Matt Johnson really dislikes Ron Paul. Under the headline “The Rest of the World: Ron Paul Revelations” at PoliticalFiber.com, he writes:
Last Wednesday, my editor published a disheartening reminder on this website: Ron Paul isn’t going away.
After I choked down some aspirin and gathered my wits, I realized there were two ways to look at the matter. In one sense, it’s a dismal reminder of how frivolous American politics can be. Though some of his supporters fancy themselves “revolutionaries,” Ron Paul is one of the most reactionary candidates in recent history, and he should be consigned to obscurity as soon as possible. On the other hand, his continued relevance has gifted me with the opportunity to write this article without being impertinent. Ron Paul’s legions of defenders may regret their inflexibility in the coming years, but it’s starting to seem unlikely. Self-satisfaction and wishful thinking are stubborn bedfellows.
Apparently, just the idea of even thinking about Ron Paul gives Matt Johnson a headache. What could cause such vitriolic enmity towards Ron Paul? Well, he is “reactionary”, for starters. What does Matt mean by that? The word is defined “relating to, marked by, or favoring reaction; especially: ultraconservative in politics”. Well, the first part of that hardly applies, inasmuch as it has become almost cliché by now to point out the fact that he has been unusually and remarkably consistent in his positions on the issues for his decades of public service. But what about “ultraconservative”? Does that word apply to Dr. Paul? It means “beyond in space: on the other side”, “beyond the range or limits of: transcending”, “beyond what is ordinary, proper, or moderate: excessively: extremely”. So what Matt Johnson is really trying to say is that Ron Paul’s views and his positions are extreme, outside of the standard framework for discussion, and his arguments against the status quo and current political establishment outside of the limited range of acceptable criticism and dissent.
And he has a point there. But is that a bad thing? Isn’t that rather what the U.S. needs? Shouldn’t dissent from the status quo be considered a good thing? Matt Johnson doesn’t think so. He thinks if Ron Paul had been president instead of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama that the world would be much worse off for it. To prove what a horrible president Ron Paul would have been, he simply invents a hypothetical alternative reality based on his own simple perceptions of what Ron Paul’s political views are and what U.S. foreign policy is:
Here’s a glimpse of Congressman Paul’s ideal world: Osama Bin Laden would still be alive and the CIA would be dead. The United States would no longer be a member of NATO or the United Nations. Federal foreign aid for the victims of disasters such as the Asian, Haitian and Japanese earthquakes would be rescinded (even AIDS prevention programs in Africa would get the doctor’s axe). The Iranian nuclear weapons program would be given an idiotic American blessing. Iraq would still be privately held by a band of murders and sadists known as the Ba’ath Party, and they’d have Kuwait under their bloody thumbs. Yugoslavia would have been ethnically “cleansed” and absorbed by Greater Serbia. American aircraft would not have protected innocent civilians in Libya. And our present conversation about Syria would be reduced to a series of sighs and shoulder shrugs.
It’s very possibly true that if a Ron Paul had been president all these years that Osama bin Laden might still be alive. Ron Paul certainly would not violate international law and the sovereignty of other nations by sending combat helicopters into their airspace and putting a team of commandos on their soil. Ron Paul recognizes that acts of terrorism are crimes to be properly dealt with through law enforcement, such as the cooperative efforts with the Pakistani government that led to the arrest of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But this all misses the point, because if Ron Paul had been president, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened in the first place. If Ron Paul had been president in place of Carter and Reagan, the U.S. wouldn’t have funded, trained, and armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan and encouraged the creation of al-Qaeda in the first place (bin Laden’s Maktab al-Khidamat, the precursor organization to al-Qaeda, operated alongside the CIA out of Peshawar, Pakistan). The U.S. wouldn’t have had military bases on Saudi soil. The U.S. wouldn’t have been supporting Israel’s violations of international law and oppression of the Palestinians for all these years. The U.S. would not have had a policy of criminal sanctions against Iraq that killed over a million Iraqis, including half a million children. So, yeah, Osama bin Laden might still be alive, it is true—but so would the 3,000 Americans who died on September 11, 2001.
