Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

[Big_Ro]

The foreign policy of Ron Paul is the foreign policy of the Founders. It is the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson who, in his first inaugural address, called for “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” It is the foreign policy of George Washington who, in his Farewell Address, reminded us that, “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible…Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” Ron Paul’s foreign policy is the foreign policy of non-intervention. It puts American interests ahead of all other foreign interests. It follows the Just War Doctrine, which the war in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying. And remember, for much of the early 20th century our country had an excellent reputation in the Middle East, the part of the world we are told will hate us no matter what we do. The Islamic world has never been democratic. Yet, before we intervened there, our last threat came from the Barbary pirates. Certain “conservatives” have been converted to the belief that only by making the world democratic can we ever make America secure. But our Founders did not believe this; they did not even believe in democracy, per se. They thought they were creating a Republic that would be made secure by staying out of the wars of the blood-soaked continent their fathers had left behind. Interventionism is not the solution. Interventionism is the problem. And all this talk of a “democratic” Middle East may end up coming back to haunt us. Ironically, Israel may end up the biggest loser if “democracy” comes to the Middle East. Just look at Egypt and how far the situation has worsened in that country since Obama decision to back “democracy” and threw an autocratic, yet secure ally (Mubarak) under the bus. Sharia law will replace any secular constitution. The same will likely happen in Libya and anywhere else this so-called “democratic revolution” spreads. And who will suffer the most? Israel and Middle Eastern Christians. Between Bush and Obama we are witnessing the greatest blunders in American foreign policy. Bush and Obama will be long gone and OUR children will have to live with the consequences.

You’re telling of history is accurate but leaves out the middle. While our Founding Fathers may very well have been non-interventionists, to use a modern phrase, they would have no doubt dropped their opposition to “foreign entanglements”, just as our more recent Presidents did after Pearl Harbor. Philosophy is of little use when the enemy brings the war to you. Are you suggesting that Washington or Jefferson would not have reacted similalry to how FDR and the wider American populace did to the initiation of hostilities brought on by the Japanese? I don’t think that dog will hunt. Are you suggesting that we should not have gone after Al Qeada and their allies after 9-11. I think our pre-emptive attack on Iraq (bring it on Bob! was ill advised to put it mildly, but our attack on Afghanistan and pursuit of Al Qaeda and their leader is not only justified but required. I believe that the American people have mandated that the President, whomever he or she might be, should and indeed must get the leader of al Qaeda. He needed to get got and I supported this Presidents decision to go after him without prior warning to Pakistan. And, finally, the big takeaway, whether you think its right or not, from WWII was that it is engagement in the world that will prevent another global conflict from occurring. It worked for a long time. If it has worn out its welcome fine. But history nor foreign policy is static and neither should it be.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Thank you for noticing that I am making a nuanced argument. I pride myself in doing so. However, I just don’t see how you can reach the conclusion that I am not crediting Paul for giving birth to the Tea Party movement. I am saying that his Libertarianism underpins a good deal of the Tea Party platform as it exists. I’m saying that his supporters animated the movement and gave it’s original core constituency. That the larger group that currently identifies with the brand may have moved away from some or even most of Paul’s positions, such as in foreign policy, I don’t think is in question. So, I am just not seeing how I am not being clear. Are you trying to lure me in to some kind of argument? I don’t get it. I hope this clarifies what I have been trying to say.

“animadversion”…nice. I had to look that one up. Kudos.

So, to encapsulate what you are getting at is that Paul gave birth to the Tea Party, which was then kidnapped by the Good Old Boy Republican aparatchik and morphed into the vocal part of the Republican party. That was my inference and has been my general observation.

 

[Big_Ro]

Are you speaking of the same Thomas Jefferson who went to war with the BARBARY Pirates in 1801???
It should be noted that he did this WITHOUT congressional approval.

He also far and away exceeded his powers with the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. TJ was a walking contradiction. A pragmitist masquerading as an idealist. Tee-hee.

 

[Big_Ro]

So, to encapsulate what you are getting at is that Paul gave birth to the Tea Party, which was then kidnapped by the Good Old Boy Republican aparatchik and morphed into the vocal part of the Republican party. That was my inference and has been my general observation.

And you are right. Are they Transformers? Eegads!

 

[MMolloy]

Are you speaking of the same Thomas Jefferson who went to war with the BARBARY Pirates in 1801???
It should be noted that he did this WITHOUT congressional approval.

President Jefferson sent a small force to protect shipping in August of 1801and said he had no authority to do anything further than defense without authorization from congress which he received in 1802.

And your point was, Bob?

 

[kubark]

Are you speaking of the same Thomas Jefferson who went to war with the BARBARY Pirates in 1801???
It should be noted that he did this WITHOUT congressional approval.

