The modern American citizen needs to actually THINK AND ACT about the consequence of being lazy and brainwashed, then and only then, can freedom and prosperity develope.

http://www.dubaimegaprojects.com/burj_dubai.html

Explore what happens when you are not exposed to a taxing nanny state and brainwashing media. It’s Paul or fall America!

What is your problem with this?

It would eliminate the President’s authorization for leaving troops in Iraq. It would force War proponents to re-authorize which would be political suicide. Why is that fake?

It is an attempt to provide legislation that is politically viable. Every time congress has an up or down vote on funding Paul votes it down. All those yes votes are the people who have to be convinced to come over.

HR 2605 would sunset the original Authorization to use force 6 months from date of passage allowing the President ample time for an orderly withdraw.

Last action:
6/7/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In regards to who has authority to bring our troops back, Read the War Powers Resolution H. J. Res. 542 of 1973 and “Use of Force” H.J.Res 114 of 2002. It says Congress can bring them home at anytime no matter what the President wants. Stop blaming the President and start holding Congress to task Ron. Introduce legislation to stop the war RON, that’s what we pay you for.

Here is a quote from Ron Paul on the floor of Congress introducing his fake anti-war legislation: “Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. It does not cut off funds for the troops. Nor does this bill set a timetable for our withdrawal” WHY NOT RON, I thought you wanted to end the war?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=757

I think we probably agree on far more issues than we differ. To respond to some of your points:

I don’t support the War in Iraq.

But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

I am in complete agreement with you here, with the small exception that I wouldn’t call the action against al-Qaeda a “war”. I’d reserve that term for wars against nation-states, wars which are declared by the congress and include a win condition. Usually, this is the surrender by the leadership of the opposing nation. If we don’t limit the use of that term, we get “wars” on tactics (terrorism), wars on inanimate objects (drugs), etc. None of these ever have an end point.

But no matter what we call it, I would agree with you, and favor a relentless pursuit of the bastards who attacked our country. Dr. Paul has stated his agreement with that pursuit on many occasions.

The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

While I can appreciate that this is the message people might hear, I think it’s important to be clear about Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy. In it, he states that “we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”

After reading Dr. Paul’s position, I really don’t see it as isolationist. Do you? He espouses all manner of contact with other nations, just not preemptive military contact.

This is not only a philosophical stance I can support, but also a very workable solution. Do we have a better connection with Vietnam now than we did in 1970?

There will always be an Axis of Evil, a Communist threat, or some other boogie man to use as a sales pitch for transferring more power from the citizens who are constitutionally supposed to run their own lives, to a small central group who will “keep us safe”. All these monsters in the closet eventually collapse of their own weight, once they extend too far for their ruling bodies to control. Do we want to become one of these countries ourselves, as a result of fighting every one we see?

Sure, we should respond to threats. That’s one of the government’s primary jobs. But a different philosophy of government is not a threat to us. It’s just a threat to the people of those nations who are misguided enough to support such regimes. Do we want to be that misguided as well?

First, as this stand right now I don’t think the Republicans are in good shape to win in `08 regardless of who the nominees are. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have so thoroughly screwed things up that it will be difficult for any candidate to overcome the publics disdain for anything Republican.

I have to agree with you here as well. I see Hilary Clinton as the most likely candidate on the democratic side. Her strategy of delivering America from the abyss that the welfare/warfare state is creating is to offer more government. She’s championing more pretty-sounding socialist answers domestically and a continuance of the interventionist policies that got us here.

Against Hilary, we’re offered Rudy McRomney, or any number of true third party candidates who have philosophies none of us agree with.

So.

Who should we vote for?

I won’t be voting for comrade Clinton. I don’t want the U.S. to follow the glorious road blazed by the erstwhile Soviet Union (hard to believe people still are fooled by that nonsense). And Rudy McRomney all sound like a large helping of exactly the same recipe we’re choking on now.

Only Ron Paul brings me any inspiration or hope. His message of classic American freedom and prosperity is the only one I see that follows the ideals which made America great.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, and does want to go after Al Queada, and would go after anyone who did indeed threaten our national security, albeit in a constitutional way.

Paul is simply what Washington-Jefferson-Madison were: non-interventionist. Meddling in foreign affairs has been a major source of our troubles for the past 100 years. Whenever we meddle in other countries’ business by supporting what we perceive to be the “lesser” of two evils, we are bitten by consequences down the road.

And whenever American voters cast their lot for the lesser of two evils, they still get evil. Maybe it’s time we stop doing that, and vote for the good Doctor instead.

One other point:

I see implicit in many of your posts, a concern that Paul may upset a Republican victory by his presence. Whether he actually wins the nomination, and is marginalized by the Hilary’s promises of a pony for everyone, or he loses the bid, but not before undermining support for the Republican chameleon of the week, do you see him as a Ralph Nader for Republicans?

First, as this stand right now I don’t think the Republicans are in good shape to win in `08 regardless of who the nominees are. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress have so thoroughly screwed things up that it will be difficult for any candidate to overcome the publics disdain for anything Republican.

May I ask which candidate you would support in favor of Dr. Paul? Which one you think “could win”? And would voting for that candidate (if only to foil Hilary’s chances) really give you, me, and the country the kind of executive we should have?

Frankly, I don’t know that there is one. It certainly wouldn’t be Rudy McRomney.

To take your latter points first:

I don’t support the War in Iraq.

But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

I am in complete agreement with you here, with the small exception that I wouldn’t call the action against al-Qaeda a “war”. I’d reserve that term for wars against nation-states, wars which are declared by the congress and can include a win condition. Usually, this is the surrender by the leadership of the opposing nation. But no matter what we call it, I would agree with you, and favor a relentless pursuit of the bastards who attacked our country. Dr. Paul has stated his agreement with that pursuit on many occasions.

