Have A Problem With Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy?

I have no problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy--never have. This isn't because I am some naive kook who doesn't recognize the danger in the world and the realty that there exist bad men who desire to do bad things. I assure you I do, but my knowledge of this reality is not enough to skew my reality in the field of foreign policy.

One reason I find Dr. Paul's foreign policy position so easy to digest is that it was to some degree or another the mainstream conservative position for some time up until the last decade. It's nothing new, and its nothing I haven't encountered countless times before. One can easily  look back to the great conservative leader Robert Taft in mid-twentieth century or much of the Republican establishment during the Clinton Administration for modern examples of those staking non-interventionist foreign policy positions in our modern times. Even then-governor George W. Bush of Texas held firmly to this position as a candidate for president, though he betrayed this position during his presidency. Of course, one need merely to look to our Founding Fathers' wisdom as the prime example of non-interventionist foreign policy. The non-interventionist position is nothing new and nothing I have reason to fear as some newfangled crackpot scheme. It is actually classical wisdom that has consistently held true.

Another reason I find no problem with the foreign policy of Paul and others who promote non-interventionism is that I am a student of history and politics. I understand that the claims made by Paul and others are no wild works of fiction, but rather, sound statements that line up with the realities of the day and the historical narrative. I don't fear enemies beyond their capabilities because I don't base my assumptions on war propaganda or media monster-weaving. Rather, I base my positions on fact and reason.

It is amazing how level-headed one can think if they weigh the claims of talk radio, mainstream news outlets, and the like, to see if those same claims hold water. Blind acceptance leads to both ignorance and poor position taking, and one who avoids such reckless behavior can easily avoid both. We should each strive to hold sound positions grounded in fact, regardless of the issue. And holding such positions often involves challenging mainstream assumptions.

It is not my intention to right every wrong or change every heart with this post. I merely would like some who hold such strong convictions against the foreign policy of those like Ron Paul to begin testing those convictions--to begin to think about these issues in a new light which has not been darkened by the shades of hearsay and falsehood.

Please begin this journey by watching the video below. See why so many veterans and active duty military have come to trust and support an Air Force veteran from Texas named Ron Paul. Moreover, see why so many experts in the field of foreign policy break from the mainstream media and political pundit's narrative and believe that Dr. Paul is right about these issues. Lastly, see why you  as an American should support the foreign policy of Paul and restore our nation to a position of a sound foreign policy and a strong national defense.

I beg you to please take the time and watch this video.

Fox News on Ron Paul's Decision to Forgo Trump Debate and Trump's Criticism

In the video below Fox News  reports on Ron Paul's decision (along with Jon Huntsman) to not take part in the Donald Trump debate, calling the reality TV star's self-promotion sideshow "beneath the office of the presidency"

The panel rightly pointed out Trump's criticism of Paul's candidacy as unfounded, noting Paul's high poll numbers and solid ground game in Iowa--the state where the debate will be hosted.

It is nice to see the mainstream media finally coming around and noting Paul's credibility as of late. One can only image where the Texas congressman would find himself if given a fair shake more often in the electoral process.

Newt Gingrich Exposed in New Campaign Ad

It is no secret that Newt Gingrich is the current flavor of the month in the Republican primary field, following in the footsteps of Rick Perry and Herman Cain as the mainstream media and GOP faithful's present alternative to Mitt Romney.

It is not that his positions differ sharply from the former Massachusetts governor, who is often chided for his liberal positions both presently and over the years. Rather, Newt--like his other so-called "conservative alternatives to Romney"--does a much better job of masking his big-government agenda on the campaign trail than the perceived front-runner, Romney.

Of course, like Cain and Perry before him, Newt is crossing both fingers--hoping voters stick to a superficial support of his candidacy without delving into his record. Doing so, would only leave him being found wanting in both conservative credentials and political consistency.

For those truly seeking what Mr. Gingrich is about, the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul has put together an invaluable starting point.

