Mitt Romney just landed in his favorite country and declared for it1:
On Israeli soil, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Sunday declared Jerusalem to be the capital of the Jewish state and said the United States has ‘a solemn duty and a moral imperative’ to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.
‘Make no mistake, the ayatollahs in Iran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object and who will look the other way,’ he said. ‘We will not look away nor will our country ever look away from our passion and commitment to Israel.’
“Since when do Presidential candidates stand on foreign soil and pledge to conduct U.S. foreign policy in accordance with the desires of the foreign government on whose soil they are standing?” asks DailyKos correctly.
You’ll notice this is the same position that Ron Paul took recently.2 Even though he claimed it was for constitutional reasons.
Does that bother me? Yes, I admit it does, even though Dr. Paul’s reasoning is perfectly valid. if you use strictly ideological arguments and forget everything you know about politics, history, and prudence.
It’s one more piece of evidence that Dr. Paul’s non-interventionism is weighted in favor of Zionism.
The whole thing bothers me, even though the campaign manager quoted in the April piece, Douglas Wead has a tendency, reportedly, to put his own spin on Paul’s statements or actions.
It also bothers me that Ron Paul’s chief legal advisor is Bruce Fein, who has an extensive background as a lobbyist for foreign governments.3
That is completely at odds with Paul’s rhetoric against special interests.
I’ve blogged about Bruce Fein before.
It was Bruce Fein who lobbied in support of US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, instead of as an international city, belonging equally to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism — which has been the position taken by the US State Department these many years.
Sure, the State Department is left-leaning. But the left gets many things right, and I’m not partisan enough to close my eyes when they do.
Last year, there was a seminal case that centered on whether a young Israeli-American dual citizen born in Jerusalem should have Jerusalem listed as his place of birth on his passport, or Israel.4
The State Department resisted all appeals from the parents and the case went to the Supreme Court, which decided in favor of having Israel on his passport, thereby setting a precedent for any judge who wants to overthrow US foreign policy from the bench.
That’s how the New World Order works. Through judicial fiat.
The red-herring that constitutionalists dangle before everyone is the overweening power of the President and the constitutional limits that need to be set on it. That’s all very well and perfectly true, except again, the devil is in the details.
Who sets limits on Congress and the judiciary, both bribed and bought by Zionists?
Also owned by Zionists.
It’s Zionists all the way down.
While the Paul/Rothbard anti state-capitalists rail against secretive government and executive over-reaching, you’ll notice that they also equate all commercial advertising and political donations with free speech.
Murray Rothbard, the principal intellect behind the hybrid movement, also defended the decriminalization of bribery and blackmail.5
Whom does that help? The Zionist financiers who buy Congress and bribe and bully the judiciary.
So, what the left hand (constitutionality) giveth, the right hand (anti state-capitalism) taketh away.
Using the letter of the law to circumvent its spirit is legalism.
Depending on which sect of conspiracy theory you favor, you can blame this on Jesuitical or Talmudic casuistry… or on perfidious Albion.
I prefer more academic terminology. Like, phony-baloney.
Please notice that I didn’t use the politically correct terminology, which would be “pro-Israeli” Congress and “pro-Israeli” President. Because Israel, the nation-state, is only one part of this and nation-states seem to be slated for demolition in the near future.
Israel is the cockpit, but not the whole plane.
If the Zionists want something, they can get it equally through extra-legal means or snow-white constitutionality. Paul’s constitutionalism, however well-meaning, has acted as nothing more than window-dressing.
I don’t think he can be blamed for it. It may not be something he or anyone can really help.
But the lesson of the defunct Paul campaign should be clear.
National politics is not only not the answer. At this point in the game, it is a diabolical diversion.
- “In Israel, Romney declares Jerusalem to be capital,” AP, July 29. [↩]
- “Ron Paul shocks campaign staff with new position on Israel,” Business, April 13, 2012. [↩]
- “Def(e)ining choice: Bruce Fein, the Turkish Lobby, and the Ron Paul campaign,” Nanour Barsoumian, The Armenian Weekly, January 20, 2012. [↩]
- “Court may rule on US stand on Jerusalem,” Barbara Ferguson and Tim Kennedy, Arab News, May 12, 2011. [↩]
- See M.N. Rothbard, Man, Economy and State, 443 n. 49, 1993. [↩]