Rand Paul: America Partly To Blame For Pearl Harbor, World War II

By Caleb Howe



At the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin this weekend highlighted a video of Rand Paul speaking in 2012 about sanctions on Iran. In it, Paul disparages the notion of use of force, and for some reason claims the United States was partly to blame for World War II!

“There are times when sanctions have made it worse. I mean, there are times .. leading up to World War II we cut off trade with Japan. That probably caused Japan to react angrily. We also had a blockade on Germany after World War I, which may have encouraged them … some of their anger.”

Rubin spoke with David David Adesnik of the American Enterprise Institute about Paul’s remarks:

After viewing the video, he tells Right Turn, “Blaming the U.S. for Pearl Harbor is a long-standing isolationist habit that reflects tremendous historical illiteracy. Sen. Paul is very poorly informed if he thinks U.S. sanctions ‘probably caused Japan to react angrily.’” He explains, “The U.S. cut off oil supplies to Japan in August 1941, long after Japan had launched its atrocity-laden war against China in 1937. The evidence is conclusive that Japan was determined to dominate all of East Asia. Believing that the U.S. would not stand by passively if it overran Thailand, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies, Japan launched its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.”

With regard to the Senator’s comments about Germany, Adesnik declared them “so eccentric that it’s hard to be sure what he’s even talking about.” He goes on to point out the obvious, which is that we should be proud of our actions in Europe before and during the war, regardless of whether or not they antagonized the Nazis.


Views: 1633

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Although a good man Allen West is having trouble holding a Congressional seat so I don't see him punching through enough to get elected President. We need someone who can start fires and catch lightning like Sarah Palin.

Buck, Buck, Buck…You DO know that Ted Cruz is ineligible for that office, don't you?  Just as BHO is, and was; for not being a "natural born" citizen - i.e., one born on the soil (or its equivalent) of two U.S. citizen parents??  

Apparently you don't; and it makes me so sick and tired of having to correct PATRIOTS, of all groups of Americans, for heaven's sake.  Stop and think: The whole POINT of the constitutional Framers putting that requirement in their document for that office - and that particular federal office ONLY, hint hint - was to make sure that any candidate for the office - who would also, if elected, then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - did not have CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  Like a DUAL CITIZEN.  And the good reason for that qualification being shown us in spades, in the atrocious case of Barack Hussein Obama.  Or whatever his real name is.

This whole thing needs to be put to right, and as soon as possible.  And it does not help that fundamental requirement of our times that some patriots just don't understand what ALL the nation is up against.  Including their lack of understanding of the Constitution that they are supposed to be defending, "against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC".         

Stan, is Ted Cruz a legitimate senator? It so, please explain it in light of your statement.

This is in reply to both you, Roberto, and RFB:

First, I am not the expert here.  See: puzo1.blogspot.com; two YouTube videos of Prof. Herb Titus; the blog site of CDR Charles F. Kerchner (Ret); et al.  The gist:

Cruz is a legitimate senator because you only have to be a citizen to be a senator, according to the Constitution.  The presidency (and by amendment, the VP) has a higher bar to jump over (which signifies a difference in the terms right there); one that requires him/her to have no dual/conflicting loyalties or allegiances, PARTICULARLY because that person is also the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces.  The Constitution does not define the term 'natural born citizen' because it is neither a dictionary nor a learned treatise on the matter.  The term was eminently understood by the constitutional Framers (in fact, as I understand it, Benjamin Franklin had a copy of E. de Vattel's The Law of Nations - which defines the term - with him at the Constitutional Convention; or at least, it was in the building, available for reference).  Some Obots have tried to argue that the Framers were going by English common law (rather than American common law), which refers to 'natural born SUBJECTS' - which the Americans certainly were not any longer, to a monarch.  They were sovereigns in their own right; and were about to codify that state of being in a Constitution for a federal constitutional Republic  And finally (for now):this take on the matter of the definition was signaled by the fact that Alexander Hamilton made a proposal that a candidate for the office of the presidency only had to be a "citizen" - and his proposal was clearly, historically REJECTED.

The definition, according to de Vattel, of a natural born citizen, is one born on the soil (jus soli) of two citizen parents (jus sanguinis).  That is, there is NO DIVIDED LOYALTY OR ALLEGIANCE.

We need to get back to the Constitution on this matter.  Or the Constitution is a dead letter from and of the past; and we are subject no longer to the rule of law.  But simply to the rule of men.

Men like Barack Hussein Obama.  Or whatever his real, legal name is.  And to whom I for one refuse to be subject to.

Stan, by your definition Ted Cruz holds the office of senator illegally. If he's not a Natural Born Citizen then he's not a US citizen at all. The reason is that Cruz was never naturalized.

As for American Common Law, the colonies went by English Common Law which when they became States they officially adopted with some modifications to fit our system. I realize you want to head off that discussion by preemptively saying those who don't agree with you are Obots.

The INS has developed a whole set of rules and regs that deliniate who is and who is not, a "natural born" citizen!

I bet you have not paid one lick of attention to the whole "birther" controversy. They were NOT arguing from no position of authority.

INS rules don't constitute laws or court rulings. Isn't one of the TEA Party's complaints about the plethora of rules and regulations not based on constitutional law?

As for many in the Birther movement, many of their arguments aren't based on consgtitutional or legal authority. I say this believeing that Obama's BC is a forgery and therefore that he's not eligible for the presidency.

It would appear that today the only laws that really matter are the ones that are made up as the Dems go along. I have decided to let my conscience be my guide and no law will constrict me from this moment forward.

Neither Congress nor the INS have authority to define "natural born citizen" since that term is a constitutional term of art and, by Supreme Court decision, terms in the Constitution can only be defined by the said court!

If you have studied history, you know he is right.  He makes a lot of sense.  Who are we to say whom shall have nuclear weapons.  Just because they have them does not mean they are going to use them on others.  History shows us that we are the only country to have us them on living human beings.  At the time, we had to, to end a war.

He is not right

Iran and other Muslim nations have said they intend to use nuclear weapons on Israel and the US.

By your reasoning, who were we to stop Soviet expansionism?


‘We Are on the Cusp of a Second Civil War’





© 2017   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service