Ron Paul: A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

Thomas Jefferson spoke for the founders and all our early presidents when he stated: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." which is, "one of the essential principles of our government". The question is: Whatever happened to this principle and should it be restored?

We find the 20th Century was wracked with war, peace was turned asunder, and our liberties were steadily eroded. Foreign alliances and meddling in the internal affairs of other nations became commonplace. On many occasions, involvement in military action occurred through UN resolutions or a presidential executive order, despite the fact that the war power was explicitly placed in the hands of Congress.

Since World War II, nearly 100,000 deaths and over a quarter million wounded (not counting the many thousands that have been affected by Agent Orange and the Persian Gulf War Syndrome) have all occurred without a declaration of war and without a clear-cut victory. The entire 20th century was indeed costly, with over 600,000 killed in battle and an additional million wounded.

If liberty had been truly enhanced during that time, less could be said about the imperfections of the policy. The evidence, however, is clear that we as a people are less free, and the prosperity we still enjoy may be more illusionary than many realize. The innocent victims who have suffered at the hands of our militarism abroad are rarely considered by our government. Yet they may well be a major factor in the hatred now being directed toward America. It is not currently popular to question corporate and banking influence over a foreign policy that replaced the wisdom of Washington and Jefferson. Questioning foreign government influence on our policies, although known about for years, is not acceptable in the politically correct environment in which we live.

There's little doubt that our role in the world dramatically changed in the 20th century, inexorably evolving from that of strict non-interventionism to that of sole superpower, with the assumption that we were destined to be the world policeman. By the end of the 20th century, in fact, this occurred. We have totally forgotten that for well over a hundred years we followed the advice of the founders by meticulously avoiding overseas conflicts. Instead we now find ourselves in charge of an American hegemony spread to the four corners of the earth.

Now we have entered the 21st century, and there is not a country in the world that does not either depend on the U.S. for protection, or fear her wrath if they refuse to do her bidding. As the 20th century progressed, American taxpayers were required to finance, with great sacrifices to their pocketbooks and their liberty, the buying of loyalty through foreign aid and intimidation of those countries that did not cooperate.

The question remains, however: Has this change been beneficial to freedom and prosperity here at home, and has it promoted peace and trade throughout the world? Those who justify our interventionist policies abroad argue that the violation of the rule of law is not a problem, considering the benefits we receive for maintaining the American empire. But has this really taken into consideration the cost in lives lost, the damage to long-term prosperity, as well as the dollar cost and freedoms we have lost? And what about the future? Has this policy of foreign intervention set the stage for radically changing America- and the world- in ways not yet seen? Were the founders completely off track because they lived in different times, or was the foreign policy they advised based on an essential principle of lasting value? Choosing the wrong answer to this question could very well be deadly to the grand experiment in liberty begun in 1776.

The transition from non-interventionism to our current role as world arbiter in all conflicts was insidious and fortuitous. In the early part of the 20th century, the collapse of the British Empire left a vacuum, which was steadily filled by a US presence. In the latter part of the century, the results of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet system propelled us into our current role. Throughout most of the 20th century, it was our competition with the Soviets that prompted our ever-expanded presence around the world. We are where we are today almost by default. But does that justify interventionism or prove it is in our best interest?

Disregarding for the moment the moral and constitutional arguments against foreign intervention, a strong case can be made against it for other reasons. It is clear that one intervention begets another. The first problem is rarely solved, and new ones are created. Indeed, in foreign affairs a slippery slope exists. In recent years, we too often slipped into war through the back door, with the purpose rarely defined or understood and the need for victory ignored.

A restrained effort of intervention frequently explodes into something that we did not foresee. Policies end up doing the opposite of their intended purpose- with unintended consequences. The result is that the action taken turns out to actually be detrimental to our national security interests. Yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role, and if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.

Throughout history, there has always been a great temptation for rulers to spread their influence and pursue empire over liberty. Few resist this temptation to power. There always seems to be a natural inclination to yield to this historic human passion. Could it be that progress and civilization and promoting freedom require ignoring this impulse to control others, as the founders of this great nation advised?

Historically, the driving force behind world domination is usually an effort to control wealth. The Europeans were searching for gold when they came to the Americas. Now it's our turn to seek control over the black gold which drives much of what we do today in foreign affairs. Competing with the Soviet Union prompted our involvement in areas of the world where the struggle for the balance of power was the sole motivating force.

The foreign policy of the 20th century replaced the policy endorsed by all the early presidents. This permitted our steadily growing involvement overseas in an effort to control the world's commercial interests, with a special emphasis on oil.

Our influence in the Middle East evolved out of concern for the newly created state of Israel in 1947, and our desire to secure control over the flow of oil in that region. Israel's needs and Arab oil have influenced our foreign policy for more than a half a century.

In the 1950s, the CIA installed the Shah in Iran. It was not until the hostage crisis of the late 1970s that the unintended consequences of this became apparent. This generated Iranian hatred of America and led to the takeover by the reactionary Khoumini and the Islamic fundamentalists. It caused greater regional instability than we anticipated. Our meddling in the internal affairs of Iran was of no benefit to us and set the stage for our failed policy in dealing with Iraq.

We allied ourselves in the 1980s with Iraq in its war with Iran, and assisted Saddam Hussein in his rise to power. As recent reports reconfirm, we did nothing to stop Hussein's development of chemical and biological weapons and at least indirectly assisted in their development. Now, as a consequence of that needless intervention, we're planning a risky war to remove him from power. And as usual, the probable result of such an effort will be something our government does not anticipate- like a takeover by someone much worse. As bad as Hussein is, he's an enemy of the Al Qaeda, and someone new may well be a close ally of the Islamic radicals.

