Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire

History News Network (George Mason University) ^ | 11/19/2007 | David T. Beito and Scott Horton

[George W. Bush]

Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire

By David T. Beito and Scott Horton

Flying under the radar of mainstream media coverage, supporters of Dr. Ron Paul, a seventy-two year old ten-term congressman and obstetrician from Texas, have staged a political revolution. Despite little publicity, they have raised over $15 million, mostly in small donations, giving Paul more money in the bank than John McCain.

In a November 5 “money bomb” (inspired by Guy Fawkes Day as depicted in the film, “V for Vendetta”) the Paul Revolutionaries raked in $4.3 million. In doing so, they set a new one-day record for all Republican candidates. In addition, Paul’s backers have spontaneously organized over 1,100 meet-up groups. That’s more than any other candidate in the race including the youthful and photogenic Barak Obama. By all indications, most of the meet-up group members, now numbering over 60,000, are under age twenty-five. Paul’s appeal can be attributed to his no-holds-barred small government, pro-liberty message as well as his consistent call to bring home the troops.

Reporters are right to emphasize the wide gap between Paul and the pro-war Republican presidential field but they should not stop there. If they dig a little deeper, they will find that his disagreements with Democrats are equally great. Paul is the only candidate in either party who wants to shut down the entire American overseas political and military Empire.

Rather than “isolationist” in foreign policy, however, Paul embraces as his own Thomas Jefferson’s stated goal of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” But, unlike our third president, Paul appears bound and determined to apply these words across-the-board. His voting record shows a consistent support for free trade and legislation to redirect the military strictly to home defense rather than foreign occupation. The Democrats, by contrast, largely share the bi-partisan post-World War II consensus of spreading democracy, human rights, or “vital interests” by military force.

Few subscribe to this consensus more zealously than Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who has considerable credentials as a hawk dating back to her husband’s administration. Most notably, she was an aggressive cheerleader for the bombing campaigns against both Iraq and Serbia in Kosovo. Paul, like many Republicans at the time, opposed both. Although Hillary later broke with Bush on Iraq, she rejects a non-interventionist approach. She wants to leave U.S. troops behind in Iraq to fight al Qaeda as well as keep them in the region. When asked in a recent debate whether she would promise that the troops would be home from Iraq by the end of her first term, Clinton refused. Although Barak Obama opposed the war from the outset, his current views are not much different. He also intends to station U.S. forces permanently in the region and reserves the right to put them back in Iraq again in full force to stop “genocide” (a term he never defines). John Edwards advocates the same approach.

While it is true that the Democrats are dovish on Iraq when compared to Bush, they blow bugles on the Darfur region of Sudan. The frontrunners demand tougher sanctions, imposition of a no-fly zone, and U.S. aid for more UN troops. Edwards pledges to work with NATO and deploy U.S. “military assets” to enforce the zone. Clinton has even suggested a blockade of the Port of Sudan, an act of war under international law. The truculence of the Democrats on Darfur defies logic given their objections to the Iraq War. The same conditions apply in Darfur that also led to the Iraq quagmire including a history of Islamic sectarian strife, a long civil war, and no real tradition of the rule of law and democracy. Despite widespread violence and Sunni fundamentalism in Sudan, there has never been a suicide bombing there. Were the Democrats to spread the War on Terror into Darfur, that statistic would certainly change.

Rather than avoid all foreign political entanglements, as would Paul, the Democratic frontrunners promise to extend them. All three, to quote Edwards, hope to exercise “American leadership to forge powerful alliances-with longtime allies and reluctant friends, with nations already living in the light of democracy and with peoples struggling to join them.” In contrast to Paul, they do not intend to scale down foreign American bases, much less reconsider the merits of George McGovern’s old dream to “Come Home America.” As Obama puts it, the United States “cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now....we need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world." Woodrow Wilson could not have said it better.

If Americans expect a “great debate” about foreign policy fundamentals in 2008, absent an upset by Paul and his campaign against the American empire and for free trade, they will not get it. That would be a pity. As examples of “blowback” from previous and ongoing interventions continue to mount, such as spiraling oil prices, the free-fall in the value of the dollar, and the current strife in Pakistan and Kurdistan, Americans need such a debate more than ever before.

[George W. Bush]

Notice the hypocrisy of the Dims on advocating armed intervention in Darfur in contrast to all that they have said about Iraq.

Hitlery's call to blockade ports is the policy of a budding war criminal under international law.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

A Hillary-is-a-war-criminal bump. A good review here on the so-called antiwar Democrat candidates.

[fortheDeclaration]

As examples of “blowback” from previous and ongoing interventions continue to mount, such as spiraling oil prices, the free-fall in the value of the dollar, and the current strife in Pakistan and Kurdistan, Americans need such a debate more than ever before.

Add this to our fiscal problems and Ron Paul is beginning to look like a prophet.

[rineaux]

Good article. You have to love the two faces of the democrats leadership.

[padre35]

No, because Dr. Paul rejects the notion that international law trumps the Constitution.

