In the debate among the members of our community
over the advisability of going to War to oust the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein from power in
Iraq, the statements of Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) have been, interestingly enough,
offered up by both the left-wing peace camp, and the right wing conspiracy theory camp, as a
laudable example of lucid reasoning on the anti-war side.
I would however advise those who consider his writing
to be a useful crutch for their anti-war sentiment, that they are suffering under a gross illusion
as to the solidity, strength, and viability of that crutch. In other words, the use of Congressman
Ron Paul's writing to support the anti-war side, further marginalizes the anti-war argument, for
the simple reason that even the most cursory examination of Ron Paul's background reveals
that, on Issues of Foreign Policy, the Opinions of Congressman Ron Paul can be Safely and
But first, let me say that I honor and appreciate
Congressman Paul's stand against abortion and in defense of the child in the womb. I
recognize that it is very unusual for a person with a Libertarian political affiliation to take such
a position. (Ron Paul was member of the Libertarian Party, and even a candidate for President
under that banner, before he decided that a Republican hat would serve his electoral ambitions
more effectively.) I admit that it took some courage to maintain that stand within a political
movement that is, generally speaking, monolithically pro-choice. His position in this respect
undoubtably caused many people in that party to grit their teeth, and perhaps this friction was
one factor in Paul's decision to move over to the Republican Party.
And secondly, let me say that I appreciate his strict
constructionist stand on the U.S. Constitution. I agree with many of his views in this respect. I
believe that I share some common ground with him on some important issues of constitutional
But, I have to say that in many ways he takes his brand
of strict constructionism to an extreme, and his extremism in this regard is his Achilles heal,
especially when it comes to his views on the foreign policy of the United States. Congressman
Ron Paul is opposed to every single use of U.S. military power from the Korean War on.
Now, the primary reason he gives for opposing
America's involvement in the Korean War, America's involvement in the Vietnam War,
America's assistance to the freedom fighters in Afghanistan, America's assistance to the
freedom fighters in Nicaragua, America's intervention in Lebanon, America's toppling of a
Communist government in Granada, America's toppling of the dictator Noriega in Panama,
America's participation in the First Gulf War, America's intervention in Bosnia, America's
intervention in Kosovo, and the proposed effort to oust Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, is,
that in not one of these cases did the U.S. Congress actually "Declare War."
Congressman Ron Paul believes that the only way that
U.S. military power can be used under the U.S. Constitution, is for the U.S. Congress to
"Declare War." But the silliness of this hair-splitting is too obvious to the common sense of
the great majority of the American people. To remain true to the spirit of the Constitution
requires only that the U.S. Congress give its consent to the use of military power, and that it
retain the power to stop any use of military power. These requirements have been fulfilled in
every one of these cases. In every one of these cases the U.S. Congress provided its consent in
the form of a resolution authorizing the President to use the military forces of the United
States, and in every case retained the power to withdraw that authorization, which it actually
exercised at the close of the Vietnam War, and in relationship to the funding of the Nicaraguan
freedom fighters, where in both cases, resolutions were passed forbidding the expenditure of
any additional funds in these areas. In each of these cases, the people's representatives have
always been in control of the use of U.S. military power, and that is exactly what the U.S.
Because these principles stand out in such stark relief
within a mind ruled by the illumination of common sense, one might wonder what it is that
keeps Congressman Paul attached to his silliness in this respect.
The answer to that, in my view, is clear. Congressman
Ron Paul at heart is essentially a pacifist, exhibiting that all too common sense of desparation,
common to pacifists in general, to find and reach after any straw to support their deep and
profound reluctance to challenge the forces of evil where they are actively preying upon the
In this regard, his view points are extremely out of
alignment with the purposes of the Great White Brotherhood. And it would be worthwhile to
review these purposes.
Now, as you know, the Ascended Masters have told us
repeatedly about the dangerous threat posed by World Communism.
So, when Communist North Korea invaded South
Korea, the fact that America jumped into that battle to set South Korea free, was a use of power
in proper alignment with one of the most important goals of the Brotherhood which is to keep
nations free from Communism. The only possible way to re-secure the freedom of the South
Korean people was to meet force with force. But Ron Paul was opposed to that use of military
When the Communist North Vietnamese invaded
South Vietnam, again America jumped into that battle with the intent of keeping South
Vietnam out of the Communist sphere of influence. Again, this was a use of power in proper
alignment with one of the most important goals of the Brotherhood which is to keep nations
free from Communism. The only possible way to safeguard the freedom of the South
Vietnamese people was to meet force with force. But Paul was opposed to that use of military
force as well.