Although our puppet dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has lasted for many decades, it's becoming shakier every day. The Saudi people are not exactly friendly toward us, and our military presence on their holy soil is greatly resented. This contributes to the radical fundamentalist hatred directed toward us. Another unfavorable consequence to America, such as a regime change not to our liking, could soon occur in Saudi Arabia. It is not merely a coincidence that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists are Saudis.

The Persian Gulf War, fought without a declaration of war, is in reality still going on. It looks now like 9/11 may well have been a battle in that war, perpetrated by fanatical guerillas. It indicates how seriously flawed our foreign policy is. In the 1980s, we got involved in the Soviet/Afghan war and actually sided with the forces of Osama bin Laden, helping him gain power. This obviously was an alliance of no benefit to the United States, and it has now come back to haunt us. Our policy for years was to encourage Saudi Arabia to oppose communism by financing and promoting Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the shortcomings of that policy are now evident to everyone.

Clinton's bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan on the eve of his indictment over Monica Lewinsky shattered a Taliban plan to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan. Clinton's bombing of Baghdad on the eve of his impeachment hardly won any converts to our cause or reassured Muslim people in the Middle East of a balanced American policy.

The continued bombing of Iraq over these past 12 years, along with the deadly sanctions resulting in hundreds of thousands of needless Iraqi civilian deaths, has not been beneficial to our security. And it has been used as one of the excuses for recruiting fanatics ready to sacrifice their lives in demonstrating their hatred toward us.

Essentially all Muslims see our policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being openly favorable toward Israel and in opposition to the Palestinians. It is for this reason they hold us responsible for Palestinian deaths, since all the Israeli weapons are from the United States. Since the Palestinians don't even have an army and must live in refugee camps, one should understand why the animosity builds, even if our pro-Israeli position can be explained.

There is no end in sight. Since 9/11, our involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia has grown significantly. Though we can badger those countries- whose leaders depend upon us to keep them in power- to stay loyal to the United States, the common people of the region become more alienated. Our cozy relationship with the Russians may not be as long-lasting as our current administration hopes, considering the $40 billion trade deal recently made between Russia and Saddam Hussein. It's more than a bit ironic that we find the Russians now promoting free trade as a solution to a difficult situation while we're promoting war.

This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We've been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II, we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia.

And now, the debate rages over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include "anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war." If our interventions of the 20th century led to needless deaths, unwinnable wars, and continuous unintended consequences, imagine what this new doctrine is about to unleash on the world.

Our policy has prompted us to announce that our CIA will assassinate Saddam Hussein whenever it gets the chance and that the government of Iraq is to be replaced. Evidence now has surfaced that the United Nations inspection teams in the 1990s definitely included American CIA agents who were collecting information on how to undermine the Iraqi government and continue with the routine bombing missions. Why should there be a question of why Saddam Hussein might not readily accept UN inspectors without some type of assurances? Does anybody doubt that control of Iraqi oil supplies, second only to Saudi Arabia, is the reason U.S. policy is belligerent toward Saddam Hussein? If our goal is honestly to remove dictators around the world, then this is the beginning of an endless task.

In the transition from the original American foreign policy of peace, trade, and neutrality to that of world policeman, we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. To further confuse and undermine our position, we currently have embarked on a policy of unilateralism within these world organizations. This means we accept the principle of globalized government when it pleases us, but when it doesn't, we ignore it for the sake of our own interests.

Acting in our own interest is to be applauded, but what we're getting is not a good alternative to a one-world government. We don't get our sovereignty back, yet we continue to subject ourselves to a great potential financial burden and loss of liberty as we shift from a national government, with constitutional protection of our rights, to an international government, where our citizens' rights are threatened by treaties we haven't ratified, like the Kyoto and International Criminal Court treaties. We cannot depend on controlling the world government at some later date, even if we seem to be able to do that now.

The unilateralists' approach of dominating world leaders and arbitrarily ignoring certain mandates- something we can do with impunity because of our intimidating power- serves only to further undermine our prestige and acceptability throughout the world. And this includes the Muslim countries as well as our European friends. This merely sets the stage for both our enemies and current friends to act in concert against our interests when the time comes. This is especially true if we become financially strapped and our dollar is sharply weakened and we are in a much more vulnerable bargaining position.

Unilateralism within a globalist approach to government is the worst of all choices. It ignores national sovereignty, dignifies one-world government, and places us in the position of demanding dictatorial powers over the world community. Demanding the right to set all policy and exclude ourselves from jurisdictional restraints sows the seeds of future discontent and hostility.

The downside is we get all the bills, risk the lives of our people without cause, and make ourselves the target for every event that goes badly. We get blamed for the unintended, unforeseen consequences and become the target of terrorists that evolve from the radicalized fringes.

Long-term, foreign interventionism does not serve our interests. Tinkering on the edges of our current policy will not help. An announced policy of support for globalist government, assuming the financial and military role of world policeman, maintaining an American world empire, while flaunting unilateralism, is a recipe for disaster. US unilateralism is a far cry from the non-intervention that the founders advised.

The term "foreign policy" does not exist in the Constitution. All members of the federal government have sworn to uphold the Constitution, and should do only those things that are clearly authorized. Careful reading of the Constitution reveals Congress has a lot more responsibility than the President in dealing with foreign affairs. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, but can't declare war or finance military action without explicit congressional approval. A good starting point would be for Congress to assume the responsibility given it and to make sure the executive branch does not usurp any authority explicitly granted to Congress.

A proper foreign policy of non-intervention is built on friendship with other nations, free trade, and open travel, maximizing the exchanges of goods and services and ideas. Nations that trade with each other are definitely less likely to fight against each other. Unnecessary bellicosity and jingoism is detrimental to peace and prosperity, and incites unnecessary confrontation. And yet, today, that's about all we hear coming from the politicians and the media pundits who are so anxious for this war against Iraq.

