Observer

AIM


The Secret of Ron Paul's Success
By Cliff Kincaid | January 2, 2008

While the ICC looms as a major issue, conservative activists have been currently trying to defeat the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is now pending in the U.S. Senate. They found that Ron Paul had come out against it many years ago.

Many in the media are intrigued by Rep. Ron Paul's success in the presidential campaign but usually focus on how much money he is raising. In terms of issues, some think he is rising in the polls because of his opposition to the Iraq War. That may be a factor, but my research convinces me that he is doing well primarily because he has a traditional Republican message of returning to smaller and less expensive government. More than that, however, he is talking about the threat posed by global institutions.

The media, which adore the U.N. and believe it is the last best hope of mankind, do not recognize the appeal of Ron Paul's no-global-government message. Most reporters probably think it is rather silly. It is so big that it could sink Senator John McCain, who is on record in support of U.S. participation in the U.N.'s notorious International Criminal Court (ICC). But it is becoming a major issue among the conservative Republican grassroots. The ICC could become a major issue, regardless of what happens in the presidential campaign, as the $6.4 billion left-wing MacArthur Foundation has indicated that it will spend tens or perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars in a campaign to force U.S. acceptance of the ICC and "raise the profile of international justice issues during 2008."

In a speech entitled, "The Case for an International System of Justice," MacArthur President Jonathan Fanton declared that the ICC has jurisdiction over "hate speech," a comment suggesting that this U.N.-backed tribunal could even be given the go-ahead to prosecute talk-radio hosts like Michael Savage for being critical of radical Islam. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been trying to force Savage off the air by threatening his advertisers.

It just so happens that the main author of the ICC is a Muslim associated with CAIR by the name of M. Cherif Bassiouni, a Professor of Law at DePaul University.

While the ICC looms as a major issue, conservative activists have been currently trying to defeat the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Treaty, which is now pending in the U.S. Senate. They found that Ron Paul had come out against it many years ago. He was way ahead of his time in confronting the dangers posed by international arrangements, treaties and institutions that sap U.S. sovereignty.

He introduced a bill to get us out of the U.N., which not only would have saved some of our sovereignty but billions of American tax dollars that ended up in the coffers of corrupt bureaucrats.

Mike Huckabee has tapped into conservative sentiment on this issue as well, such as when he told the "Values Voters" summit in Washington that he not only opposed the Law of the Sea Treaty but wanted to see federal judges impeached for using foreign law in their judicial decisions. The comments drew strong applause. After that speech, most of the Republican candidates started falling in line against the Law of the Sea Treaty. McCain, who once supported it, now suggested he was opposed but would have to study it.

Paul goes much further. His website includes an issues category labeled "American independence and Sovereignty." Among other things, it declares, "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned."

Paul also denounces the U.N. for promoting a global tax on America, saying, "…if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House." Such a tax was proposed at the recent U.N. climate change conference, where the Bush Administration promised to help draft a new global warming treaty tougher and potentially more damaging to our economy than the first one that it rejected.

A fascinating article has just appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on where the candidates stand on the U.N.'s International Criminal Court. In looking at Democrats and Republicans, it notes, "At one end of the spectrum is Mike Gravel, a former senator from Alaska and one of the Democrats who backs U.S. membership in the court. In a recent San Francisco appearance, he said he considers himself a 'globalist' and 'a citizen of the human race, first and foremost. Only secondly do I consider myself an American.' At the other end is Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, who said in 2002 that both the court and the United Nations 'are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law because it cannot do both.'"

"Unlike the rest of the Republican field," reporter Bob Egelko said, "Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel." The ICC would strip Americans of Bill of Rights protections if they were apprehended and put on trial for alleged international crimes. The article did not explain how McCain would change the institution, which is now in existence, in order to require those protections. Most of the rest of the world, led by the European Union, rejected any safeguards for U.S. citizens.

One of the most critical constitutional protections rejected by the ICC is trial by jury. Foreign judges preside over ICC cases. So it really cannot be "fixed" to accommodate American concerns.
The fact of McCain's support for the anti-American ICC could prove fatal to his campaign, if it is widely publicized. It has gotten very little attention until now. However, I discovered a press release from the Citizens for Global Solutions (CGS) back in January of 2005 hailing McCain for his support of the ICC. While McCain was quoted as saying about the ICC, "I'm not satisfied that there are enough safeguards" for U.S. citizens, the CGS said that "his declaration at the World Economic Forum was the strongest indication to date that he would be in favor of the United States joining the ICC in the near future."

One can understand why McCain wouldn't want these comments publicized, as he seems to be gathering momentum in the presidential race, and why he wouldn't want the CGS "endorsement" of his views given any publicity. The CGS is the new name of the World Federalist Association, a group that openly favors world government financed by global taxes. Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton endorsed the group's activities when she was First Lady.

That was on the occasion of the organization giving former CBS Evening News anchorman Walter Cronkite its global governance award. Cronkite used the event to promote the Law of the Sea Treaty, the International Criminal Court, and several other U.N.-backed measures.

It is interesting to note that Cronkite's agenda is the same as that of Hillary and most national Democratic candidates. Will any of the national Republican presidential candidates other than Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee make a big issue out of it? By doing so, they will have to endure the ridicule of the national press. But it could help them capture the White House in the end.

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

"The beauty of the Second Amendment Right is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

Grace

I would vote for RP, execpt for the fact that he would no longer support or help Israel in anyway. In fact I find myself not able to vote for any of these imoral criminals. This election coming up is a sad sad day for America, even though Bush will be gone.