Paul, as a matter of "principle" was opposed to the
military assistance given to the Nicaraguan Resistance fighting the Sandinista Communists
who grabbed power in Nicaragua. If you pin him down on the subject, he would tell you that he
was against covert military support of the Afghan freedom fighters in their battle against the
Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. He was opposed to Reagan's use of military force in Grenada
to save that Island from a Communist takeover, and he was opposed to Bush senior's use of
military force in Panama to set Panama free from the dictator Noriega who refused to abide by
the electoral process (the people had voted him out of power). He was also opposed to the first
Gulf War, and opposed to using U.S. Military power to throw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in
1991. And he was against the U.S. effort to set the people of Kosovo free from the rampaging
massacres of Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic (who is now on trial as a war criminal).
All of these uses of military force had the end result of
setting people free from oppression. Yet, Ron Paul opposed them all. In every one of these
cases, his position was in alignment with the interests of the forces of oppression which wanted
the United States in every case to keep out.
So, when he comes out in opposition to military action
against Saddam Hussein, another brutal dictator, this is not a reasoned position on his part. His
thoughts on the subject have always been, and continue to be a desperate attempt to reach after
straws to support a deep point of psychological blindness. His heart does not gravitate towards
the desire for freedom on behalf of people who suffer under the boot of oppression. There is
something going on inside of this individual that is blocking that all-important connection.
Moreover, one of the key points of the American
identity, one of things that makes us proud to be Americans, is the fact that there have been
occasions when we, as a nation, have stepped up to fight the forces of darkness, and we
prevailed. On Memorial Day we celebrate such achievements, and there is a lot of talk about
the fact that freedom always comes at a high cost, and that there is honor in such sacrifice. But
Ron Paul doesn't seem capable of making a connection with that sense of honor.
And then there is Ron Paul's opposition to the drug
war. There is not a single thing that is more clear from my reading of the Teachings, other
than the fact that the Masters want the use of drugs stopped, and that they would support, and
they do encourage, all practical steps towards this end, including active enforcement of all
existing drug laws. Ron Paul is way out of alignment with the Brotherhood on this one. For
example, Columbia is being absolutely ravaged by both an infestation of drug cartels, and
Communist insurgents who are also mixed up in the drug trade. America is trying to help the
good people of Columbia fight the influence of these forces of darkness. And yes we are
sending them military assistance. Why? Because the drug trade allows the drug cartels and the
Communist insurgents to arm themselves to the teeth. The good people of Columbia need our
assistance. But Ron Paul opposes this assistance. This is shameful. His insensitivity to the
plight of people who live under the oppression of organized and focused systems of darkness, is
And finally, there is Ron Paul's position on the Taiwan
issue. The Ascended Masters have made it clear that keeping Taiwan free and independent is
absolutely essential to their overall plan of bringing forth the victory of the Light in the Orient.
And the U.S. resolve to defend Taiwan from the aggressive designs of the Communist mainland
is key to maintaining their freedom. This commitment is spelled out in the Taiwan Relations
Act. This Act sets forth a commitment to provide an appropriate amount of defensive
weaponry to Taiwan to deter Communist aggression, and it includes a commitment to come to
the aid of Taiwan in the event that deterrence fails. Congressman Ron Paul is opposed to both
of these Treaty commitments. He would leave Taiwan completely open and vulnerable to the
stated aggressive intents of the mainland Communists. This is beyond shameful. It enters into
the region of sympathy with the forces of darkness that could well be considered a blatant
betrayal of the Light.
So, when it comes to his pronouncements on the
subject of war, and the use of U.S. military power towards righteous ends, Ron Paul is simply
not a credible participant in the debate. In as much as he opposes all uses of U.S. military
power, there is no evidence of any balance in his views within this subject area. And the
willingness of so many who oppose the ousting of Saddam Hussein to cling to his words as a
justification for their position, only serves to provide additional evidence of the deep condition
of error they continue to indulge in this subject area.