It’s possible that if a Ron Paul had been president for all these decades that the U.S. would no longer be a member of NATO. But why should we presume that would be a negative thing? Matt Johnson doesn’t bother to actually present an argument for why we need NATO or for why NATO is a positive force in the world, what with its frequent wars and illegal bombing campaigns, such as in Libya (more on that momentarily). Or take the illegal bombing of Kosovo in 1999, which was characterized in the West as a “humanitarian intervention”, despite the fact that it resulted in an escalation of the “cleansing” and other atrocities on the ground in the former Yugoslavia and a higher civilian death toll in its first three weeks than had occurred during the three months prior, when the “humanitarian catastrophe” had occurred that had served as a pretext for the bombing. U.S.-NATO Commanding General Wesley Clark afterward announced that it had been “entirely predictable” that the bombing had resulted in an escalation of violence on the ground. This action also led to the formation of a new doctrine of “illegal but legitimate” warfare—“illegal” because it was neither an act of self-defense against armed aggression by the U.S. or its NATO allies nor authorized by the U.N. Security Council (the only two conditions under which the use of force is permissible under international law), but nevertheless “legitimate”, by definition, since Washington makes its own rules and holds itself to a different standard than the rest of the world.
It’s also true that Ron Paul doesn’t think the U.S. should be involved in the U.N. But, again, why should we assume that it would be a bad thing for the U.S. or the rest of the world if the U.S. was not there to use its veto power in the Security Council, for instance, to defend Israel from censure for its war crimes and other violations of international law (e.g., vetoing an uncontroversial resolution condemning Israel for its illegal settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, blocking the implementation of the recommendations of the U.N. fact-finding mission into Israel’s 22-day full-scale military assault on the civilian infrastructure [an implementation of its “Dahiyah Doctrine”, so named after a Beirut neighborhood Israel flattened during its 2006 invasion of Lebanon] of the defenseless Gaza Strip in ’08-’09, etc.)? Why would it be a bad thing if the U.S. could no longer use its position at the U.N. to bully other nations into marching in step with orders from Washington? How would it not be a good thing if the U.S. could no longer cite U.N. resolutions interpreted unilaterally to justify its use of force, such as in the wars for regime change in Iraq (another “illegal but legitimate” war; contrary to some attempts to claim such, Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force) and in Libya (also “illegal but legitimate”; Resolution 1973 authorized a no-fly zone to protect civilians, a mandate that the U.S./NATO immediately announced it would exceed by supporting the rebels and to continue bombing until there was regime change, all in violation of the U.N. Charter and the very resolution under which its operations were ostensibly carried out). When the U.S. has a Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who has taken an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution, but who declares that the Executive branch doesn’t need Congressional authorization for war, that the president may get such authorization to order young American men and women into harm’s way from the U.N. (he told the Senate that in making the decision to go to war, the administration would first “seek international permission” and then “come to the Congress and inform you” and “determine whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress”; emphasis added), would it really be so bad to have a president who would immediately fire this person and replace him with someone who respected the Constitution and upheld his oath of office? The Obama administration, of course, did not get a Congressional declaration of war for its war on Libya, which action was thus also a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Matt Johnson talks about U.S. foreign aid and how horrible it would be to cut it. He certainly has an innocent understanding of what U.S. foreign aid is all about. He completely ignores the billions in military aid to countries that engage in violations of international law and human rights abuses, such as the $3 billion given annually to Israel, the $1.3 billion given to the military establishment in Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. He doesn’t want to talk about how U.S. aid and support for Israeli policies sustains the oppression and killing of Palestinians, or how all the people who suffer at the hands of their own brutal governments, autocracies propped up by the U.S. government, would benefit if the U.S. stopped supporting their oppression. He doesn’t want to talk about how foreign aid is given with strings attached requiring that money to be circulated right back to the U.S., such that it often serves effectively as a taxpayer subsidy for various U.S. industries, like the military/security industrial complex. He doesn’t want to talk about how this aid is effectively used to bribe nations to get in line, the money flowing to obedient client regimes and being instantly cut off to any foreign sovereign nation that dares to defy Washington, even to U.N. bodies like the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, which the U.S. cut funding to for voting to admit Palestine as a member). He doesn’t want to talk about how if Americans didn’t have their money taken from them by force by the government, they would be all that much more able to show the world how generous a people they are by making private, voluntary, tax-exempt donations to disaster relief programs. Nope, Matt Johnson doesn’t want to talk about any of these things. These are all “reactionary” observations to be made, well outside of the acceptable limits for debate. If the U.S. cut foreign aid, people in Africa wouldn’t get medical care. That’s all anyone needs to know about the matter, in Matt Johnson’s view.