Observer

I know how you feel, Grace. I seriously wondered about that, too, until I read a piece by an Israeli that they would be alright about not receiving aid from the U.S. They do NOT want it!

You see, when they accept our aid, they are obligated to us. Remember when they were being shelled by Lebanon? We, the U.S. told them to hold their fire. When they were being lobbed with scud missiles in the 90s? the U.S. told them to hold their fire. While their (Israelis) families were having their homes destroyed, their people being injured, the U.S. to them to hold their fire!!! Funny, no one tells us "Hold your fire on Iraq" who, incidentally, had done NOTHING with the attack of 9/11!!! Funny, how the U.S. can go after anyone for doing nothing, but just because we make up an excuse to do so.

When any country is subsidized by the U.S., they are obligated to take orders from us. They are not a free nation. Without our help, they will be much better off. They feel the Arab countries surrounding them won't resent them so much....even though they receive more of our aid than we give Israel. In fact, I rec'd an email early last year from a Jewish/Israeli source saying they look forward to NOT receiving our aid and they are fervently hoping that Congressman Ron Paul becomes our next president!! In fact, a lot of foreign countries are praying for his election!

Rep. Paul has said many times he won't make all the decisions. They will be made by CONGRESS!!! whether or not we go to war, who we give aid to, etc.

I hope you seriously study where Rep. Paul stands on all the issues. Are all of them perfect? No, but more perfect than the others who will only lead us further down the path of globalism and loss of our sovereignty. Keep in mind, every other candidate without exception are CFR pawns. If you want to live under the dictates of the U.N., vote for anyone besides Ron Paul. However, if you want to live as an American with your freedoms intact, vote for Ron Paul and support him now with everything ounce of energy you have.

Do a search on Israel and see how they feel about the issues. An Israeli I know now lives in the U.S. and has a forum called, "Middle East Political Expressions". Find it and read for awhile to get an idea of how they feel about this issue, then ask the owner personally how Israelis feel about our aid.

Ron Paul is the man we need in the White House. He believes in following the Constitution and smaller government (getting the government out of our lives) as the Founding Fathers intended. We have lost more freedoms under big government than we've lost since the beginning of our country.

The Christian Right is blinded. They can't see that Huckabee is a con-artist, a CFR sell-out and their darling. How do they think he shot up so fast? After the Huckster gave his support to the CFR, they, the CFR, gave the media its marching orders, "Get behind this man, give him everything he needs to get where he wants to go" unlike Ron Paul, who they've black-listed and won't even let the public hear his message. They fear his message!! Compare what you hear on Huckabee. Everything they report on him you'd swear they were talking about Ron Paul; when the Huckster raised 875,000, you'd think it was phenomenal!!! But Ron Paul raises a million, and not a peep. Ron Paul has the greatest grassroots following, but they say that following is the Huckster's!!

The Huckster has stolen Paul's stances. If you could watch all the debates from the first to the last, you will see where Huckabee wasn't for something until he learned that's what was turning the people to Paul. But the media doesn't treport that.

ALL of the media has, without exception, marginalizes Paul, ridicules him, attacks him. Why? Because the CFR has ordered them to. They haven't come this far to let some country doctor turned congressman destroy their plans for global dominion.

If you love America, vote for Ron Paul.

Observer

Grace, follow this link. It is written by an orthodox Jew and he tells why Ron Paul is the only candidate running that will help Israel.

Grace

I understand that past administrations have been hurtfull to Israel. I understand even more that the current president is harming Israel worse than any other. But to me the solution isnt to turn our backs on her, and just wash our hands of her (though thats exactly what WILL happen, who ever the next president is) But to change our policy to help Israel defend her borders, and not impose rediculas land dividing deals with terrorists. Biblicaly this train is right on track.

Observer

What do you mean, "Biblicaly this train is right on track"? Can you explain?

Grace

Sure I can Observer. It says in the last days that all nations will be against Israel. There have been more UN resolutions against Israel than any other nation. The world has been against Israels existance since she first became a nation. With of course the exeption of the greatest most powerfull country, and a few of her allies. Now America has become the worst kinda ememy Israel could have. We shake there hand as we stab them in the back. We force them to divide Gods land, for "peace and safety". "they shall say peace and safety, but there will be none, for sudden destruction comes apon them."
We are forcing them to divide Jerusalam as we speak. "And in that day I will make Jerusalam a burdonsom stone to the whole world, and all who burdon themselfs with it will be cut into peices" Parts of Israels goverment is threating to disolve if Olmert puts any part Jerusalam on the table.




There is a ton of scripture dealing with Israel and the end times, I gotta put together kinda a study for Gary, (at least Im going to try)as he said he is interested in learning about it, over in the religious sec. Im going to try and put that together today.

If I recall though, I thought you were pretty sound in your biblical studies??

Katczinsky

Wouldn't you like seeing a fulfillment of the end times?

"There have been more UN resolutions against Israel than any other nation," is a false statement, though, maybe I can see where you get that impression since Israel continues to illegally occupy and colonize Palestinian lands.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

Grace

No it isnt false, prove me wrong.

Please, since your so knowledgable on the subject, how did Israel acquire this "illegaly occupied land"?

Katczinsky

I don't have to. You're the one making the claim; the onus is on you.

From the outcome of the Six-Day War.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72