Articles Comments

SENTRY JOURNAL » Uncategorized » Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look

Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look

Many of you have read or heard the following comments about Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is out of touch and doesn’t have a clue about the threats against the United States. Ron Paul is an idiot.  He’s a moron. I would be embarrassed to be a Ron Paul supporter.  It would be a dangerous thing if Ron Paul became President.  The list goes on and on about how Ron Paul is just a crazy nut whose foreign policy and national defense strategy is unrealistic and would do more harm to America than good.  We have all witnessed first-hand him going toe-top-toe on this topic with his fellow Republicans on a national stage.  Trusted conservative talk show host from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity have called him out and stated they cannot support such a candidate.  I was one of those conservatives three years ago.  I thought and said everything that I just wrote about Ron Paul.  It wasn’t until I took off my GOP goggles and started reading and learning about the origin of the Republican Party and a brand conservatism long forgotten did I begin to understand the error of my ways.

You see the brand of conservatism that bombards the airwaves and fills up a cable time slots is really a establishment brand sold to us as true conservatism.  These so-called conservative authorities many us place so much trust in are nothing more than establishment promoting hacks.  Oh sure they talk about the evils of the establishment and claim they support electing the most conservative candidate and yet they continue to steer us towards Gingrich or Romney while chastising Paul.  They use his foreign policy position as a club and then proceed to beat him over the head with it ignoring the fact that Paul’s position aligns more with the founding fathers than any other candidate.  In fact Paul’s position is pretty close to what the Republican Party of old promoted.  Take a look at the foreign policy and national defense platform of the Republican Party in 1936.

Foreign Affairs 1936

We pledge ourselves to promote and maintain peace by all honorable means not leading to foreign alliances or political commitments.

Obedient to the traditional foreign policy of America and to the repeatedly expressed will of the American people, we pledge that America shall not become a member of the League of Nations nor of the World Court nor shall America take on any entangling alliances in foreign affairs.

We shall promote, as the best means of securing and maintaining peace by the pacific settlement of disputes, the great cause of international arbitration through the establishment of free, independent tribunals, which shall determine such disputes in accordance with law, equity and justice.

National Defense 1936

We favor an army and navy, including air forces, adequate for our National Defense.

We will cooperate with other nations in the limitation of armaments and control of tragic in arms.

It gets even better.  In the election year of 1940 while Europe and the Pacific were at war the Republican Party’s National Defense platform was one of preparation and non-intervention.

National Defense 1940

The Republican Party is firmly opposed to involving this Nation in foreign war.

We are still suffering from the ill effects of the last World War: a war which cost us a twenty-four billion dollar increase in our national debt, billions of uncollectible foreign debts, and the complete upset of our economic system, in addition to the loss of human life and irreparable damage to the health of thousands of our boys.

The present National Administration has already spent for all purposes more than fifty-four billion dollars;—has boosted the national debt and current federal taxes to an all-time high; and yet by the President’s own admission we are still wholly unprepared to defend our country, its institutions and our individual liberties in a war that threatens to engulf the whole world; and this in spite of the fact that foreign wars have been in progress for two years or more and that military information concerning these wars and the re-armament programs of the warring nations has been at all times available to the National Administration through its diplomatic and other channels.

The Republican Party stands for Americanism, preparedness and peace. We accordingly fasten upon the New Deal full responsibility for our un-preparedness and for the consequent danger of involvement in war.

We declare for the prompt, orderly and realistic building of our national defense to the point at which we shall be able not only to defend the United States, its possessions, and essential outposts from foreign attack, but also efficiently to uphold in war the Monroe Doctrine. To this task the Republican party pledges itself when entrusted with national authority. In the meantime we shall support all necessary and proper defense measures proposed by the Administration in its belated effort to make up for lost time; but we deplore explosive utterances by the President directed at other governments which serve to imperil our peace; and we condemn all executive acts and proceedings which might lead to war without the authorization of the Congress of the United States.