The video below is how a "negative" campaign ad should be--grounded completely in fact and policy.  Take a look and see the true Newt Gingrich for yourself.

New Ron Paul Ad--Consistent

This new Ron Paul ad sums up why he has my support and why he should have the support of every freedom-loving American. It really fires me up.

Anti-War Conservatism is Conservatism

Please do yourself a service and read Jack Hunter's latest over at the Daily Caller, dealing with what exactly constitutes a conservative (and constitutional) foreign policy position. Hunter rightly points to the history of the conservative movement to show that there is nothing "leftist" about opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative...

...Is Barack Obama a “conservative” for having a foreign policy similar to Bush’s? If “Bush kept us safe” was a mantra conservatives were comfortable using to obscure his big-government record, has “Obama kept us safe” by carrying on with the same wars, starting a new one in Libya and taking out Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul now attacks Obama’s foreign policy just as viciously as he did Bush’s and on the same grounds.

Is Obama the conservative and Paul the liberal?

Read the entire article here.

Cut, Cap and Balance Act Supports the Status Quo

Congressman Ron Paul's statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is an absolute must read for anyone serious about addressing the debt and spending insanity being carried out by our federal government. Dr. Paul points to the true nature of the Act--a support of the status quo--and defines what must be done to solve our woes--cut spending.

Dr. Paul notes of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act's problems:

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare.  This is impossible.  These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually.  This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget.  Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending.  America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements.  All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year.  To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps.  Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless.  Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government.  As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget.  What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

 Do yourself a service and read the whole statement. 

Ron Paul Releases First TV Ad of 2012

Congressman Ron Paul has launched his first television ad of the 2012 primary season, and boy, it is a darn good one. Playing out like a movie trailer, it has enough entertainment value to draw the viewer in and keep his or her attention. Moreover, it does a splendid job of positioning the congressman within the historical and present debate over economic policy and outlining his own economic convictions. 

Take a look for yourself below. Paul fan or not, what do you think of this first ad to come out of his 2012 primary bid?

The Case Against War in Libya

A bi-partisan group of United States congressmen recently brought a lawsuit against the Obama Administration, claiming the administration is in violation of the War Powers Act and is, therefore, carrying out illegal military action in Libya. One of the plaintiffs, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, today released a defense of the lawsuit over at the Daily Caller, which is well worth your attention.

Paul writes:

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya...

 

Please continue reading the article here.

Donate to Support the Constitution

I just did my part by donating to the presidential campaign "June 5th Moneybomb"  of Texas Congressman Ron Paul--our nation's greatest living defender of the constitution. Please head over to RonPaul2012.com and make a donation today. Your donation will send a message to the establishment that those of us who value the ideals of our Founders will have our voices heard.

"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."--Samuel Adams

Let the Revolution Continue!

Below is a great video that puts things in perspective, created by supporters of Dr. Ron Paul--the Thomas Jefferson of our day. Check it out and share with your friends, family, and acquaintances.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Liberty Define: Abortion

As I am reading through Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I have decided to briefly provide summaries of his arguments put forth on each issue--or at least the biggest and most contentious ones. Chapter one deals with Abortion.

For those who have followed Dr. Paul's career for some time, it is well know that he is an ardent supporter of the pro-life position. So not surprisingly, in this early chapter, he pulls no punches regarding the issue.

On the first page, Congressman Paul insists his position is the one truly consistent with liberty. He states, "Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." He continues by noting that such reasoning "ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn" and that "cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life."

Dr. Paul  points out the hypocrisy of those who support the termination of a child within the womb and oppose the same for a child outside the womb. For Paul protection of life is an absolute; either we protect it or destroy it; there is no middle ground. Moreover, we cannot trump the right to life of the child merely for the sake of the mother.

It should be noted: Paul's argument is not at all lacking in compassion for the mother. He wants to assist these women and make the alternatives of adoption and the like even easier for them by addressing adoption regulation and the costs of carrying a child to term.