We should avoid entangling alliances and stop meddling in the internal affairs of other nations- no matter how many special interests demand otherwise. The entangling alliances that we should avoid include the complex alliances in the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO. One-world government goals are anathema to non-intervention and free trade. The temptation to settle disputes and install better governments abroad is fraught with great danger and many uncertainties.

Protecting our national sovereignty and guaranteeing constitutional protection of our citizens' rights are crucial. Respecting the sovereignty of other nations, even when we're in disagreement with some of their policies, is also necessary. Changing others then becomes a job of persuasion and example- not force and intimidation- just as it is in trying to improve personal moral behavior of our fellow citizens here at home.

Defending our country from outside attack is legitimate and is of the highest priority. Protecting individual liberty should be our goal. This does not mean, however, that our troops should follow our citizens or their investments throughout the world. While foreign visitors should be welcomed, no tax-supported services should be provided. Citizenship should be given with caution, and not automatically by merely stepping over a national boundary for the purpose of giving birth.

A successful and prosperous society comes from such policies and is impossible without a sound free-market economy, one not controlled by a central bank. Avoiding trade wars, devaluations, inflations, deflations, and disruption of free trade with protectionist legislation is impossible under a system of international trade dependent on fluctuating fiat currencies controlled by world central banks and influenced by powerful financial interests. Instability in trade is one of the prime causes of creating conditions that lead to war.

The basic moral principle underpinning a non-interventionist foreign policy is that of rejecting the initiation of force against others. It is based on non-violence and friendship unless attacked, self-determination, and self-defense while avoiding confrontation, even when we disagree with the way other countries run their affairs. It simply means that we should mind our own business and not be influenced by special interests that have an ax to grind or benefits to gain by controlling our foreign policy. Manipulating our country into conflicts that are none of our business and unrelated to national security provides no benefits to us, while exposing us to great risks financially and militarily.

Our troops would be brought home, systematically but soon. Being in Europe and Japan for over 50 years is long enough. The failure in Vietnam resulted in no occupation and a more westernized country now doing business with the United States. There's no evidence that the military approach in Vietnam was superior to that of trade and friendship. The lack of trade and the imposition of sanctions have not served us well in Cuba or in the Middle East. The mission for our Coast Guard would change if our foreign policy became non-interventionist. They, too, would come home, protect our coast, and stop being the enforcers of bureaucratic laws that either should not exist or should be a state function.

All foreign aid would be discontinued. Most evidence shows that this money rarely helps the poor, but instead solidifies power in the hands of dictators. There's no moral argument that can justify taxing poor people in this country to help rich people in poor countries. Much of the foreign aid, when spent, is channeled back to weapons manufacturers and other special interests in the United States who are the strong promoters of these foreign-aid expenditures. Yet it's all done in the name of humanitarian causes.

A foreign policy of freedom and peace would prompt us to give ample notice before permanently withdrawing from international organizations that have entangled us for over a half a century. US membership in world government was hardly what the founders envisioned when writing the Constitution. The principle of Marque and Reprisal would be revived and specific problems such as terrorist threats would be dealt with on a contract basis incorporating private resources to more accurately target our enemies and reduce the chances of needless and endless war. This would help prevent a continual expansion of conflicts into areas not relating to any immediate threat. By narrowing the target, there's less opportunity for special interests to manipulate our foreign policy to serve the financial needs of the oil and military-weapon industries.

The Logan Act would be repealed, thus allowing maximum freedom of our citizens to volunteer to support their war of choice. This would help diminish the enthusiasm for wars the proponents have used to justify our world policies and diminish the perceived need for a military draft.

If we followed a constitutional policy of non-intervention, we would never have to entertain the aggressive notion of preemptive war based on speculation of what a country might do at some future date. Political pressure by other countries to alter our foreign policy for their benefit would never be a consideration. Commercial interests and our citizens investing overseas could not expect our armies to follow them and protect their profits. A non-interventionist foreign policy would not condone subsidies to our corporations through programs like the Export/Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These programs guarantee against losses, while the risk takers want our military to protect their investments from political threats. This current flawed policy removes the tough decisions of when to invest in foreign countries and diminishes the pressure on those particular countries to clean up their political acts in order to entice foreign capital to move into their country. Today's foreign policy encourages bad investments. Ironically this is all done in the name of free trade and capitalism, but it does more to export jobs and businesses than promote free trade. And yet when it fails, capitalism and freedom are blamed.

A non-interventionist foreign policy would go a long way toward preventing 9/11 type attacks. The Department of Homeland Security would be unnecessary, and the military, along with less bureaucracy in our intelligence-gathering agencies, could instead provide the security the new department is supposed to provide. A renewed respect for gun ownership and responsibility for defending one's property would provide additional protection against potential terrorists.

There are many reasons why a policy of peace is superior to a policy of war. The principle that we do not have the moral authority to forcibly change governments in foreign lands just because we don't approve of their shortcomings should be our strongest argument- but rarely today is a moral argument in politics worth much.

The practical argument against intervention, because of its record of failure, should certainly prompt all thoughtful people to reconsider what we have been doing for the past many decades.

We should all be aware that war is a failure of relationship between foreign powers. Since this is such a serious matter, our American tradition as established by the founders made certain that the executive is subservient to the more democratically responsive legislative branch on the issue of war. Therefore, no war is ever to be the prerogative of a president through his unconstitutional use of executive orders, nor should it ever be something where the legal authority comes from an international body such as NATO or the United Nations. Up until 50 years ago, this had been the American tradition.