Our sympathies have been profoundly stirred by invasion of unoffending countries and by disaster to nations whole ideals most closely resemble our own. We favor the extension to all peoples fighting for liberty, or whose liberty is threatened, of such aid as shall not be in violation of international law or inconsistent with the requirements of our own national defense.

We believe that the spirit which should animate our entire defensive policy is determination to preserve not our material interests merely, but those liberties which are the priceless heritage of America

So during a time period when the world was literally on fire with war in the 1940s, the Republican Party sought to avoid war if possible.  So what is Ron Paul’s platform in regards to national defense.  The below is his position pulled directly from his website.

Ron Paul’s national defense platform:

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

Now does this sound like a man who will not defend America?  I am absolutely confident he would defend America and her interest if threatened or attacked by outside forces.  He would just get the permission of Congress first.  That’s how it suppose to work under the constitution.  I’m also absolutely confident he would continue to hunt down terrorists that are plotting against America.  He would just do it in a manner that followed the constitution.  His platform is very similar to the platforms of the 1936 and 1940 Republican Party and yet he’s called crazy and out of touch.  Does this make any sense?  Now the real hang up for many conservatives is his views on the middle east.  I ask you to do me a favor an watch the below  video.  It’s 13 minutes long, but I believe it will clear up of a numbers of things about his position and why he feels the way he does.

YouTube Preview Image

That says it all.  Ron Paul is being attacked by the establishment on all fronts because he scares the heck out of them.  But not for the reasons you were led to believe.  He scares the heck out of them because he wants to return the power back to the people.  And this is something that will definitely shake the establishment foundation in Washington.  If you want more of the same then cast your vote for one of the establishment candidates because that’s all they’re offering.  In a few years from now, America will be in more debt and nothing will have changed and we’ll all be writing about in our blogs.  I say give the man an honest look and stop listening to establishment, who in the end wants you to vote for Romney or Gingrich.  A vote for either of them doesn’t change anything and that’s exactly what the establishment wants.

Liberty forever, freedom for all.

Share
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Filed under: Uncategorized · Tags: , , , , ,

opinions powered by SendLove.to
Comments
  • LD Jackson December 19, 2011 at 6:39 AM

    Well done, John. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out so eloquently.

    I really believe many people dismiss Ron Paul without a second look, all because of his foreign policy. They haven’t taken the time to consider the ramifications of the foreign policy we have been following for years. It doesn’t matter which political party is in power, Democrat or Republican, the foreign policy has remained the same. I think it is safe to say, it hasn’t worked. Therefore, it follows that something needs to change.

    Ron Paul has been accused of wanting to appease the terrorists, of wanting to isolate America from the rest of the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. He just sees the need for changes in our foreign policy and he is willing to attempt that change. Regardless of how his foreign policy has been portrayed in the media, it isn’t one of appeasement. I have seen how Michael, from The Classic Liberal, articulates Paul’s foreign policy. He believes other countries would know exactly where they stand with an America under a President Paul. There would be no mistaking of our intentions.

    There is one thing that I would change about Ron Paul and how he approaches foreign policy. It isn’t in what he says, but rather how he says it. I believe he could moderate his approach, say the same things, and people would be likely to receive it much better. Having said that, it’s pretty clear that Paul feels very strongly about these issues, and he is very adamant in how he articulates those feelings. He has a lot of passion because he loves America. You can’t take that away from the man.
    LD Jackson recently posted..Ron Paul’s Foreign PolicyMy Profile

    • John Carey December 19, 2011 at 10:24 PM

      Thanks Larry. I think it starts with his foreign policy position and from there moves on to he’s a truther, a racists, antisemitic, a conspiracy theorist, and so forth. Oh how I wish Romney’s and Gingrich’s big government record and positions were examined with the same level of scrutiny as Ron Paul is facing. The one thing I will agree with is it does not serve him well to sit down with Alex Jones.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look My Profile

  • Political Clown Parade December 19, 2011 at 11:50 AM

    You haven’t addressed Dr. Paul’s decades-long promotion of bigotry towards Jews, blacks and homosexuals and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully.