[George W. Bush]

I like the reminders of Hitlery as a principal cheerleader for the bombings of the Serbs in favor of the Albanian Muslim narcoterrorists under the U.N. banner. Also the mention that she had advocated, like any war criminal, the blockading of recognized international ports. All in all, the stunning hypocrisy of the Dims on trying to be antiwar while funding the war and getting all hot and bothered over expanding to more war in Darfur (always under the U.N.'s blue helmet of course) is what made me post this article. There is nothing that is significantly antiwar about any of the Dims. They are only politically antiwar, using it as a bashing point on the other party. So their concerns are only partisan, not principled. And they hope their clueless followers will fall for it due to the Bush hatred they've cultivated for so long. When it comes to Dim politicians being antiwar, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[fortheDeclaration]

I like the reminders of Hitlery as a principal cheerleader for the bombings of the Serbs in favor of the Albanian Muslim narcoterrorists under the U.N. banner. Also the mention that she had advocated, like any war criminal, the blockading of recognized international ports. All in all, the stunning hypocrisy of the Dims on trying to be antiwar while funding the war and getting all hot and bothered over expanding to more war in Darfur (always under the U.N.'s blue helmet of course) is what made me post this article. There is nothing that is significantly antiwar about any of the Dims. They are only politically antiwar, using it as a bashing point on the other party. So their concerns are only partisan, not principled. And they hope their clueless followers will fall for it due to the Bush hatred they've cultivated for so long. When it comes to Dim politicians being antiwar, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

In much the Republican base is being duped into thinking that the Republicans are different from the Democrats in their foreign policy and that they actually care about U.S. sovereignity and the WOT.

I hope that the people from both parties recognize that they are being duped.

The GOP leadership want us to hate the Democrats while they cozy up with them in Washington.

The elites stick together, we saw this in the Bible where Saul let Agag live and Ahab when he learned that Benhadad was still alive stated, 'he is my brother'(1Ki.20)

[Nephi]

Excellent article. More and more people are beginning to see that the globalists control both parties and it is THEIR failed policies that Americans pay for with their blood, sweat and tears.

[George W. Bush]

The elites stick together, we saw this in the Bible where Saul let Agag live and Ahab when he learned that Benhadad was still alive stated, 'he is my brother'(1Ki.20)

I never thought of it quite that way. I think many of us look at scripture and believe that all of the people described had only pure and godly motives or evil motives. But many events in scripture are, as you indicate, the simple self-serving actions of people in power. Such people were (and are) mostly interested in serving themselves, not in serving the people or serving God.

[traviskicks]

"Paul is the only candidate in either party who wants to shut down the entire American overseas political and military Empire."



Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Bokababe]

The one thing that always blows me away about the Ron Paul debate, is that who would have ever though that simply “following the Constitution in domestic and foreign policy” would become some a contentious and revolutionary idea in DC? And why should it be? Isn’t that what we should have elected Congress and any president to do?

The US government without the Constitution is a ship without a rudder, but it appears that far to many politicians and political candidates seem to think that the Constitution is something that you just wrap yourself in to get elected and then ignore when it comes to policymaking —if we continue to let them get away with that and keep electing people like this, then we will ultimately deserve what we get!

[traviskicks]

But the career foreign policy ‘experts’ at the state department tell us it is not so simple, that it is very complex, that US resources and policy must play the world like a chess board to advance our own interests.

Blech.

[SubGeniusX]

“following the Constitution in domestic and foreign policy” would become some a contentious and revolutionary idea in DC?"

Stealing (a paraphrase of) that for my tagline

[Bokababe]

"Stealing (a paraphrase of) that for my tagline"

Go for it! I write, too, and have "stolen" more paraphrases than I have ever originated!

[ksen]

But the career foreign policy ‘experts’ at the state department tell us it is not so simple, that it is very complex, that US resources and policy must play the world like a chess board to advance our own interests.

I'd like to see these "interests" listed. All I know is that my financial interests keep taking a beating whenever we start playing world policeman.

Blech.

I agree.

[George W. Bush]

The one thing that always blows me away about the Ron Paul debate, is that who would have ever though that simply “following the Constitution in domestic and foreign policy” would become some a contentious and revolutionary idea in DC? And why should it be? Isn’t that what we should have elected Congress and any president to do?

Because the two establishment parties only debate minor differences in domestic and foreign policy. And most of their favored policies are not authorized by or are directly forbidden by the Constitution.

Hence, the constant attacks. Ron Paul is dangerous because he tells the voters that the emperor(s) have no clothes.

It scares the hell out of both parties.

[Stevieboy]

Because the two establishment parties only debate minor differences in domestic and foreign policy.

And I would elaborate by saying that they debate about how and to what degree they shall rule and control us, as opposed to the real issue of control/socialism vs. liberty, individuality and personal responsibility.

[dread78645]

Ron Paul is dangerous because he tells the voters that the emperor(s) have no clothes.

[George W. Bush]

18,000 pledges at 4:01 pm EST 11/20/07

Ah, finally made it to where we were on Nov. 5 for the $4.2M moneybomb. And still have almost a month left before Teaparty07.com on 12/16/07.