PRIOR to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, CONGRESS passed naval legislation that provided for six frigates that “shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.” In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to “protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.” In 1801, Tripoli declared war on the U.S. and Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, WITHOUT THE SANCTION OF CONGRESS [emphasis mine], to go beyond the line of defense”; Congress alone could authorize “measures of offense also.” Thus Jefferson told Congress: “I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.”

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Are you speaking of the same Thomas Jefferson who went to war with the BARBARY Pirates in 1801???
It should be noted that he did this WITHOUT congressional approval.

He didn’t need to. The mission of the Navy is to protect American mercantile interests (the sea lanes). The Barbary Pirates were attacking ships and taking the crews as slaves. Why would the President need a declaration of war for the Navy to do its prime mission? It wasn’t a preventive war, aka Bush Doctrine.

 

[Big_Ro]

Oh my goodness, now were off on a Barbary Pirates tangent. Truly amazing. What is the topic of this thread. I forgot.

 

[estesbob]

Oh my goodness, now were off on a Barbary Pirates tangent. Truly amazing. What is the topic of this thread. I forgot.

 

[tomarin]

Thank you for noticing that I am making a nuanced argument. I pride myself in doing so. However, I just don’t see how you can reach the conclusion that I am not crediting Paul for giving birth to the Tea Party movement. I am saying that his Libertarianism underpins a good deal of the Tea Party platform as it exists. I’m saying that his supporters animated the movement and gave it’s original core constituency. That the larger group that currently identifies with the brand may have moved away from some or even most of Paul’s positions, such as in foreign policy, I don’t think is in question. So, I am just not seeing how I am not being clear. Are you trying to lure me in to some kind of argument? I don’t get it. I hope this clarifies what I have been trying to say.

No, just taking mild exception to your characterization of the Ron Paul - Tea Party connection. Not everyone comes here with boxing gloves on you know!

I don’t “read” the Tea Party people as libertarians, but I could be wrong. Especially since you’re not necessarily saying that all of them are, just the founders. I think it’s a grass roots movement akin to the California anti-tax uprising of the late 1970’s.

 

[MMolloy]

You’re telling of history is accurate but leaves out the middle. While our Founding Fathers may very well have been non-interventionists, to use a modern phrase, they would have no doubt dropped their opposition to “foreign entanglements”, just as our more recent Presidents did after Pearl Harbor. Philosophy is of little use when the enemy brings the war to you. Are you suggesting that Washington or Jefferson would not have reacted similalry to how FDR and the wider American populace did to the initiation of hostilities brought on by the Japanese? I don’t think that dog will hunt. Are you suggesting that we should not have gone after Al Qeada and their allies after 9-11. I think our pre-emptive attack on Iraq (bring it on Bob! was ill advised to put it mildly, but our attack on Afghanistan and pursuit of Al Qaeda and their leader is not only justified but required. I believe that the American people have mandated that the President, whomever he or she might be, should and indeed must get the leader of al Qaeda. He needed to get got and I supported this Presidents decision to go after him without prior warning to Pakistan. And, finally, the big takeaway, whether you think its right or not, from WWII was that it is engagement in the world that will prevent another global conflict from occurring. It worked for a long time. If it has worn out its welcome fine. But history nor foreign policy is static and neither should it be.

Maybe you have a different definition of entangling alliances than I do (or our founders had). That we form alliances when there is ALREADY hostilities is quite another matter than pledging to engage in hostilities if another country is attacked. Our entangling alliances, including wholesale enforcement of UN mandates, got us involved in Iraq in 1991 and we’ve never left.

I would also love for any of the War on a Tactic supporters to defend the piece of OFFICIAL Foreign Policy I cited earlier… that we’ve been targeting other countries for Population Control since 1974: hli.org/index.php/kissinger-report/193?task=view

Do you consider this the US spreading Goodness and Democracy throughout the World?

 

[estesbob]

President Jefferson sent a small force to protect shipping in August of 1801and said he had no authority to do anything further than defense without authorization from congress which he received in 1802.

And your point was, Bob?

Ron is no Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Big_Ro]

No, just taking mild exception to your characterization of the Ron Paul - Tea Party connection. Not everyone comes here with boxing gloves on you know!

I try and keep my gloves in the box, but these boards have made me a bit defensive. People can just get so riled up over the smallest of things. I’m okay with you taking exception. It’s what political discussion is all about. I do appreciate your lack of vitriol.

 

[Big_Ro]

Maybe you have a different definition of entangling alliances than I do (or our founders had). That we form alliances when there is ALREADY hostilities is quite another matter than pledging to engage in hostilities if another country is attacked. Our entangling alliances, including wholesale enforcement of UN mandates, got us involved in Iraq in 1991 and we’ve never left.