    Many supporters love to portray Paul as a truth-telling, antiwar Republican standing up to the “hawkish” conservative establishment, just as you’ve done here. Your argument is cogent but fails to address his conspiracy theory that the United States either orchestrated the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or allowed them to happen in order to create the pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. On December 9, 2011 he said, “Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq.”

    Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself).

    I appreciate the time and effort you expended in your post. Sadly, it lacks the defense to sufficiently convince to take the closer look at the man as you encourage here.
    Political Clown Parade recently posted..Can 75 Members Of Congress Be Wrong?My Profile

    • LD Jackson December 19, 2011 at 7:26 PM

      I would sincerely like to know where you come up with the idea that Ron Paul is a bigot, racist, or homophobic? I see no evidence of that in the changes he would like to make in the policies of our government.

      As for the theory that he is a conspiracy theorist, it appears that you are quoting directly from Hot Air. Part of your comment was quoted, word for word, from one of their articles.
      LD Jackson recently posted..Ron Paul’s Foreign PolicyMy Profile

    • John Carey December 19, 2011 at 11:10 PM

      I read the Weekly Standard article and I agree with one point brought up in the article; the Alex Jones interviews do not serve him well. As for the antisemitism charges, this is absolute nonsense. Just because his wants to stop giving foreign aid to Israel doesn’t mean he’s stands against Israel. In fact he would halt foreign aid to all Arab nations in the region. Our foreign aid to these nations is five times what we give Israel. The way I see it, this policy is pro Israel.

      As for the racially charged newsletters, Ron Paul hired a ghost writer to write these letters. In fact one of the ghost writers hired was a libertarian activist by the name of Lew Rockwell. Many have concluded he was the author of these letters. He denies it of course. I do not believe Ron Paul is a racist and Nelson Linder when he was director of the Austin NAACP chapter agrees. This is a man who knew Ron Paul for 20 years. He stated that Ron Paul was a thinker and a constitutionalist who was taken out of context. He never got the impression Ron Paul was a racist and he fully supports him.

      And finally Ron Paul never said America orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. He said our foreign policy contributed to the attacks on 9/11and there’s a big difference between the two. I respect your opinion and understand why you have reservation on Mr. Paul. All I am saying is none of the other candidates will change anything in Washington. They will still get us where Obama wants us to be…just at a slower pace.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look My Profile

  • Silverfiddle December 19, 2011 at 3:56 PM

    We need specifics. Would Ron Paul continue our deployment to the Philippines that is providing non-combat assistance to that country’s military in its fight against Abu Sayyaf? Would he go ahead with the Australian base agreement we just made? Would he allow the CIA to spy in places such as the Caucasus and Central Asia?

    The platitudes from his website are fine, all campaigns spout them, but he’s shot too many dog whistles out to the loony left and the 9/11 troofers, so we need specifics.
    Silverfiddle recently posted..Be of Good Cheer!My Profile

    • Political Clown Parade December 19, 2011 at 4:08 PM

      That was an excellent rebuttal, sir. Thank you.
      Political Clown Parade recently posted..Who Should Tucker Carlson Bring To Dinner With Bill Ayers?My Profile

    • John Carey December 19, 2011 at 11:18 PM

      Silver I wish I could give you specifics. I do know he wants to reduce our military footprint globally because one we simply can’t afford it anymore and two because he believes we need to stop playing the role of world policeman. As for intelligence gathering, he has stated he would cut back in some areas, but would continue to gather intelligence.

      I do not have any data on the Philippines. The data I do have is if we continue with the status quo we will be bankrupt within the next 4 years. If that happens our foreign policy position will become irrelevant because we will become irrelevant.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look My Profile

  • Chris W December 19, 2011 at 7:43 PM

    Excellent, well thought out post John.

