For years and years, for my entire lifetime, one of the things that has graveled me is to hear socialists, communists … foreigners in general make reference to “Imperialistic Americans.” But what is a country that has hundreds, maybe as many as a reported 900 foreign military bases? I think that most reasonable people would call that “imperialism.”
Our arguably greatest President, George Washington, did many memorable things, but one of his greatest was his “Farewell Address.” He outlined his vision for the future of America, but in particular, he admonished us to steer clear of “foreign entanglements.” For the first 125 years of the Republic, Americans in general and American Presidents in particular stayed clear, for the most part, of international involvements … that is if you don’t count brief bouts of “manifest destiny” and the protection of our commerce on the high seas. We even prevented foreign involvement in the western hemisphere with the “Monroe Doctrine.” Only when the advent of Progressive movement brought about, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and culminating with the adoption, in 1913, of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve Act, in Woodrow Wilson’s administration did America begin to involve itself disastrously, contrary to Washington’s advice, in the affairs of foreign nations. The 16th Amendment gave the Federal Government seemingly unlimited funds (that could be supplemented endlessly by the Federal Reserve, if necessary) and the 17th Amendment was the first and probably the most instrumental step in destroying Federalism. The result would have been easily predicted by the Founders, the Framers of the Constitution … within 4 years America was involved in a foreign war that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of young American boys, many of whom were engaged in killing people from their ancestral homeland. Since then the Federal government has continuously involved its citizenry in war after war, in country after country, spending, at first all it could tax from the public and later all it could borrow on ever more and ever more contrived crises of foreign affairs in all parts of the globe.
People who believe in the freedom of man, the individual … live and let live … Libertarians … are appalled by the waste of life and treasure that these interventions promulgate.
Ron Paul is one of those Libertarians. He sees the only possible political salvation of our country as being in the tenets of the Republican Party among which are individual freedom, private property, free enterprise and legal equality. He continuously reiterates that he believes that these tenets have been most perfectly expressed in the Constitution given to us by the Framers in 1787. Ron Paul believes that the Constitution spelled out (without the living document interpretations of Progressive Supreme Courts) our guide to “a more perfect Union.” The duties, carefully crafted by the Founders, for the three branches of the government were spelled out in simple detail and should be taken literally … “Strictly Construed.” He has based his political philosophy on this basis. And when we hear him speak on duties of Congress, it is difficult to disagree with him.
He is the most ardent Congressional proponent of real money, gold and silver, which does not devalue and, as history has shown, cannot be devalued without fraud. He is a recognized expert on the subject, and he is right … money should have value.
He believes that the political power of the people, in order to be protected, must be vested governments that individuals can participate in. He recognizes that the genius of the Constitution is that that sacred document also recognized that the political power over our political lives should be in first, the local governments, then the States and finally in a Federal government whose duties are to promote harmony among the States and to protect our populace from the menaces of foreign intrigues. When we hear him speak on this it is hard for a thinking person to disagree.
But when we hear Ron Paul talk about foreign policy, many of us are turned off. He rightly criticizes our national leaders for sending our soldiers to some 900 or more foreign bases. What rational American interest could be served by such insanity? Mr. Paul’s argument begins to fall on deaf ears when he talks about the world as it is. He is personally appalled by our involvement, particularly in Afghanistan, where initially we attacked and defeated the Taliban (whoever or whatever that is) and for the additional reason of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice. He points out that the first goal was reached 9 years ago. But sending a massive army to capture bin Laden? … insanity! He correctly points out that we manage to co-exist with many nuclear powers, and insinuates that we could also do that with a nuclear Iran. He suggests that we should quit our imperial (he could not use that word, but I can) actions and ambitions worldwide and come home, and make ourselves safe here.
I would suggest to Mr. Paul that he should make his feelings and his solutions clear to the American public if he wants to be President … below are my views of what he is trying to do and what history and the framers of our Constitution gave the Congress power to do:
First we must face the reality that Islam is a proselytizing religion, the Koran informs its readers that they should teach others that the only true way to heaven is through Islam, that unbelievers, infidels, are doomed in the after life and that they are the enemies of God and as such should either convert or be killed. Obviously, not all Muslims are going to kill you if you don’t convert, but they are taught what the book says. Most people, like you and I, are willing to live and let live, but some are not … Osama bin Laden belonged to such a group and hated America because of its Christian majority and Jewish minority. I believe he called us “the great Satan.”
So now it comes to Iran, an Islamic theocracy. Iranians are an intelligent race with some of the most highly educated people on Earth living there. As we have pointed out in previous blogs, it is ludicrous for us to believe that they can’t or won’t build the Bomb, as matter of fact, the ineptitude of our own and International foreign policy assures that it will be and probably has already been built. Additionally, we know that other Muslim countries that are in political turmoil, like Pakistan and the Muslim populated southern parts of the former Soviet Union already have nuclear weapons. And you can bet that with the ascent of a charismatic leader they will be used … most likely against us. When Ron Paul says that we shouldn’t intervene, if we think about it, he is just stating the obvious. If we attack Iran, what do we do with the other Muslim countries that we are sure to alienate? Pandora’s box was opened when we didn’t meet Iran’s challenge a decade ago.
I would suggest that Mr. Paul tell the American people what can be done. We should bring our Armies home and begin to train our troops to fight insurrections and streamline our planning for those actions. If the Armed services are in country, our cost savings will be enormous. Those savings could and should be devoted to SDI, a strategic anti-missle system, because we are going to either have one or be doomed. (We should have had one 20 years ago)
How do I think that Ron Paul would have handled Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul and I have read the Constitution. Among the explicit powers of Congress is the power: “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” Doesn’t it make more sense to hire and remunerate experts like retired members of Special Forces, Delta Force, Rangers, Seals, CIA and other highly trained experts who know the ropes of how how to catch the ilk of bin Laden and others like the Somali pirates. A Letter of Marque (for the sea) or Reprisal (for the land) is a contract, license if you like, given by the Congress to stop transgressions against our citizenry. One of these documents would guarantee payment and diplomatic safe haven to the bearer, but because of its contract status the bearer would also be answerable for his actions to the Congress. It worked for Queen Elizabeth with the Spanish Armada and with the Colonies during the Revolutionary War and it could work now. It seems to me that if we had put a bounty of … say $100 million on bin Laden’s head, maybe even the Mafia might have been interested and you know what? We’d of had that head 9 years ago. Isn’t it slightly insane to send Army divisions after bin Laden when one hit man from Chicago could have done the job? Isn’t it slightly insane to send the Navy into the Indian Ocean after the Somali pirates when a small squadron of PT boats (maybe one) could have done the job? Think of the treasure and humanity, not to mention the unfavorable PR of bombing civilians from robot airplanes, that could have been saved.
Ron Paul’s approach should be as it was with this country 100 years ago. “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” He should point out to the world, both Countries and Individuals, that if you harm us you will pay … pay no matter where you go. If we had the SDI, the mobile strike forces and the Letters, not only would the world know what would happen, but so would the American people. And we would be out of all the foreign entanglements that President Washington warned us about.
If this is what Ron Paul has in mind and he would explain what he is trying to do, I believe that the American people would make him President.