Well presented Mr Hammond. Matt ‘Johnson’ just got his töches handed to him.
Excellent Mr Hammond! Thank you.
“But this all misses the point, because if Ron Paul had been president, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened in the first place. If Ron Paul had been president in place of Carter and Reagan, the U.S. wouldn’t have funded, trained, and armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan and encouraged the creation of al-Qaeda in the first place (bin Laden’s Maktab al-Khidamat, the precursor organization to al-Qaeda, operated alongside the CIA out of Peshawar, Pakistan).”
A simple historical fact, this fails to convince the likes of Matt about the foreign policy of the US presidents that has eventually proved detrimental to the whole world, historically. Obfuscation, denial and blatant lies have been their tool and as usual Matt has tried to distort the whole argument by imagining things in a way typical to the neo-cons.
Thank you. I read his piece a few days ago and it bothered th hell out of me. The level of willful ignorance on display was astounding to say the least. I am troubled that people simply take “information” like that laid out by Matt at face value without a moment’s research. This country needs Dr. Paul, and anyone who says otherwise needs to read a frickin’ history book.
I want to kick Matt’s face in but it would just be a waste of precious time. This article is one of the best I have read in a long time. I’m glad we still have0 writers who speak the truth and put those Damn sorry lying bastards on blast. Ron Paul is the man we need in that white house right now. Good job bro.
Great article… I tried emailing a much smaller response to him and on the article and I never received a response… I think he just wrote that piece so his name can get some hits.
Does anyone remember the end of Jay and Silent Bob strike back where they went around kicking the crap out of anyone who bashed them…I’m going to do the same one day to anyone who bashed Ron Paul…Ron Paul has always been on everyone else’s side for his whole life, never taking for himself but yet their are still people out there who bash him simply because they think they have the right to dictate anyone else’s actions even when it doesn’t hurt them or anyone else. Ron Paul is to me what George Washington or the founders were to the revolutionaries in there time…
Nothing to add. I knew at the time I was reading the original article that Matt Johnson was a self serving establishment lackey.
These people are responsible for the deaths of thousands around the world as well as those who died on 9/11.
Great article! Actually kept me interested enough to read the whole thing… Please keep educating moronic Americans like this matt character
Matt Johnson just got slammed into the freaking pavement! EXCELLENT article!
Jeremy, you are just another of the throngs of ill informed and illegitimate journalists who are largely responsible for allowing the direction of this country to be downward for so long, by chanting the script and not speaking the truth. The dinosaur media, of which you are a part, will… “be consigned to obscurity as soon as possible”, as more and more people begin to see beyond the veil that is you and your mess media cohorts. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time, and you can fool less and less as time goes on.
Mee Yoo, I presume you are joking. If not, I welcome you to produce an actual argument.
My argument is with your “blinders” style treatment of the subject matter, certainly not fair and balanced, closer to derogatory and crude. So many so called journalists are so unwilling to provide the balance that was once a integral part of obtaining the license to serve the public. If you see Ron Paul in the “light” you described him in this article so smugly,then you obviously do not know enough about the man to effectively write about him. This style of journalism is in it’s death throws. Enough said
Mee Yoo,
Aren’t you being a bit critical. This looks like an opinion piece. I’ve been following Ron Paul for 5+ years and what was said in the piece is spot on. Me thinks you are just being a hater.
