are a weak excuse for a superpower.

Please come back when you have something useful to offer.

Freelancer on January 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

You just won’t quit. Your argument here is that there’s no value to a friendship if only one friend is capable of helping the other, without expectation of reciprocity? You must be a wonderful friend to have. It is more blessed to give than to receive, I seem to recall being said by someone whom I trust. If I choose allies only because they are strong enough to help me when I’m in need, why wouldn’t I expect them to choose their allies the same way? And then nobody is anybody’s friend, and we can each crawl into our own isolationist hole. But when one bully decides to take what isn’t his from the weakest around him, nobody will ever step up and help, because they won’t expect help in return.

No, there’s a thing called humanity. You help those you care for, whether they can return the favor or not. You help the weakest BECAUSE they need it the most. You fight the unprovoked aggressor BECAUSE it is right.

Freelancer on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

# of US Warships attacked by Israel – 1
# of US Warships attacked by Iran – 0

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Careful Mein Herr, your true feelings are showing. Israel has never knowingly and deliberately attacked a US vessel.

Iran on the other hand, funded and supported the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon resulting in the deaths of 241 US servicemen.

Iran is also supporting much of the Iraqi and Afhgan insurgencies which have killed thousands of US servicemen.

Can you imagine Paul the Elder ever saying, “An attack on Israel is an attack on the US”? I doubt he’d even say that about NATO countries.

Herr Doktor Paul is on record lying for Hamas about Israel’s self defense efforts during Operation Cast lead in 2009.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Can you explain to me how Israel, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan can offer the US any defense if it is attacked? Just because a sheet of paper says “mutual defense” does not make it so.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:18 PM

How those nations, in the case of an attack on the US, could best assist the US would be up to the SecState, SecDef, and POTUS. If nothing else, they might, and almost certainly would, provide strategic staging areas, listening posts, and supply depots.

But that doesn’t matter. Just because something is unwise, does not make it unconstitutional. You asked about the constitutionality of the action, and have been given chapter and verse on just where in the Const POTUS and Congress derive their authority…

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:31 PM

The acorn never falls far from the tree. Never.

Jump on Daddy’s coattails, become the Ringmaster, and JUST SAY ANYTHING, career politician Rand Paul.

Daddy couldn’t git it dun and hindsight is 20/20.

SD Tom on January 25, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Careful Mein Herr, your true feelings are showing. Israel has never knowingly and deliberately attacked a US vessel.

Alberta_Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

But they have, knowingly and deliberately, engaged in espionage against the US.

In case y’all forgot…

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Freelancer on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Doing a great job taking AF to task.
Be wary of getting anywhere with it though.
Note the language it uses. Me, I, Me , Mine, My.

Thinking in terms of others is not it’s strong suite.

WIIFM attitude.

Jabberwock on January 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM

No, there’s a thing called humanity. You help those you care for, whether they can return the favor or not. You help the weakest BECAUSE they need it the most. You fight the unprovoked aggressor BECAUSE it is right.

Freelancer on January 25, 2013 at 12:28 PM

And they call non-interventionists naive.

Please. Spare me the talk of “humanity”, and go right to “cry me a freaking river”. We don’t help nations because we’re nice guys. We help nations because it is in our national interest to do so.

Which, of course, by definition means that when helping them ceases to be in our national interest, under the bus they go…

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Noted. Non-interventionism doesnt mean Americaland refuses to help her true allies.

Jeddite on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM

Came in here JUST to say this. If anyone thinks it’s not possible to defend a besieged ally without playing Little Jack Horner, put a can of compressed air to your ear and blow the cobwebs off your brain!

But they have, knowingly and deliberately, engaged in espionage against the US.

In case y’all forgot…

JohnGalt23 on January 25, 2013 at 12:33 PM

In case you’ve forgotten, or more likely are too dense to know, everyone wants to spy on us.

MelonCollie on January 25, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Wow. Someone check his meds. That’s some high-quality derangement there.

All I did was state some facts. The scoreboard doesn’t lie.

Whatever else is or isn’t true, there is one nation in the Middle East, and one only, which prizes liberty of the individual and which has tried to conduct itself peacefully with its neighbors.

I think it was Russell Kirk who said that liberty and property are closely linked. How can this so called bastion of individual liberty forcibly confiscate private property from Palestinians? Without private property, there is no liberty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuxXR_VSw9g

If the U.S. doesn’t support that nation as a true friend, declaring to the rest of the world that we have our friend’s back, we are a weak excuse for a superpower.

And why is being a superpower so important to you. I think the people in the US from 1776 to 1941 got along just fine without having to be the world’s super power. And let me go on record for being against US super power status.

antifederalist on January 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2