Union Leader Shows Ignorance Re Ron Paul and ‘Foreign Entanglements’

The Union Leader's recent editorial attacking Ron Paul for advocating a reduction of the American 'empire' is seriously flawed. War begets war and is often 'the health of the state.'

read more | digg story

Editor's Note: This is the same Union Leader that ignored the truth about Ed and Elaine Brown's simple message: "Show us the law and we'll pay the tax." This is the same Union Leader that was caught - repeatedly - in the act of censoring posting positive comments in support of the Brown's from the comment sections. This is the same Union Leader that was recently caught censoring-deleting public comments in reference to Ron Paul.



Ed and Elaine Brown stood/stand for ending the war here at home against We The People. Ron Paul's public stand is for "bringing our troops home" from all around the world and ending this irrationally devolving cycle of terror, madness and bloodshed that seeks to divide, conquer and destroy everything in sight. Ron Paul, like Ed and Elaine Brown, stands for a return peace, prosperity and justice in America - ie. a return to the rule of law and the original vision of the Founding Fathers.

Read Dr. Paul's response to the Union Leader's hatchet job editorial against him at this link where he states:

"Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic."

"If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?"

"A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them."