I don’t think we actually read the same article. Mr. Hammond’s piece is an opinion, not a news story. He’s hardly an establishment news writer.
With what do you specifically take issue? Quote something he wrote and produce another fact or opinion on the quote.
Mee Yoo, I welcomed you to produce an actual argument. I regret you chose to decline my invitation and chose to present an ad hominem in lieu of a logically valid argument. I once more welcome you to present an actual argument. If you think I’ve erred on any point of fact or logic, I encourage you to point it out to me. Thanks.
They don’t want us to know they exhist, because they are a small cowardly few that will face immediate slaughter if we
had any idea what they have done and are doing. They can’t let us see they exhist. This is the key.
Thank you Jeremy, I’ll have to save a copy of this article for the next time I get into an argument with an establishment lackey like Matt Johnson. It’s unfortunate there are so many in our young generation like Matt focused only on their college debt, the next car they want to buy, or the next thing they want that status quo that was “promised” to them and fail to see that we are on a sinking ship. I always take solace in the fact that whether or not the establishment wants to hang on to the status quo inevitably the cannot, as soon they will be out of money!
And were on our way to hell….be prepared ignorance is at its finest right now.
Bravo Mr.Hammond! Bravo! My only wish (that will surly go unfulfilled)is that matt johnson would read your article with an open mind, do some actual research, and then debate himself as to if he should considered changing his views on foreign policy.
worship AIPAC
believe controlled media
trust the Federal Reserve Banks
never ever question 11 SEP 01 events
Matt Johnson just got Hammond into the ground. You sir are a dieing breed in your field and must be applauded. More people are realizing that the banks control our government and have used the politicians to do their will. Millions of Americans lost their homes and jobs, yet the banks got the bail out. That was a big wake up call for a lot of people. I can not say exactly who is ruling us, but they do control our fiat money and the media. Our Foreign Policy is the will of these people and is no way the will of the American people. They are very adept at influencing the people. When we start thinking for ourselves we will regain our government and freedom. In the meantime we need people like Hammond and Ben Swann who will enlighten people other than feed them lies.
Amazing artice, thank you for putting that idiot to shame.
Well written!!
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
As a vet I seriously disagree. 9-11 happened due to complacency. When a cop is killed in the line of duty, they don’t stop till they find the perp. Why? They know that person is more than capable of doing even greater harm to the civilian population. When military members were being killed by terrorism between the mid 70s and 2001, not much was done to get the perps. And they were emboldened. 9-11 happened because of cowardice of our nation to not get the guys killing our troops. We don’t need a Chamberlain. We need a Churchill.
“Get the guys killing our troop?” Tza, what in the world are you talking about?
Oh you must mean the same Al Qaida terrorists such as Bin Laden and his gang the CIA and the Pentagon used to end the cold war and fight the Russians in all places Afghanistan. You must be mean the same gang of terrorists that Obama and Hillary are used to over throw Gadaffi in Libya and is also now using against Assad in Syria that basically the United States Government had allied with LOL. Its sure is odd that Al Qaida supports regime change in all the country the U.S. wants LOL. Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Iran. How about the Taliban you know the same Taliban that gets paid by the government to guard and escort our fuel tanker truck convoys going into Afghanistan and at the same time shoots at our troops sporadically throughout the week.
This doesn’t seem odd to you fella?
Let me suggest you pick up and read a book called “War is a racket” by General Smeadly Butler.
The government creates an enemy and then funds its existence.
