Posted on 11/20/2007 12:10:24 PM PST by Captain Kirk
To the Editor
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
-------------
Is that ever true. The Washington quote is one of the most misused by internutters of the isolationist, and other, varieties. Ironically it’s the WIKI version of the quote.
I’ll use The Papers of George Washington since the Address is in their archives, the plates at the NYC Library, for my comments on the theory, other transcripts differ a bit word to word, but legitimate sources include the internutter omission(s)
Rather than
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."The 2 paragraphs blended into one actually read, my bold for the deleted line. I’m sure the omission by internutters is an accident, they’re the most principled of political commentators and would never make a deliberate omission to support their point.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.Of course the context of the speech is important as the wisdom of our mutual defense treaty with France (yes, we were obligated by treaty to defend France) was being questioned.Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.
No matter, the omitted line negates the purpose the altered quote is generally used for, not fulfilling already formed engagements.
Many of you have actually read the Address, but for the benefit of the internet cut and pasters, the next three paragraphs, my bold as to the reiteration of Washington’s point about fulfilling engagements.
Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.Personally I suspect a 21st century would recognize that our position isn’t as detached & distant as in the 18th century, and that our ability to defy material injury from external annoyance ended in 1812, as some of us were reminded on 9/11.Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? 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, Humour or Caprice?
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it—for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
But Washington's position on infidelity to existing relationships is clear.
You're certainly the king of run-on sentences.
“So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
Thank you for the history lesson!
Can you cite a single person who ever said that about the Wright bros. or heavier-than-air flight? Heavier-than-air flight then was like flying to the moon in Kennedy's time: a technological goal which most educated people believed was within reach of existing technology. Lots of people were working on it, and the Wright bros. got there first. It was not "nutty" or "kooky."
Yup.
Lord Kelvin - considered one of the greater scientific authorities of the time - said that heavier-than-air flight by machines was an impossibility.
Hamilton, of course, simply wanted an American Empire, his vision of America as a world power the most on target, the paulies hate that too, brought about partially by Jefferson in Louisiana, but most forcefully by Polk, my candidate for underrated President, who took us from sea to shining sea by driving out the Mexicans from the west and Brits from the northwest, something I presume the paulies don't like either. Were we a non entangling, non empire building nation, we'd have a handful of states on the Atlantic coast. And Paul still couldn't get nominated, voters recognizing what America could have been.
It's a good address if you haven't read it all, though nothing like Lincoln of 144 years ago yesterday.
Holy non-sequitur, Batman!
I was addressing Paul's spokesmouth's suggestion that there is a higher principle involved in Presidential pardon than the Constitution outlines. To wit:
In reality, the reason for a Presidential pardon is, constitutionally, any reason the President gives. S/he doesn't have to examine jack squat or conduct an investigation if s/he doesn't want to.
...to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust.
Paul's answer in the debate fails even along the line of Jesse Benton's retort. Paul didn't say that he would not pardon Libby because he his conviction fell short of the standard of a miscarriage of justice, but because Scooter supported the war.
Ron Paul should start his own party. The Isolationist Party, or the Kook Party, or the Surrender Party. Oops, that last one is already taken by the DemocRATs.
And somebody call this letter writer the waaaaambulance. Sounds like a terminal nutcase.
Benton completely shreds Charen here.
If a pro-abortionist authoritarian can run as a Republican, so can someone with a libertarian foreign policy.
And somebody call this letter writer the waaaaambulance. Sounds like a terminal nutcase.
That "nutcase" is Jesse Benton, Paul's spokesman, who dismantles the lies Charen tells in her dung-flinging article.
Charen will ridicule someone like Paul, but she's defends POS liberal Rudy. She's your typical MSM token conservative, someone who provides "balance" on a newsrag to counteract the left-wing bias.
“We seemed to be in agreement”
I think in terms of the strategic direction for U.S. foreign policy, Ron Paul’s ideas have resonated with the American people, and are likely to influence future administrations. However, the abolutist nature of his isolationism is so impractical, that if implemented suddenly it would obviously be quite likely to lead to disaster.