    Like you said, too many people get their opinion of Dr Paul’s foreign policy from what they are spoon-fed by the corporately owned mediots who are supported by War Inc, rather than taking the time to do research on their own to see what the actually foreign policy of this nation was.
    Chris W recently posted..Hitler Reacts To Ron Paul’s Rise In PollsMy Profile

    • John Carey December 19, 2011 at 11:19 PM

      Thanks Chris. Ron Paul will always spark a lively debate.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look My Profile

    • Silverfiddle December 20, 2011 at 8:50 AM

      I’m asking questions, Chris, not repeating rhetoric I heard from “corporately owned mediots who are supported by War Inc” (whatever that is.)

      Can you answer my questions, or is Ron Paul’s vagueness a studied strategy to play both sides of the fence? And can you discuss this subject dispassionately and without smearing those who don’t think exactly like you?
      Silverfiddle recently posted..Merry Redneck ChristmasMy Profile

  • Teresa December 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM

    One thing I noticed is that the quotes were said prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. I wonder if the Republicans would have stated the same things after that attack. Ron Paul is dangerously naive when it comes to Iran. He dismisses the threat of a nuclear Iran (or that possibility in the near future) way too easily. I agree with him on the Patriot Act and in possibly closing some overseas bases or reducing the number of troops but other than that I disagree with him on foreign policy matters. I agree with him on most domestic issues. Although, I think he gets it wrong on the tenth amendment. I have reservations for Newt, Romney, and Paul. The candidate who I think would be best suited as President is Rick Santorum.
    Teresa recently posted..My Thoughts on Federalist Paper Number 6: The Tenth Amendment and Dissension Among the StatesMy Profile

  • Teresa December 19, 2011 at 11:30 PM

    In this video Ron Paul either does or becomes awfully close to blaming America for 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuX73Ixqtbg
    Teresa recently posted..My Thoughts on Federalist Paper Number 6: The Tenth Amendment and Dissension Among the StatesMy Profile

    • John Carey December 20, 2011 at 12:05 AM

      The problem Teresa is the CIA agrees with Ron Paul. Blowback is a very real threat. When did a majority of the attacks against the United States occur? They occurred after our troops set up camp in Saudi Arabia to expel Iraq from Kuwait in the first Persian Gulf war. For many in the Arab world it was sacrilege for what they viewed as an infidel footprint on their holy land. In 1993 the North Tower of the WTC was bombed. In 1996 the Kobar Towers were bombed. In 1998 a series of U.S. embassies were bombed in Africa. In 2000 the USS Cole was attacked. And then in 2001 the terrible attack of 9/11. All four of these major attacks came after U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia.

      Now let’s reverse the roles and let’s say that Iran was flying drone aircraft over our airspace spying on our people and military facilities. And let’s say they were actively assassinating our nuclear scientists and infect our military computer network with computer viruses, how would we react? Wouldn’t we be just a tad paranoid and angry towards Iran. I know we would, because I would. I would want to blow them off the face of the earth for doing these things to us. So if that would be our reaction, why does it surprise use when Iran reacts the same when we do everything I described above to them. It’s something to think about Teresa.
      John Carey recently posted..Ron Paul: Why you should give him a second look My Profile

      • Silverfiddle December 20, 2011 at 8:56 AM

        John: You make the common Paulist mistake of conflating Iran and the rest of the Middle East. Iranians rejoice when we go after Sunni Arabs like Saddam, and Sunni Arabs have continually encouraged us, all the way back to Mossadegh, to put the Iranians in their place. Two distinct things that do not pile upon one another in the minds of Sunni terrorists. And you drawing a moral equivalence between Iran and the United States is stunning. We have a track record of helping others defend freedom and fighting tyranny. They do not.