Non-intervention prevents the unexpected and unintended consequences that inevitably result from well-intended meddling in the affairs of others.

Countries like Switzerland and Sweden who promote neutrality and non-intervention have benefited for the most part by remaining secure and free of war over the centuries. Non-intervention consumes a lot less of the nation's wealth- and with less wars, a higher standard of living for all citizens results. But this, of course, is not attractive to the military-industrial complex, which enjoys a higher standard of living at the expense of the taxpayer when a policy of intervention and constant war preparation is carried out.

Wisdom, morality, and the Constitution are very unlikely to invade the minds of the policy makers that control our foreign affairs. We have institutionalized foreign intervention over the past 100 years through the teachings of all our major universities and the propaganda that the media spews out. The powerful influence over our policy, both domestic and foreign, is not soon going to go away.

I'm convinced however, that eventually restraint in our interventions overseas will be guided by a more reasonable constitutional policy. Economic reality will dictate it. Although political pressure in times of severe economic downturn and domestic strife encourage planned distractions overseas, these adventures always cause economic harm due to the economic costs. When the particular country or empire involved overreaches, as we are currently doing, national bankruptcy and a severely weakened currency call the whole process to a halt.

The Soviet system armed with an aggressive plan to spread its empire worldwide collapsed, not because we attacked it militarily, but for financial and economic reasons. They no longer could afford it, and the resources and wealth that it drained finally turned the people against its authoritarian rule.

Maintaining an overseas empire is incompatible with the American tradition of liberty and prosperity. The financial drain and the antagonism that it causes with our enemies, and even our friends, will finally force the American people to reject the policy outright. There will be no choice. Gorbachev just walked away and Yeltsin walked in, with barely a ripple. A non-violent revolution of unbelievable historic magnitude occurred and the Cold War ended. We are not immune from such a similar change.

This Soviet collapse ushered in the age of unparalleled American dominance over the entire world, and along with it allowed the new expanded hot war between the West and the Muslim East. All the hostility directed toward the West built up over the centuries between the two factions is now directed toward the United States. We are now the only power capable of paying for and literally controlling the Middle East and its cherished wealth, and we have not hesitated. Iraq, with its oil and water and agricultural land, is a prime target of our desire to further expand our dominion. The battle is growing more tense with our acceptance and desire to control the Caspian Sea oil riches. But Russia, now licking its wounds and once again accumulating wealth, will not sit idly by and watch the American empire engulf this region. When time runs out for us, we can be sure Russia will once again be ready to fight for control of all those resources in countries adjacent to her borders. And expect the same for China and India. And who knows, maybe one day even Japan will return to the ancient art of using force to occupy the cherished territories in her region of the world.

The most we can hope for will be, once the errors of our ways are acknowledged and we can no longer afford our militarism, we will reestablish the moral principle that underpins the policy of "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Our modern-day war hawks do not respect this American principle, nor do they understand how the love of liberty drove the founders in their great battle against tyranny.

We must prepare for the day when our financial bankruptcy and the failure of our effort at world domination are apparent. The solution to such a crisis can be easily found in our Constitution and in our traditions. But ultimately, the love of liberty can only come from a change in the hearts and minds of the people and with an answered prayer for the blessings of divine intervention.

This is typical rhetoric from Ron Paul. Standard doom and gloom nonsense that points out the obvious, while damning America for being the worlds only true super power. Paul is once again, blaming America first, instead of defending her best interests. What Paul refuses to acknowledge, is that America can't close itself off from world, anymore then the world can close itself off from America.

This is the 21st century and the US isn't an isolationist nation. Whether people like it or not, America has a certain level of responsibility to foster the ideas of freedom and democracy throughout the world and an even larger responsibility here at home, to preserve the freedom, liberty and national security of the American people. Mankind has shrunk the globe and brought the people of the world closer together. For better or for worse, the world has gotten smaller. There is no turning back the advance of time.

While some former administrations have been highly interventionist, even using the US military as the worlds policemen, the current set of circumstances that now face President Bush, is something no US president could have foreseen, nor are they events Bush can, or should turn away from either. The world has entered a new age. For the first time in almost 200 years, the worlds richest and most powerful nation has been attacked on its own soil. American citizens have been murdered, along with people from all over the world. Over 3,000 individuals lost their lives, in the heinous acts of 9-11. Turning our backs on these criminal acts, would be a travesty and one that would have dangerous implications for America's future.

This is no time for the US to sit back and allow events to control America's destiny. This is no time for naivety and complacency. This is a time for action. America's War on Terrorism is a just cause and a future attack on Iraq is morally defensible. The future of the United States is at stake and evil must be confronted and defeated. The freedom and liberty that American's cherish, is being challenged by radical fundamentalists and militant Arab's, who have no respect for human life, whatsoever.

America has always faced our adversaries head on and American's have always come out on top. This case will be no different, it just may take a little longer then usual to complete the mission. But in the end, America will be victorious and our enemies will pay the ultimate price for their transgressions against us. No doubt about it.

****************************************************

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.
Ronald Reagan "The Speech" October.27,1964

I don't think Ron Paul can be seen as "damning" America for being the world's only superpower, he just points out the painful truth that today's friend in one intervention can be our worst nightmare in 20 years. Perfect recent examples are Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

as Paul says, we supported Hussein against the Iranians, and we supported bin Laden against the Russians. And now, the tables have turned, and the Russians are allied with us in our fight against Muslim terror regimes.

I think it's in our best interests to defend our homeland and make the world atmosphere prosperous and free. I just think we go about that by promoting free markets and avoiding entangling alliances, and not by acting as the world's policeman.