Fred Thompson, who I hope will be the GOP nominee, is now saying things about being more careful in the future about committing American troops abroad. It would be disingenious to pretend that the public response to Ron Paul hasn’t influenced both him, and other candidates. So two cheers for Ron Paul. I regret that the impractical rigidity of his views diqualifies him, in my opinion, from being considered as a serious candidate for President.
In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination.Wow, does Mona do stand up? That's really funny material!
Lord Kelvin was off on a lot of predictions, and "misunderestimated" the age of earth by a wide margin. Anyway, he was a physicist, not an engineer. The Wrights were expert mechanics, and could see, as can anyone who isn't blind, that millions of birds were happily achieving heavier-than-air flight every day.
It is ironic that you compare the innovative and forward-looking Wrights to Ron Paul, who gets many of his ideas from the 18th century, like using Letters of Marque against Islamofascism, or calling the 9/11 hijackers merely a little group of 19 "air pirates." Pirates are only criminals motivated by profit; they are not terrorists, or part of an international conspiracy of religious fanatics with a well-developed war strategy for destroying Western culture and economies.
Dream on.
Would eating acid possibly help me understand your posts?
Manson, Dahlmer, Bundy and the Unibomber were small fry in the murder business compared to Sanger and the Goldwaters and their public policies. Of course, M, D, B and U never had the effrontery to claim a "right to privacy" as a cover for their far less numerous crimes. For someone who CLAIMS not to "agree" with abortion (whatever that may mean), you sure do militantly defend Dr. Do Nothing who wants to pose for pro-life holy pictures while resisting quite constitutional attempts to end the holocaust and also defend Barry the baby killer and his Planned Barrenhood allies in their resistance to federal pro-life action. To actual pro-lifers, the libertoonian mouths seem to be ready to accept the overturn of Roe vs. Wade so long as NY, CA, IL, and the more Demonratic states can keep their baby-killing mills open under faux "federalism."
Offended by the 5th and 14th amendments??? Quelle surprise! The 5th precedes and the 14th succeeds (modifying as necessary) the 10th amendment. I don't remember ever relying on the words of the Preamble. Show me an example.
Are you forgetting that the freedom to use "free market pharmaceuticals" along with freedom to engage in sodomy and babykilling are the three cardinal "virtues" of libertoonianism and therefore second-cousins of paleowhateverism????
As to the health of the GOP, it will be far healthier and likely dominant when we have run the paleowindtunnels out of the party altogether. Pacifism is NOT conservatism. Anti-military attitudes are NOT conservatism. Anal retentive materialism cubed is NOT conservatism. The principle of subsidiarity (a Catholic Church principle long before Lincoln CLAIMED to discover it) has its place in law but NOT at the expense of 50 million innocent babies' lives whatever the hillbillies or the Sangerites may think.
The last time there was a conservative movement was the 1980 landslide election of Ronald Reagan (produced by bringing millions of social conservative Democrats into the GOP). There was a third party peacecreep faux Republican (John Anderson) in that race.
Have paleoPaulie do the honors as a third party antiAmerican this time and take the nutcase antiAmerican left vote from Hitlery (who is feared by them to be insufficiently antiAmerican). They know that paleofraudman is opposed to federal action against their secular sacraments of drugs, abortion and sodomy and just as opposed as he is to American interests. They can trust paleoPaulie to be paleopaulie or Tom Fleming or Llewelyn Rockwell or Justin(e) Raimondo or Weepy Walter Jones or whatever antiAmerican jerk poses as "paleo."
If you imagine that I do not think, then I will take that as the compliment that it is, considering the source.
43 days until paleoPaulie and his love slaves are ciderized by actual voters. Tick, tick, tick...
Tax-Chick: A billbears update.
Off topic a bit;
Does anyone know the story behind Bob Novak’s ‘issues’ with Mona Charen? I’ve seen it mentioned in pass in recent weeks (in relation to Novak’s ‘Prince of Darkness’ bio) but never have learned whats at the heart of the matter.
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.