        Granted, we should not be invading, starting wars and attacking others just for the hell of it. I am for leaving Afghanistan and Pakistan to their own devices, but it’s rhetoric like this that turns people off to Ron Paul and his followers. You cannot mean that we are no better than Iran, can you?
        Silverfiddle recently posted..Merry Redneck ChristmasMy Profile

        • John Carey December 20, 2011 at 11:52 PM

          First off I’m not a follower of Ron Paul. I’m a constitutionalists who embraces the core principles of our founders. These core principles not only promoted individual liberty but vehemently defend it. Ron Paul’s embraces the ideas of limited government, adherence to constitution, sound fiscal policy, states rights, and individual liberty. He has been consistent in this. His views align with mine the more than any other candidate. It doesn’t make me a nut job or a Paulite who blindly follows the man in whatever he says or does. It just means I have a different view of what conservatism should mean.

          Now for Iran. Our problems with Iran started in 1953 when we helped Britain overthrow Mohammed Mosaddeq, and then installing the Shah. As you know the Shah was a brutal dictator and we unconditionally backed this man. His terrible treatment of his people is what fueled the Islamic revolution and Iran’s hatred towards America. It boiled over in 1979 when the Shah came to America for cancer treatment and Iran demanded we extradite him to stand trial. When we refused our embassy was taken over by students and so began the Iran hostage crisis. We’re quick to point out that Iran hates us because liberty loving people who tolerate all religions. But our hands are not clean in this. We did play a role in fueling their hatred towards us. The CIA has written about this silver. We should have never meddled in their affairs back in 1953. If we had turned the other way when Britain asked us to take part in the coup d’etat I’m absolutely certain our relationship with Iran would be a much better than it is today. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with Mr. Paul about allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. This would be a terrible thing in my eyes. However I do believe in opening up a dialog with them.

          As for comparing the actions of America to the actions of Iran, understand I get all the good America has done in this world, I was just trying to say that if another nation did to us what we’re doing to Iran we too would be angry.
          John Carey recently posted..The SENTRY JOURNAL turns oneMy Profile

          • Silverfiddle December 21, 2011 at 8:14 AM

            So the only way we escape “blowback” is to pull up the drawbridge and do nothing. Of course that would bring its own kind of blowback…

            And opinion surveys and attitude measurements consistently show that Iranians do not hate the US. We are more popular there than in any other Muslim country.

            Paul’s foreign policy is naive and simplistic, and using the old canard about “endless wars” is tiresome. Nobody wants that. He needs to get specific of he’s done with many of us.
            Silverfiddle recently posted..No Magic Bullets, Only Trade-offsMy Profile

      • Teresa December 20, 2011 at 9:07 AM

        The problem is that Ron Paul and others don’t differentiate between the two country’s motives, or countries motives and/or intentions. In 1979 Iran showed its motives when Americans were captured and held hostage and finally released in 1981. The Iranian regime responded to the weakness of Jimmy Carter by taking Americans hostage. Then, Iran responded to our having strength and America being tough on Iran and their fear of Reagan is why they decided to release the hostages. This country cannot afford to have a weak leader like Ron Paul running our country because other countries will see his weakness on foreign relations an bulldoze over the U.S. and take advantage of us left and right. Has the U.S. ever held hostage innocent Iranians? The evidence is that whenever Iran or any other Middle Eastern country posed a threat to either us or one of our allies we had legitimate cause to do what is in our best interest. We have done those things you mentioned with relation to Iran in response to the threat they pose to other countries along with the U.S. We did not provoke their actions. The main reason Iran hates America is because we support Israel. Plus, I don’t see evidence of Paul taking the threats that Iran has made against Israel seriously. And, the fact that Iran has been funneling both money and weapons to terrorist organizations which also pose a threat to Israel.