War makes wicked devils money LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
…just saying
Yes, Osama bin Laden’s mission was to rid the world of complacency. He attacked the WTC because America was just way too complacent for his liking. Luckily, we gave into his demands by engaging in multiple wars throughout the middle east. Now America will never experience another act terrorism! And everyone lived happily ever after… THE END
As a Vet. you seriously disagree! Not surprised at all. Every serviceman is there to kill, you can dress it up as patriotic defense of ones country, but killing is the reason armed forces are created, and it`s easier to kill someone you hate, your Government will provide loads of justification to hate, that`s every Government. The problem for the USA is it`s aggressive foreign invasions have given many ordinary people who have suffered from US destruction, very many reasons to hate the USA. As a Brit, I`m a bit miffed about US actions myself!
“We don’t need a Chamberlain.” I take it from this that you are referring to the banal “appeasement” tripe. But I’m not sure you want to use this, considering it was an activist Britain and France, not a disengaged America, that “appeased” Hitler. In fact, it is an aggressive foreign policy, not non-intervention, that could involve appeasement—concessions, commitments, buying off enemies, etc.
What a great article. At least somebody paid attention in their history class. Good job shedding a light on many of these “taboo” truths!
Well les just say if you can prove one thing wrong in an article, basically you don’t have to keep proving things wrong about an article.
Ron Paul supported letters of marque and reprisal to have bin laden punished after the attacks which would have avoided a big war in Afghanistan. I get it Ron Paul is “Crazy,” how about we just was the video where in 2002 he predicts everything that will happen from 2002-2012. Like he said hopefully he is wrong, unfortunately he was right.
America doesn’t deserve a president like Ron Paul, it’s time for us to hit rock bottom.
Great rebuttal of Anti Dr. Ron Paul rhetoricians. Mr. Hammond, this countries inexplicable resistance to Ron Paul, never ceases to amaze Me. America never seems to care for big ideas,enlightened thinkers, science or scientists, political or otherwise. Americans have become a rather simple, silly, and quite sad people. On counter factual’s : We can only dream of a Ron Paul Presidency that stopped The Federal Reserve from the looting of The United States of America, before it was to late; All the wealth, resources and Human capital that have been expended wastefully on immoral dead end wars of all kind, that a President Ron Paul would have prohibited.
What really bothers me is that in a civilized, better educated environment, A Ron Paul and his philosophies would have received the recognition and accolades they merit : Like a Winston Churchill of Peace.
Great read! There are other Libertarian articles like this at http://www.facebook.com/theveritasreport
Thank you for the brilliant rebuttal against that juvenile trash piece Matt had written.
I would love to see a ‘counter point’ article by him trying to dig himself out from the BS he was laying down so thickly.
Well, SHTF-Gear, you’re in luck. Matt has requested I publish his response, and I intend to comply. Stay tuned.
Fantastic! I cannot wait. After reading Matt’s piece, my fingers could not keep up with my mind, nor was there enough room in the comment section, it was spun up so tight. Though I am afraid he doesn’t ‘get it’ and probably never will, but anxiously await the spin that will be attempted.
As promised:
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/17/the-ron-paul-brigades-march-on-undeterred-by-reality
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/17/the-ignorant-american-matt-johnson-on-ron-paul-and-u-s-foreign-policy
When America used the CIA to take out the elected President of Iran in 1953, America started the war with the Middle East Countries. Nixon and Kissinger made the deal with the King of Saudia Arabia to restrict OPEC to trading oil only with U.S. dollars to make sure that the central bankers behind our Federal Reserve Bank could control all oil trading by manipulating the dollar and therefore the oil market to ensure they took control of all oil markets and associated resources. These globalist (Rothschild’s) and their minions behind the central banks (Federal Reserve) have worked to push America into so much debt that they’ve destroyed America and it was all done by intent to pave the way for a one world currency/one world government run by the UN and controlled by the same globalist (Rothschild’s) that have been behind the Federal Reserve and all central banks across the globe. Americans, “Christians, Jews, Muslims and atheist alike must all become aware that Islam is not an enemy, Muslims are not an enemy. In this war Christians, Jews and Muslims all share a common enemy and that is the globalist behind the effort to play one group against the other as a distraction for their own globalist control agenda.