And what about abuses in the Balance of Power? The Congress no longer has power to declare war, the Executive branch has userped that power and now the President goes in front of the Congress to get a declaration of approval. This is dangerous, as Clinton proved when he sent our troops to Somalia... now, with the current terrorist enviornment the use of military force is certainly justified! But we should certainly still follow the model our Fouding Fathers provided, if only to protect against abuses from types such as Clinton.

We make very little in this country; tons of goods are stamped MADE IN CHINA while Americans our out of work.

Our whole culture as a nation is in peril. Firearm ownership is seen as evil and neanderthal, science has replaced religion, the Nanny State tells you what you can and can't do, where you can educate your children, how you can save for retirement... we're being attacked from at home and abroad. If we don't step back and fix our Republic, we might not have to worry about fixing the rest of the world.

I think a lot of what Paul says is spot-on.

>>>I think a lot of what Paul says is spot-on.

IMO, Ron Paul is a disciple of doom and gloom rhetoric.

Immediately following the events of 9-11 and subsequently, Ron Paul has written article after article, essentially blaming America for the terrorist attacks against our homeland. I know, because his supporters have chosen to post those essays right here on FreeRepublic, for all to see.

Pauls remarks concerning Saddam and Bin Laden are statements of the obvious and besides, no one can predict how certain alliances will turn out with the passing of time. Hindsight is 20/20. Paul doesn't believe America should be engaging the world and involved in international matters to the degree it is. That makes the "Libertarian" Paul, a closet isolationist.

>>>The Congress no longer has power to declare war...

As Rush was saying the other day, there is no template that Congress needs to follow, when giving the President its formal okay to defend America, at home or abroad. President Bush received a formal declaration from Congress, immediately after 9-11. This formal declaration gave the CIC, broad authority to hunt down and if necessary, kill the terrorists and their cohorts. The radical militants that carried out those transgressions on 9-11, are bound and determined to kill every American and destroy America, at all costs.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson, places Ron Paul in good company, but it also rejects the simple fact, this is the 21st century and not the 18th or 19th centuries. The world today, is a much different environment then it was in the Founders time. In the days of Jefferson, Washington and Madison, the world was a much simpler place. That's not to say the Founders didn't face great challenges. Of course, they did. But the passing of 226 years has brought about a different mindset in the modern world. While the Founders were at one time, revolutionaries, fighting to create a nation, they quickly became political leaders of a great experiment in constitutional republicanism. And the one thing the Founders embraced, was an optimistic and positive attitude, which allowed them to press forward and eventually secure the blessings of freedom and liberty for all.

Ron Paul has expressed opposition to the agenda of President Bush and Congressional Republicans, on a consistent basis. Paul is a political loner and speaks for few American's on the great issues of out time. Paul has his own set of goals. Some people like Ron Paul. I do not. IMO, he is a political misfit and malcontent.

I'm working to get conservative Republicans elected to office. We conservative FReepers, must help to assure, that control of the Senate is returned to Republican's and the GOP majority in the House is increased. Ron Paul is working against these efforts. Paul is a Libertarian in Republican cloth.

Ron Paul might have a gloom and doom rhetoric, but frankly a lot of what is going on is doom and gloom! Again... the world IS IN TURMOIL!

The society, culture, and political values we cherish and many have died to defend are crumbling around us. Americans are lazy, under-educated and unprepared to compete in the world marketplace. Self defense and self-reliability have been replaced with an ever-increasing police state and creeping socialism. Americans are out of work while thousands and thousands of foreign products flood our markets. Terrorists attack us at home with our own technology.

226 years has indeed passed, however how much has really changed? The world is not really much smaller, in reality, then we would think. Yes, amazing technological advancements have been achieved, however war, hunger, poverty... in essence HUMAN NATURE has not been advanced as quickly as our technology. It was only 50 years ago that European madmen stormed that continent hell-bent on geonocide and global domination. Only American ideals of self-defense and self-reliance saved civilisation. Only 50 years ago we were forced, due to gun control, and the thoughts that we were "so advanced", did we have to air drop single-shot Liberator pistols behind French lines. 50 years later Europe has learned nothing, and we, too, walk down the path of disarmament and human slavery.

You say yourself that anyone who wants to even slightly reduce our global involvement is a "closet isolationist".

"Paul doesn't believe America should be engaging the world and involved in international matters to the degree it is. That makes the "Libertarian" Paul, a closet isolationist.

I don't know how many times this has been posted, but I will again use the words of Ronald Reagan:

"--- I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer, just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is."

I would say more people would agree with Ron Paul if someone replaced today's sports page with writings by Ron Paul that could be contrasted with Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, McCain, or any other liberals. I would say that Ron Paul is one of the most truly CONSERVATIVE members of Congress... yes he is a Republican but as John McCain, Jim Jeffords, and many many other Congressmen so painfully point out, having an (R) next to your name does not, so they say, a conservative make.

I've got a huge problem with Democrats. They're usually evil socialists or stupid and lazy, take your pick. But I have a problem with liberal Republicans, who are in fact more damaging to our great experiment in Liberty than one would think. Our society isn't so polarized when we have a liberal/socialist party (Democrats) and a party that is being taken over by liberals, only liberals who want less taxes AND/OR more control of social issues.

Let's look to the reasoning of our Founding Fathers for our strategy, not just walk down the path of unknown and untested outcomes or the path we know won't lead to peace and prosperity.

>>>The "vast majority" also loved and supported Slick Willie. What does that say about the wisdom of the "vast majority"?

Wrong again.

While "der schlickmeister" received overall approval ratings in the 60% range, which can be mainly attributed to general polling questions, his personal approval ratings were always sub-50% and in his closing days in office, that figure sunk to roughly 35%, which equals the hardcore liberal base. So, yes, 1/3 of American's are braindead partisans in that regard and loved their Willie.

