Posted on 01/14/2008 8:04:27 PM PST by forkinsocket
Ron Paul is not a nut. He is honorable and intelligent. I have talked with Congressman Paul about politics and policies. He is consistent and principled. Much of what he says is true. The Constitution is routinely ignored by politicians of both political parties. Government spending, particularly entitlements, is wildly out of control. The crucial constitutional concepts of federalism and limited government are tacitly denied and this denial is the crux of many of our social and political problems.
But Ron Paul holds the vain hope that American government would return to constitutional law anytime soon, even if he did win the presidency. Congress, the judiciary, legal education, and tradition have imparted momentum to the living constitution school of thought. Bring about an actual return to the Constitution requires more than a snap of the president's fingers. Federal courts routinely "interpret" the Constitution in ways directly in conflict with the plain language of the document. At best, a president can only appoint judges the Senate will confirm and wait for natural turnover.
A lot of persuasion is necessary before Americans (including our elites and their institutions) change their way thinking. We in fact still need a crusade to change hearts and minds more than a candidacy.
And if we are going to return to first principles, remember that the Constitution is not the foundational document of our American experiment in individual liberty. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted after independence, the Continental Congress acted as the original government of the United States and successfully waged a war against the great superpower on the planet with very little real authority. The fundamental principles of American government were established long the Constitution was adopted.
What does matter is the Declaration of Independence. The divine endowment of all people with liberty comes directly out of this document of 1776 and it is to this document that serious friends of liberty should look for inspiration and restoration. And what was the Declaration of Independence? It was, in effect, a declaration of war against the British Empire.
It was not an isolationist document but a universalist document. It speaks, pointedly, to the rest of the world. It talks about the reasons that governments are formed (not just our government.) It was bold, sweeping, and international. And it was seen by the rest of the world as just that: A revolutionary document for all peoples, even if it applied specifically only to thirteen embattled colonies in North American.
Ron Paul wants to return us to the Constitution, as if it were a sacred document which granted us freedom. Our spiritual lodestar should be the Declaration of Independence, which remains a much more dangerous, much more powerful, and much more relevant document to our times.
Some policies Paul proposes are admirable. Why do we still have armies in Germany and in Korea, when both are rich, modern industrialized nations? Why does government have to do so much and why does "government" more and more mean centralized government in Washington? Why have a tax code which punishes productivity and which requires contortionist behavior from business?
But other parts of Paul's policies simply do not fit our age. The notion that we should disengage from the Middle East, for example, suggests that Israel is "just another nation," like, say, North Korea or Syria. The foundation of the Jewish state was based upon the undeniable facts of history continuing, dreadfully, through the Holocaust, that Jews are not "just another people," but are rather a persecuted people who were not welcome when escaping Nazified Europe. Ignoring that is ignoring salient history.
Likewise, the stark contrast between Israel and its neighbors (except, until the last three decades, the successful state of Lebanon) cannot be ignored, and the murderous intent of neighbors who seriously read in large numbers Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is also a grim, absolute fact of the modern world. The notion that, on paper, Israel can make peace with these neighbors is not just pure theory, but it is theory which has failed the test of experience.
Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, and that nuclear weapons change everything. Ever since H.G. Wells first used the term "atomic bomb" in his science fiction stories more than a century ago, it has become almost inevitable that true, horrific global war power was inevitable. Happily, America acquired fission weapons and then fusion weapons first. Happily also, America has had leaders willing to use that power to protect our nation and allies who would otherwise be unprotected.
And, as we learned from the Japanese in the Second World War and from radical Moslems today, the calculus of economic benefits and political rights which works very well in moderating and balancing the behavior of most people, simply does not work with everyone. Does anyone doubt that the Japanese would have used the atomic bomb on American cities or that radical Moslems will use thermonuclear bombs on America, if they can, even if it means massive casualties in our retaliation?
Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao. As Lincoln today might have said "This world cannot long endure half slave and half free." This was also perhaps the greatest victory of the greatest conservative leader of our age: Ronald Reagan. Congressman Paul might recall the Gipper's Cold War strategy: "How about this: We win; they lose?"