        In addition, Bin Laden started hating his father for doing business with the West, especially with America and that is part of the reason he was radicalized. His radicalization took place way before we entered Saudi Arabia. Saddam had entered Kuwait and had taken it over and its oil supply. The International community had a stake in saving the oil reserves in Kuwait. On April 29, 2003 withdrew most of our troops from Saudi Arabia. If what you said was true about our presence in Saudi Arabia being a motivator in the attacks against us why haven’t attacks decreased since 2003? Plus, our two countries came upon an agreement. I don’t think you are suggesting this but …Are you suggesting that two countries shouldn’t cooperate when an International incident or resources are threatened?

        Yes, a number of countries citizens don’t like the fact that we have a base/s in Saudi Arabia but what motivates the transformational turn from simply strongly objecting to our presence in Saudi Arabia to becoming radicalize terrorists is not the fact that we have bases there. It is either pure Islam or a perversion of Islam (it is an interpretation of the Koran which promotes violence) and their disdain for freedom. Why do you think the countries in the Arab Spring have are adopting Sharia or Islamic theocracies? Its not because of the United States going into Middle Eastern countries. Its because these radicals version of Islam teaches hate, violence, oppression against women like they are property and because of their hatred for freedom. Iran has been entangled in wars and conflicts for many, many centuries. The Iranian Islamization occurred in the tenth century and continued upon a path of no return. During Mohammed Khatami two terms as President he promoted freedom of expression, tolerance, and free trade so the threat is dependent on the ruler and that threat has increased dramatically increased under Ahmadinejad.

        There may have been blowback but it wasn’t because of our intervention in the Middle East, it was due to our not helping the Afghans rebuild. But people seem to forget that during that period of time the United States was in the midst of a Cold War with Russia and that we were fighting against the Communist threat. We need to remember history for what it was at that time and what we knew at the time. It is way too easy for people to look back at history with 20/20 vision and say we should have done this or that at that time but Islamic terrorism was not near as much a threat to us (if at all) as Russia was with its spreading of Communism. Guess who started that war in Afghanistan? Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter started many of these problems with his peaceful intentions for the Middle East so we don’t need another Jimmy Carter-type like Ron Paul who is going to exude weakness to other nations when it comes to foreign policy. I do believe that any one of the GOP candidates can derail the train from falling off the cliff and return this country back to fiscal sanity while having a strong foreign policy agenda which protects our nation. Granted some candidates are better than others but they all reject the Obama agenda and we need to keep that in mind.
        Teresa recently posted..My Thoughts on Federalist Paper Number 6: The Tenth Amendment and Dissension Among the StatesMy Profile

        • John Carey December 21, 2011 at 12:06 AM

          Thank you for the well thought out response. Teresa you know I think you’re great, but I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one. The main reason Iran hates America is because we meddled in their affairs in 1953 when we teamed up with Britain to overthrow Mohammed Mosaddeq. When we installed the Shah of Iran and unconditionally backed this brutal dictator it became fuel the Islamic revolution and their hatred towards America. It directly led to the hostage crisis in 1979. It had very little to do with our backing of Israel and more to do with our backing of the Shah of Iran. The Shah brutalized his people and his people hated him. They saw the United States as the force that kept him power. See my response to silver’s comment.
          John Carey recently posted..The SENTRY JOURNAL turns oneMy Profile

          • Teresa December 21, 2011 at 12:51 AM

            A brief response – I believe the reasons for Iran hating us are different today than they were during the late 70’s and 80’s. In the recent history, in the past 10 or so years, I believe Iran’s hatred stems from our support for Israel but I believe the reason was different in the 70’s and 80’s.

            John, I think you’re great too. No two persons are going to agree on everything. Disagreements are healthy. The thing that is most important is that both of us want to preserve our liberties, save America from tyranny, and bring our current economic status off of life support.
            Teresa recently posted..This is SICK! – Food and Vaccines Contain Aborted Cells?My Profile

    • theCL December 20, 2011 at 1:49 AM

      Put simply, Paul doesn’t see the federal government and America as the same thing. Neither do I, nor did most Americans not that long ago.