I would also love for any of the War on a Tactic supporters to defend the piece of OFFICIAL Foreign Policy I cited earlier… that we’ve been targeting other countries for Population Control since 1974: hli.org/index.php/kissinger-report/193?task=view

Do you consider this the US spreading Goodness and Democracy throughout the World?

So, you’re suggesting that the USA has been fomenting war throughout the world in order to slow down population growth? Was the policy promulgated at area 51?

 

[Big_Ro]

Ron is no Thomas Jefferson.

It would have been cool if you could have taken it a step further and used the old, “I knew TJ; I campaigned with TJ and you’re no TJ” routine. Worth at least 100 CAF buddy bucks!!

 

[kubark]

You’re telling of history is accurate but leaves out the middle. While our Founding Fathers may very well have been non-interventionists, to use a modern phrase, they would have no doubt dropped their opposition to “foreign entanglements”, just as our more recent Presidents did after Pearl Harbor. Philosophy is of little use when the enemy brings the war to you. Are you suggesting that Washington or Jefferson would not have reacted similalry to how FDR and the wider American populace did to the initiation of hostilities brought on by the Japanese? I don’t think that dog will hunt. Are you suggesting that we should not have gone after Al Qeada and their allies after 9-11. I think our pre-emptive attack on Iraq (bring it on Bob! was ill advised to put it mildly, but our attack on Afghanistan and pursuit of Al Qaeda and their leader is not only justified but required. I believe that the American people have mandated that the President, whomever he or she might be, should and indeed must get the leader of al Qaeda. He needed to get got and I supported this Presidents decision to go after him without prior warning to Pakistan. And, finally, the big takeaway, whether you think its right or not, from WWII was that it is engagement in the world that will prevent another global conflict from occurring. It worked for a long time. If it has worn out its welcome fine. But history nor foreign policy is static and neither should it be.

“Entangling alliances” are what gave us The Great War. And before you can defeat any enemy, you must know that enemy. Why did al Qaeda attack us? Was it because of “who we are” or because of “what we do” in their region? I’m not sure what you mean by “engagement in the world that will prevent another global conflict.” U.S. armed forces do not take an oath to defend the peace that makes all progress possible. They take an oath to defend the Constitution. Perhaps by “engagement” you mean the Bush Doctrine as codified in the National Security Strategy of the United States on Sept. 21, 2002, which embraces preemptive and preventive war. Perhaps you are confusing our new foreign policy of “engagement” with the foreign policy of “containment” that, for 50 years, kept two nuclear superpowers from destroying each other. As to WWII, America did not go to war to defend democracy. We went to war to exact retribution from a Japanese empire that had attacked us in our sleep. When the Allies declared war on Hitler on Sept. 3, 1939, FDR did not come to the defense of France and Britain. He delivered a fireside chat that same night pledging there would be “no blackout of peace” in the United States. When France fell in 1940, pleading for planes, FDR sent words of encouragement. Not until 18 months after the fall of France did we declare war on Hitler and not until after Hitler had declared war on us.

 

[MMolloy]

Don’t forget his aversion to the Federal Reserve.

Absolutely… A Central Planner’s Best Friend! Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto: cpwv.org/why-me/know-the-enemy/

Unfortunately most people are unaware of this thanks largely to the MSM and the Government Indoctrination Centers aka Public Schools (Plank 10)

Facilitates all kinds of things that would be scoffed out if the FED in conjunction with Congress were not so adept on passing the cost off to future generations.

 

[tomarin]

I try and keep my gloves in the box, but these boards have made me a bit defensive. People can just get so riled up over the smallest of things. I’m okay with you taking exception. It’s what political discussion is all about. I do appreciate your lack of vitriol.

Well, I am a member of the “Call to Courtesy” social group.

 

[Big_Ro]

Absolutely… A Central Planner’s Best Friend! Plank 5 of the Communist Manifesto: cpwv.org/why-me/know-the-enemy/

Unfortunately most people are unaware of this thanks largely to the MSM and the Government Indoctrination Centers aka Public Schools (Plank 10)

Facilitates all kinds of things that would be scoffed out if the FED in conjunction with Congress were not so adept on passing the cost off to future generations.

If I didn’t know better, I would say you’re insinuating I’m a communist or communist sympathyzer. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Not very charitable my brother.

I would argue that Ron Paul’s positions on Foreign Policy, the war on drugs and the Federal Reserve are widely known and reported on in the MSM, blogosphere and around the water cooler. That they may be poorly understood, perhaps. This may be why his appeal as a Presidential candidate has not expanded beyond his minority core of constituents.

 

[ishii]

Ron is no Thomas Jefferson.

Maybe we should ask Ron Paul, he knew Jefferson didn’t he?

Ishii