Ronald Reagan, like Abraham Lincoln, understood the supra-constitutional importance of liberty in the fulfillment of America, and liberty to them meant more than just the liberty of American citizens. If the ideal which is America is to survive the totalitarian impulse which we see not only in North Korea and the Taliban, but among the Leftists in our own nation, then we need to recapture the fortitude of Washington, the vision of Lincoln and the clarity of Reagan. If we can do this and preserve the vestiges of the Constitution, fine.
But the vision of America is much more than the Constitution. It is much more than Congressman Paul sees. What Ron Paul proposes is not bad or dishonest. It is simply no longer enough for liberty and decency to survive in America or in the world.
The passage of a "declaration of war" by Congress signifies absolutely nothing. Congress passes plenty of bills that neither you nor I are likely to support and are not going to command any additional loyalty to their sponsors. The question is: Should we fight these wars, with or without such declarations. The answer is unquestionably: Yes, we should. Congress funds the war which is the only action that they alone can take on the war. Whether they favor the war or not, even the Demonrats know what consequences they will suffer if they dare cut off funds. Only the "paleos" are too ignorant to figure that out.
Not only claim but I am educated and mre so than thee. I apologize for neglecting to mention other paleoenthusiast rags like Stormfront and whatever David Duke may be publishing.
FTD: My doctorate in law outranks your M.A. in History and, M.A. or not, you have drunk the leftist kook-aid that the United States of America was designed to be a pitiful Gulliver tied down in Lilliput and incapable of smiting its enemies. History proves you wrong, but even you may know that.
Did the soviets not aspire to world empire or did they know better than you how badly they would be beaten? You may think my posts ridiculous (if you did not, I might double check my presumptions), but it appears that at least 90% of GOP primary voters are closer to me than to thee on these questions. Even Her Satanic Thighness and Hussein bin Bama are more supportive of war than are the paleocowards. It is always amazing to find the "paleos" parroting the old soviet line on Mossagh Dagh or whatever that soviet stooge's name was.
Again, I want no "new world order" just American military superiority used whenever and wherever desirable, an end to the UN and all similar restraining arrangements, and a policy of intervening whenever and wherever we, in our sole judgment, deem it necessary or desirable and preferably pre-emptively lest we have to suffer casualties of our own or of our allies before acting to prevent such.
Your every insult, considering the paleosource, is high praise. Pour it on!
I served as a volunteer attorney for NRA members arrested on gun charges. I guess I believe in the Second Amendment. What have you DONE for the RTKBA other than beat your keyboard?
It is the change of technology and not the mere change in times that requies a changed approach. The Brits and other eighteenth century powers, if tempted to tangle with the US in the 1770s, 1780s, 1790s or even in the War of 1812, did not have intercontinental ballistic missiles, intercontinental bombers, nuclear weapons, fleets of nuclear missile and nuclear attack submarines in every ocean and able to closely approach our coasts and our population centers, suitcase nukes, and a wide variety of other innovations. Also, few Brits had the fanatacism of the Jihadists who blow themselves up to take other people’s children with them. You are so overcome by nostalgia for the late eighteenth century that the mist in your eyes has bli=nded you. Of course, you are a paleo and so that goes without saying. Reality is not your strong suit.
What kind of "honest friendship" would you seek with Hitler, Stalin, Ahmadinejad, Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, etc.? Should we sell (or have sold) them whatever they want(ed) including our best military technology??? We are now (but should not be) a member nation of the United Nations (which ought to be abolished pronto) and of many other treaty alliances that are "entangling. Do you concede that the interventionist position seeks no such entanglements but rather the complete freedom of the United States to act militarily whenever and wherever we deem necessary or desirable in OUR sole interest or in the interest of any nation WE choose to protect? What's your problem??? Why do you suppose that Jefferson (or Washington for that matter) would have been anything but an interventionist under our circumstances?
LOL...well did you know Hitler couldn’t even take out the Brits in WW2?
There is nothing in the change in technology that justifies us changing our policy of leaving other nations alone to handle their own internal issues.