The fact that many American's are ignorant of economics and believe the president has complete control over fiscal policy, is a different matter entirely.

Also, lets keep this out of the gutter. Okay? The Smokey Backroom Forum was designed for heated debate and ad hominem attacks.

>>>Ron Paul might have a gloom and doom rhetoric, but frankly a lot of what is going on is doom and gloom! Again... the world IS IN TURMOIL!

The world has always been in turmoil and I don't think that turmoil is about to vanish anytime soon.

I don't believe America is crumbling. I believe the American society is constantly changing, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Lets not forget, we human beings remain highly adaptable creatures and are well suited to change. In America today, we have the finest political system devised by man. If you aren't satisfied with the current efforts of the federal government, work to make the changes that you can support. But remember, the libertarian philosophy will not get you what you want. It is impractical idealism and has very little popular support in the political arena of ideas and policy.

>>>I don't know how many times this has been posted, but I will again use the words of Ronald Reagan:

I am very familiar with what Ronald Reagan had to say in that Reason magazine interview from 1975. To best of my knowledge, I was the first to post excerpts from that interview here on Free Republic. However, many libertarians have taken what Reagan said in that interview out of context, offering an inaccurate portrayal of Reagan's remarks. The fact is, Reason magazine is a libertarian publication and Reagan was a smart politico and a true gentleman, who always had an eye on gaining additional political support wherever he could find it. Reagan knew how to play to his audience. It has been 27 years since Reagan gave that interview and there is no evidence that Reagan ever dwelled on the subject of libertarianism, to that extent again.

In that interview, Reagan was basically talking about his core conservative beliefs of tax reductions and tax reform in the larger context of fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce the size and scope of the federal bureaucracy. Reagan indicated that the libertarian desire for limited government, was similar to the Republican Party policy of a smaller and less intrusive federal government.

However, Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy and ideology. Reagan was a moral conservative, a social conservative and a law and order conservative.

Here's more of what Reagan had to say about libertarians, from that Reason magazine interview.

Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.

In regards to third parties, specifically in reference to the Libertarian Party, Reagan said the following in that Reason magazine interview.

Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins.

People shouldn't confuse Ronald Reagan's political conservatism with the impractical philosphy and failed political agenda of the Libertarian Party. After all Reagan has been a Republican Party member for the last 40 years. Reagan never joined the Libertarian Party and for good reason.

I understand your frustration, but theres no need to call other people names, just because you've been proven wrong. Books are a wonderful creation. I suggest you pick one up and start getting educated. Grab a dictionary, while you're at it.

A Democracy is a political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish. In modern democracies, supreme authority is exercised for the most part by representatives elected by popular suffrage. The representatives may be supplanted by the electorate according to the legal procedures of recall and referendum, and they are, at least in principle, responsible to the electorate. In many democracies, such as the United States, both the executive head of government and the legislature are elected. In typical constitutional monarchies such as the United Kingdom and Norway, only the legislators are elected, and from their ranks a cabinet and a prime minister are chosen.

Although often used interchangeably, the terms democracy and republic are not synonymous. Both systems delegate the power to govern to their elected representatives. In a republic, however, these officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country. The officials in a democracy more generally and directly reflect the known or ascertained views of their constituents, sometimes subordinating their own judgment.

The era of modern republicanism began with the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789. Elements of republican government were present in the administrative institutions of the English New World colonies, but republicanism did not become dominant in American political thinking until the colonists declared their independence. The establishment of the United States as a federal republic with a government made up of three coordinate branches, each independent of the others, created a precedent that was subsequently widely emulated in the western hemisphere and elsewhere.

A Democracy is a political system in which the people of a country rule through any form of government they choose to establish.

Yes, this is true. But the U.S. is not a democracy and never was. It is a constitutional republic and that fact alone precludes majority rule.

If the majority wanted to disregard the constitution, that would be too damn bad. The constitution's purpose is to set the boundaries that no majority may cross. I realize that people do it anyway but the popularity of those actions does not make them legal.

I suggest you read something other than Marx or Hegel before you accuse everyone else of being ignorant.

In a republic, however, these officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country.

Wrong. They are expected to carry out the provisions of the constitution and deviations are supposed to be illegal.

and the French Revolution of 1789.

LOL....

>>>... the U.S. is not a democracy and never was. It is a constitutional republic and that fact alone precludes majority rule.

I never said the US was a pure democracy. Madison wrote, "Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention." I did say, the US is a constitutional republic. But the fact is, a republic is a democratic form of government. And the Constitution says nothing about majority rule. It was Madison's view, that republics were systems of government which permitted direct or indirect control by the people over those who govern. He did, however, warn against the effects of "majority factions" and emphasized the rights of minorities. I think you're confusing the "mob rule" of old Rome, with majority rule that is acquired after a political party wins election victory and is now in a position to employ their agenda. The Founding Fathers created the finest political system ever devised by man and the FF`s were also smart, savvy and astute politicians.

>>>I suggest you read something other than Marx or Hegel before you accuse everyone else of being ignorant.

I suggest you stop making outrageous remarks like these, which only further display your ignorance and smart ass attitude.

In a republic, however, these [elected] officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country.

>>>Wrong. They are expected to carry out the provisions of the constitution and deviations are supposed to be illegal.

YOUR WRONG! My statement is absolutely correct. The Constitution doesn't say how a Congressmen is supposed to act after he gets elected. There are very limited internal Congressional systems in place, to make sure Congressmen don't step over the line. Outside of treasonous acts, the Constitution says nothing about what is legal or illegal and what is criminal behavior. And the fact is, the oath of office our elected officials take is pretty simple and straightforward.