Since it is Ron Paul writing on the issue he is quick to layout the constitutional reasoning that bolsters his argument. He notes that any attempt to justify abortion in the constitution will go unfounded. It is simply not in the document, and the federal government has no right to prevent states from protecting the life of the unborn. Moreover, he is critical of those within the pro-life movement which seek to use unconstitutional means to achieve and end even with which he agrees. Abortion can be dealt with in a constitutional manner that would work to protect life.


Ron Paul understands that more federal government is not the answer to the problem, nor is waiting on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Paul believes that the Constitution leaves the issue of abortion up to the states and that is where we as pro-lifers have the best chance of making real change. For years and years each side has done nothing to make in-roads on the issue. Instead the status quo is upheld--a status quo that leads to further death.

Unlike many politicians, Ron Paul has been trying to make honest in-roads for years. One example is a bill he annually sponsors which would instantly overturn Roe v. Wade in a constitutional manner. The bill would use Congress' right to change the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion--instantly making the Court's Roe ruling a non-issue.

Paul notes that his position "does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life," but these actions will only help in the long run, doing little to protect life immediately.

Not wanting to steal the good doctor's thunder, I will leave most of his arguement for you to read when you pick up the book, but I would like to address a few things I appreciate about his position.

1. Paul realizes that the way we treat the abortion issue as a society directly influences the amount of innocent life that is destroyed. If we act cavalier about abortion, we will reap the negative effects. Moreover, our unwillingness to protect life leads to more people deciding to flippantly take life.

2. Paul is quick to point out hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. In addition to the pro-choice hypocrisy discussed above, Paul points out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-life but support unnecessary war.

3. Paul, unlike many, does not merely run on emotion. You can sense that his position is on thoroughly grounded in fact and conviction.

Please pick up Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom and read his position for yourself. You can buy the book at the link below.

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined

I was pleased to find a copy of Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom waiting for me, after arriving home this afternoon. I had ordered a copy when it came out on Tuesday, and look forward to soon devouring the 325 page work by the Texas congressman in which he tackles over 50 essential issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism.

I intend to write up a review of the work when I finish it, but let me go ahead and recommend you pick up a copy for yourself. I seriously doubt from reading his other books, that Dr. Paul will disappoint. Agree with with him in totality or not, Ron Paul always presents solid arguments and passionate defenses in his books that benefit all who take the time to read them.

If you do purchase the book, please consider buying it through the Amazon link posted below. A portion of the proceeds will go to helping finance In Defense of the Constitution.

The Revolution Will be Pumpkinized

This cool carving of a Ron Paul jack-o-lantern topped with Dr. No's famed "What If..." speech is making its way around the net. Check it out! It is quite cool and creative--just like all liberty-lovers.



Title Credit: A.C. Kleinheider

Uncomfortable Lindsey Graham by the Southern Avenger

Yet another great video from the Southern Avenger about my least favorite person in Congress.

C4L Video

This video gets me all emotional inside. Carry on the r3volution!

For Liberty: How the Ron Paul Revolution Watered the Withered Tree of Liberty

 For Liberty is finally out for online viewing. It is a great film to watch even if you are not involved in the liberty movement. I was honestly brought to tears a few times during the film. It is a beautiful movement of which I am thankfully a part.

America Owns a Hotel Chain?!?!--Thanks to the Federal Reserve

Here is a must-watch presentation on the House floor in which Alan Grayson (D-Florida) lays out why we own the Red Roof Inn thanks to the Federal Reserve. Clearly, we need an Audit (and ending) of the FED!!!!



Hat Tip: The Daily Paul

Ron Paul's Transition Plan

Here is a great video compiling Dr. Paul's words on what his transition plan would look like.

Ron Paul on Chris Matthews

This is a much watch video in which Dr. Paul defends the principles of liberty as well as the Tea Party movement, and touches on a number of other issues.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Smells Like Ron Paul Spirit by the Southern Avenger