      Criticizing foreign policy is no different than criticizing monetary policy or healthcare policy. Saying military action in foreign lands has led to bad (unintended) consequences, is no different than saying socialized healthcare will lead to more human death than a genuinely free market in medicine.

      Russell Kirk, a man whose conservative bonafides are second to none, said the same exact thing. He warned opposing the first Bush Gulf War that meddling in the ME would bring death to our shores. Like Paul, Kirk wasn’t “blaming America,” but bad foreign policy.

      Alex Jones … I think he’s wrong about a lot of things, but I’d go on his show. You have to reach people somehow, and the mainstream media (which allegedly nobody respects) never gave him air time. Besides, Rachel Maddow and Bill O’Rielly are both nuttier than Alex Jones. Yes, I’m serious.

      On 9/11 … Paul voted in favor of attacking Afghanistan, tried to pass legislation to use letters of marquee and reprisal to hunt down terrorists, and even supported GWB’s assertion that the US didn’t need UN approval. So much for being a “truther.”

      What he has said is that we don’t know everything about that day, that the government investigating the government is a joke, and that politicians and bureaucrats covered-up blunders. How can anyone argue against that?
      theCL recently posted..theCL Report (December 19, 2011)My Profile

      • Silverfiddle December 20, 2011 at 8:59 AM

        Good points, and better made that Paul himself. Crashing around the world and starting wars, as Russell Kirk points out, is a very unconservative thing to do.

        I just hope no one is harboring the fantasy that if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone. Gambling it all on that vane hope would also be very unconservative.
        Silverfiddle recently posted..Merry Redneck ChristmasMy Profile

        • theCL December 22, 2011 at 10:45 PM

          I just hope no one is harboring the fantasy that if we leave them alone, they’ll leave us alone.

          Better late than never …

          I’m not sure I even understand what you’re trying to say here. To start with, let’s all get over the idea that Paul’s foreign policy views are new and different. It is a foreign policy as old as the Republic itself. It is the traditional foreign policy of the United States, the conservative movement, and even the traditional platform of the Republican Party.

          Let’s get real about what the current wars have wrought too … 4,400+ dead Americans, trillions of dollars down the drain, the DHS, TSA, VIPR, fusion centers, rapid increase in the militarization of police, routine invasions of privacy, absurd financial laws, patriot act, molestations at the airport, yours and mine backyards declared a “battlefield” … and the federal government is creating more enemies (even Paul Wolfowicz agrees) thereby increasing my danger.

          My freedom, your freedom, was never, ever a danger to you. We are not safer thanks to increased regulations, erecting a police state, and giving the executive virtually unlimited powers. 9/11 didn’t happen due to a lack of government power, nor did it happen because we enjoyed too much freedom. But government never let’s a good crisis go to waste, does it?

          Losers in war change their way of life, not winners. What does that say about us?

          We lost.

          I don’t recognize America today. It is not the country my ancestors braved oceans to come too. Today’s America does, however, look eerily like the Germany they fled. Kirk, Nisbet, Nock, Taft, etc., the Old American Right, along with many of our founders, were 100% correct when they warned that war abroad destroys liberty at home.

          Nation-building is nothing more than a permanent global revolution. There is nothing conservative about that. If you don’t understand the difference between defense and nation-building, go try and take John’s house, he’ll show you defense. My money’s on him too.

          Nobody is taking America any time soon. Period. End of discussion. There is no realistic scenario available, except … our own government, which is already taking place. Not so subtly either. To understand how, read “Defying Hitler,” a German’s personal account.

          Our enemy isn’t hiding in a cave somewhere on the other side of the globe. Our enemy is the same one our founders faced. Our enemy is our own government.
          theCL recently posted..theCL Report (December 19, 2011)My Profile

  • […] Original Post:  The Sentry Journal […]