I, [insert name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Our elected officials aren't robots, but rather imperfect creatures. American's are free thinkers and rugged individualists. The fact that you hold such absolutist viewpoints, doesn't mean that's the way its suppose to be.

>>>It says that he must abide by the law. He breaks the law and his oath when he enacts laws which violate constitutional prohibitions.

Once again, outside of treasonous acts, the Constitution isn't specific about how elected officials are suppose to act while in office. All Americans are suppose to abide by the laws of the land. If an elected official isn't meeting the standards of the American people, the voters can and should remove him from office. But the fact remains, in America, we have a political system that is free and open. It allows political candidates and elected officials the most flexibility and openness possible in order to deliver their agenda driven messages to the people. This public debate worked in the Founders day and still works today.

Those on the rightwing, should be able to engage in civil political debate without calling their opponent socialists and communists. The enemy of America are the liberal Democrats who have been subverting this nation for the last 70 years! OTOH, the Constitution isn't holy scripture. If the Founders wanted a more extensive governing document, they would have formulated the Constitution with more rhetorical writ. They didn't.

I see you have avoided my rational arguement by not addressing the specific points I have mentioned. Instead you have chosen to answer with an inadequte reply.

You reactionary absolutist types are ridiculous.

Guess its been a while since you've read the Constitution. I suggest you make time and read it again.

The only portion of the Constitution that mentions anything about Congressional acts, can be found in section 5, paragraph two of the US Constitution. It states:
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

This general statement is all there is. As I already said, "There are very limited internal Congressional systems in place, to make sure Congressmen don't step over the line".

Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically states how an elected Congressmen is suppose to act or behave while in office and there is absolutely nothing that states how a congressman is suppose to vote on legislation. Nothing.

Exactly what part of this fact, don't you understand?

"YOUR(sic) WRONG! My statement is absolutely correct. The Constitution doesn't say how a Congressmen is supposed to act after he gets elected."

No, Reagan Man, your statements above are wrong:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

The members of Congress may NOT violate the Constitution, when they deem violating the Constitution to be in their "own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country." That's a violation of their oath of office.

Demidog is right that what members of Congress do when they violate the Constitution is illegal: all laws that violate the Constitution are illegal (illegitimate). Like Campaign Finance Reform, for example. But the trouble is, not a single member of the current Supreme Court absolutely follows the Constitution. So a private citizen that violates illegitimate laws (like Campaign Finance Reform) will still probably end up in prison.

Reagan Man continues, "The Founding Fathers created the finest political system ever devised by man and the FF`s were also smart, savvy and astute politicians."

Yes, the Founding Fathers did create a fine political system. Unfortunately, those (like Ronald Reagan) who followed the Founding Fathers eventually came to pay absolutely no attention to the political system designed by the Founding Fathers. Consequently, what the Founding Fathers left us (a constitutional republic) is no more.

And the Libertarian Party is the only party that is committed to bring back a government bound by the Constitution.

You're dense as a rock!

The fact is, the US Constitution says nothing specific, about how a federal/state elected official, or appointed member of the federal government, shall act while in service to the American people. Nor does it say anything about how an elected member of the US Congress shall vote on any specific issue, or in what manner he will engage in public debate. I've already stated, that all members of Congress are required to take an oath of office. Repeating that fact, doesn't make you right and me wrong.

The Founding Fathers created our current political system and Ronald Reagan played by the same set of ground rules that Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt played by. The real problem we face with the federal government, has to do with seventy years of Democratic Party control, in the form of liberals and socialists, who have distorted and misapplied the Constitution to such a degree, it is appalling. Today we have a federal bureaucracy which is out of control, taxing the average worker to death and employing monetary redistribution, that punishes success, while rewarding people based on special interest voting blocks. Electing more conservative Republicans to office, will begin a process that hopefully will lead to correcting the failed socialist-lite policies of FDR and the tax and spend policies by liberals, like LBJ.

The problem you libertarians have, is understanding politics and of course, getting elected to positions of public trust. You continue to wrongly equate the US Constitution with some form of holy writ, that everyone must blindly adhere to, in accordance with the convoluted values and standards of the Libertarian Party and libertarian philosophy.

For most of our history, the US Constitution has been disregarded, misinterpreted and on many occasions distorted, by a mulititude of different political factions and elected government officials. In our free and open political environment, some fringe extremists, like libertarians, have a very difficult time separating politics from illegal activities. The Founding Fathers never wanted American's to follow this grand historical governing document without public debate. The Founders specifically created a deliberative body, called the Congress and gave them the power to create and pass legislation into law, as part of our free and open political process. And in a republic form of government, such as ours, elected officials are supposed to use their best judgment and act in the best interests of the country, as a whole. When our elected officials disreagrd and/or misinterpret the Constitution, act on behalf of special interests alone, or may be act in their own self interests, that is when we should vote them out of office. There is no room in government for corrupt politicians.

Btw, the libertarian philosophy, as expressed through the 30 year old Libertarian Party, has been a total failure on every level conceivable.

"You're dense as a rock!"

An amazing thing to say, for a man whose hero is Ronald Reagan.

"Nor does it say anything about how an elected member of the US Congress shall vote on any specific issue,..."

It says something about how they should vote on EVERY single issue. They should vote according to what is allowed within the Constitution, not, as *you* wrote:

"In a republic, however, these [elected] officials are expected to act on their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country."

But I don't expect you ever to see how that statement was wrong. You're thick as a post.

"You continue to wrongly equate the US Constitution with some form of holy writ, that everyone must blindly adhere to,..."

I don't expect them to BLINDLY adhere to it...I expect them to KNOWINGLY....

HONOR THEIR DAMNED OATHS!

Unlike you, who seems to think that they are free to do whatever the hell they want, as long as it's in "their own best judgment of the needs and interests of the country."