Principles remain the same no matter what era we are in, that is what the Declaration and Bill of Rights are about.
So?
Your philosophy undermines it.
As for myself I am a life time member of the GOA and a member of the NRA and TSRA.
I will add that to your blah, blah, blah file.
Again, I want no "new world order" just American military superiority used whenever and wherever desirable, an end to the UN and all similar restraining arrangements, and a policy of intervening whenever and wherever we, in our sole judgment, deem it necessary or desirable and preferably pre-emptively lest we have to suffer casualties of our own or of our allies before acting to prevent such.
Well, what you are getting is the NWO, with U.S. troops scattered throughout the world, unable to defend U.S. interests while they defend the interests of the world.
Your every insult, considering the paleosource, is high praise. Pour it on!
Insult?
All I have said about you is that you love to hear the sound of your own voice, which clearly you do.
You do like to rant on and on and on.
Not if it isn't in history, which is what we are discussing.
You brought up the BA in history not in general education.
Most of your posts do not show any education or thought just alot of bitterness and anger.
No, interventionism and imperialism are equally destructive to a nation.
We have engaged in both.
The passage of a "declaration of war" by Congress signifies absolutely nothing. Congress passes plenty of bills that neither you nor I are likely to support and are not going to command any additional loyalty to their sponsors. The question is: Should we fight these wars, with or without such declarations. The answer is unquestionably: Yes, we should. Congress funds the war which is the only action that they alone can take on the war. Whether they favor the war or not, even the Demonrats know what consequences they will suffer if they dare cut off funds. Only the "paleos" are too ignorant to figure that out.
Well, so much for the Constitution!
Congress is suppose to declare wars since they are to fund the wars.
Money bills are to originate in Congress since it is closer to the people who are going to have to pay those bills.
The Founding Fathers understood all too well that Kings like to get nations into wars, but the people have to die and pay for them.
That is why the Congress was given that responsibility and that is why Congress is elected every two years to keep them closely accountable to the people.
But, once one part of the Constitution is considered 'irrelevant' all parts are going to be considered as such, like that 'pesky' 2nd Amendment.
After all, due to advances in technology, the people would not be able to resist the state anyway with the weapons that they are armed with so why do they need them any more?
That is one of the arguments used by the gun grabbers when they say that the 2nd is just for hunting and not for defense of the citizens against the tyrannical state.
More for the blah, blah, blah file.
That file is sure filling up quickly!
Now, what does that have to do with the fact that the United States underestimated both the N.Koreans when we disarmed the S.Koreans of their heavy weapons (so they would not invade the N. Korea) and then made a statement that Korea was not put of the United States defense zone, giving a green light for the N.Koreans to invade?
And the Chinese, when after repeated warnings from the Chinese, we continued to move North and stretch our supply lines and were completly exposed when the Chinese hit us during the bitter cold, dealing the U.S. one of its worst military defeats.
Well, Fred is not doing as well as Paul, so S.Carolina should be interesting.
But I doubt you would vote for anyone who is not advocating nuking some part of the world.
Yes, the same thing that Ron Paul advocates, treating terrorism like piracy.
You had a 'case'! who knew?
>>>>I guess we’re supposed to just ignore the fact that some 20 million Russians died, that 6 million Jews died, Hitler controlled a land mass far greater than the U.S., half of Russia, all of North Africa, the mediterannean, sank tons of shipping in the Atlantic...????
And what has to do with the notion that Hitler was a direct threat to the United States?
The generation of that day didn't think so, they were against going to war against Germany and would not have done so had even after Pearl Harbor, had not Germany declared war on the United States first.
FDR was elected on the platform of not sending our troops to fight in Europe again.
And only because he opened two fronts (Russia) was England spared.
Hitler couldn't defeat the British Air Force, so he wouldn't risk his ships crossing the Channel.
[ Now, don’t ping me any more with your goofy posts. ]
>>>>>We’re thinking your picture is next to ‘projection’ in Webster’s.
I am thinking your picture next to goofy.
The sheer irony!
No, not really, posts often expose people for what they know and for what they don't know.
Clearly, your ignorance has been exposed.
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.