The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

While I can appreciate that this may be the message you (and perhaps others) hear, I think it’s important to be clear about Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy. In it, he states that “we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”

We all know the definitions of the term, but let me post a quick reminder (from the American Heritage Dictionary):

i•so•la•tion•ism n. A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.

After reading Dr. Paul’s Position on War and Foreign Policy, I really can’t see a match for that term. Can you? He espouses all manner of contact with other nations, just not preemptive military contact. Do we have a better connection with Vietnam now than we did in 1970?

I guess it really does hinge on one’s view of America’s presence in the world. Are we to be a “superpower”, enforcing our ideas of government around the world, by use of our military might? Would we react well if China chose that same road? Or, are we to be the bedrock, safe, trading partner of people around the world, strong in our defense, stable in our currency, ruthless in retribution to attack?

Can you help me find a good rationale for America to support a worldwide standing army to enforce our will, and defend our ally-of-the-month, while drawing our country into an endless succession of such conflicts? Will the whole world then pay for this beneficent effort of ours? How many people around the world will see it as beneficent?

If the choice of non-intervention, free trade, and only using our military might to defend ourselves from attack is naïve, I truly want to hear a better solution. I really do.

Personally, though, I think isolationism’s not a bad thing. The ONLY legitimate military action we’ve got going overseas right now is the war on al-Qaeda, in Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa. Pull us militarily out of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, Korea, the Philippines, and the Middle East (plus keep our noses out of the Israel-Palestine debacle) I doubt you’ll see much of a rise in acts of terrorism against us. In any case we won’t be giving them an incentive to attack us. Al-Qaeda’s in Iraq now, but frankly I think the only reason they’ve got a foothold there is because a) we removed Saddam, who kept them out, and b) they offer a useful temporary ally to groups who want us to pull our support for the Iraqi government (which we should). The Iraqi Sunnis are not predisposed towards al-Qaeda’s ideology and if we remove ourselves from the equation I think they’ll get a lot less attractive. Plus, all the neighboring countries around Iraq hate al-Qaeda too and there’s no way they’d tolerate an al-Qaeda led caliphate like Bush is suggesting. They’d have no popular appeal for it anyway. Let the Middle Easterners police their own neighborhood…they’re better equipped to do that anyway.

And Ron Paul’s not advocating total isolationism, like a lot of the xenophobes want. He still supports open trade and diplomacy. In fact, he’d probably try to open trade with Iran, which is more of an incentive for them to get along with us than Bush’s saber-rattling. He’s just talking about military isolationism except in cases of self-defense.

The idea that America can solve all its foreign policy problems by simply withdrawing from the world, which is what the isolationism that Ron Paul sometimes talks about seems to suggest, is, quite honestly, incredibly naive.

I don’t support the War in Iraq.

But I do support the War against al Qaeda and anyone else dedicated to the idea of killing American citizens.

If you want to criticize me for that, feel free.

I call it “Brown Dog Syndrome”

By either happenstance or malicious intent the data becomes incomplete and thus reveals a result that is inconsistent with reality.

To illustrate:

A being, utterly new to this planet, ( Stated for the definition of no prior knowledge ) wanders around an comes across several “Brown Dogs”. Since this is all that as been revealed to them they Naturally Conclude That => All Dogs Are Brown. This is a very logical result based upon the given information. However, With Knowledge of the Greater Dataset, This Is An Obvious Wrong Conclusion.

To base your being “Realistic” on something that is so obviously tied with what your data set includes is to me Unwise. Statistical Realism Is In The Eye Of The Poller.

Ron Paul should not be looked at in the light of “No Chance”. To Say so is to say that all of the Founders Principles Were Irrelevant !!!

The Message Is More Important Than The Man !!!

Country Before Party,

Brad Evans

In your bio post at the Liberty Papers, you write:

All I know is that the evidence is clear that Western Civilization is in a fight for its own survival right now. Following the naive foreign policy advocated by the Libertarian Party and its pacifist allies is, quite frankly, a prescription for suicide.

Is this the reason you consistently mention that Ron Paul “can’t win”, and suggest he move to a third party?

If so, it would make sense to me. If one sees Ron Paul as advocating a naïve foreign policy which threatens Western Civilization, I can see how he would root for the candidate to continue to have “no chance of winning”, and move to a hopefully-untenable third party bid.

Regardless of whether that is your motivation or not, might I submit that the contemporary policies of international intervention may be exactly what threatens our security the most? In 911 we weren’t attacked by a nation-state. We weren’t attacked by Muslims from Indonesia, India, or Pakistan (all countries with top Muslim populations). We were attacked by a group of individuals who claim that their motivation was, in part, our bases in their holy land.

And when facing attack by individuals not aligned with a nation-state, the constitution provides for letters of Marque and Reprisal, rather than war. This way, we target just the individuals claiming responsibility.

But enough about war, foreign policy, and the constitution.

I see implicit in many of your posts, a concern that Paul may upset a Republican victory by his presence. Whether he actually wins the nomination, and is marginalized by the Hilary’s promises of a pony for everyone, or he loses the bid, but not before undermining support for the Republican chameleon of the week, do you see him as a Ralph Nader for Republicans?

May I ask which candidate you would support in favor of Dr. Paul? Which one you think “could win”? And would voting for that candidate (if only to foil Hilary’s chances) really give you, me, and the country the kind of executive we should have?

Doesn’t a strategy of voting against an evil, while abandoning the best good, doom you to exactly what we have now: a dangerous mediocrity that tramples our rights unheeded and pushes us further into being an international pariah?