"The Founding Fathers created our current political system and Ronald Reagan played by the same set of ground rules that Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt played by."

Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abe Lincoln all MASSIVELY violated their oaths of office. Jefferson violated his oath by failing to get a constitutional amendment for the Louisiana Purchase (although he at least had the decency to draft an amendment, as I understand it), and by failing to get a Congressional declaration of war to wage war on the Barbary Coast. So those men did NOT "play by the rules." They IGNORED the rules and BROKE the rules.

By the way, any decent conservative OUGHT to hold Teddy Roosevelt as among the very WORST U.S. presidents! He was a frigging Progressive, for goodness sake!

"For most of our history, the US Constitution has been disregarded,..."

Complete BS. Until the Progressive Era (the start of the 20th century), the federal government pretty much followed the Constitution...with the exception of generally disregarding the 14th amendment. This can clearly be seen by graphs of federal government spending as a function of GDP. It hovered at around 3-4 percent of GDP, during peacetimes. (Which were more frequent, since the government didn't violate the Constitution's provision against standing armies.)

"The Founding Fathers never wanted American's to follow this grand historical governing document without public debate."

The things you write are so close to what liberals write, it makes me want to gag! You pretend to have respect for the Constitution (just because you think that makes you a good American) and then pay absolutely no mind to whether or not the Constitution is actually being followed.

"The Founders specifically created a deliberative body, called the Congress and gave them the power to create and pass legislation into law, as part of our free and open political process."

And the Founders did NOT give them the power to violate the Constitution, with a simple majority vote. But that's what Congress has been routinely doing for more than 80 years. While citizens like you ignore (or are ignorant of) that fact.

"And in a republic form of government, such as ours, elected officials are supposed to use their best judgment and act in the best interests of the country, as a whole."

No, the Constitution binds them much more tightly than that. They are supposed to follow the @#$% law. Which is the Constitution, not the crap they come up with, "in the best interests of the country..."

"When our elected officials disreagrd and/or misinterpret the Constitution,....that is when we should vote them out of office. There is no room in government for corrupt politicians."

Yes, and every politician that violates the Constitution is corrupt. Which means that every currently elected Republican in Congress and the Executive Branch is corrupt.

"Btw, the libertarian philosophy, as expressed through the 30 year old Libertarian Party, has been a total failure on every level conceivable."

By "failure," I assume you mean "few people elected to office." Well, I count the Libertarian Party as being much more successful than the Republican Party over the same period. Every Republican in that period has been a corrupt loser. (Ron Paul has probably come closer than any other Republican over that period, in following the Constitution. He's "only" violated it, concerning partial birth abortion. At least that I can think of right offhand.)

I've been eagerly awaiting your return.

>>>It says something about how they should vote on EVERY single issue.

Prove it! Go ahead, give me one example of how a freely elected member of Congress should vote on any specific issue, according to the US Constitution. I want you to post, the exact part of the Constitution that says so. I'll tell you right now, you won't be able to. There is nothing contained in the Constitution that indicates how an elected member of Congress is suppose to vote on any specific issue. If such procedures were contained in the Constitution, there would be no need to have a deliberative body called the US Congress, nor two additional, co-equal branches of government to watch over each other. That is the system of checks and balances, that the Founders wrote into the Constitution.

It would appear under "the" libertarian interpretation of the Constitution, America should just have a "board of overseers", appointed by the highest ranking libertarian in the land. This borad could rubber stamp Constitutional procedure, without debate or dissent. You're on very thin ground here, mister libertarian and looking more foolish all the time.

>>>Ronald Reagan, Teddy Roosevelt, and Abe Lincoln [and Thomas Jefferson] all MASSIVELY violated their oaths of office.

Thanks. That's exactly what I expected a fringe extremist like you to say.

I said:>>>>"For most of our history, the US Constitution has been disregarded,..."
You said: Complete BS.

Wait now. I thought you said Reagan, TR, Lincoln and Jefferson "violated" their oaths of office. Violate and disregard are synonyms, pal. But to violate, or disregard, doesn't mean a person is acting illegally. This is especially true in our free and open system of politics.

You can't have it both ways, mister libertarian!

>>>The things you write are so close to what liberals write, it makes me want to gag! You pretend to have respect for the Constitution (just because you think that makes you a good American) and then pay absolutely no mind to whether or not the Constitution is actually being followed.

Hahahahahahaha The US Congress is the main place for public debate, between America's elected leaders, or have you forgotten that simple fact? The Founders gave every American citizen the right to vote in legally sanctioned elections. No one is holding a gun to anyones head. Each American citizen can vote for whatever candidate and agenda they choose to. That's following the Constitution in my book. If an elected official doesn't continue to meet the voters standards, then the voters should remove him from office.

You libertarians have serious problems when it comes to the huge part that politics plays in every aspect, of everything, that transpires in our free and open republic. Living in a civilized society, is all about politics. If you are truly concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy, or with winning and holding control over a government, then you must be politically active in order to get your agenda into power. Libertarians want to ignore politics. Under that scenerio, Libertarian's might as well become hermits and go live in a cave.

>>>Yes, and every politician that violates the Constitution is corrupt. Which means that every currently elected Republican in Congress and the Executive Branch is corrupt.

Hahahahahahaha Pure libertarian hogwash!

>>>Well, I count the Libertarian Party as being much more successful than the Republican Party over the same period.

That is a delusional statement of the highest order.

Btw, Ron Paul is a Libertarian in Republican cloth. He couldn't get elected as a Libertarain candidate, so he mislead the voters into thinking he was a conservative Republican. We all know, he is a Libertarian who disagrees with President Bush and the Republican House majority/leadership on almost every issue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.