Pray tell what exactly the Arab states have to threaten the West with besides oil embargoes and sand storms?

uh, their defacto armies…..al qaeda, hezzbollah,….you no, Islamic terrorist groups. I live not far from a hezzbollah sleeper cell that got busted. Its not all arab states that harbor and support terrorist, the State Dept. says Saddam’s Iraq(which is factual, see: husseinandterror.com), Iran, Syria and another I can’t think of.

its an ideological war at its heart.

the blogger is not taking into account what Ron Paul was addressing and in light of all his other pronouncements. When Ron Paul talks about Congress reasserting its Constitutionally mandated responsibility in the realm of foreign policy, he has in mind the declaration of war and the power of the purse — both of which could end the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and prevent further tragedy in Iran, were they executed.

ok, If the “Iraq War Resolution” didn’t satisfy the “declare war” clause, I’d like to know what the point of it was? It was in effect, congress saying to the CinC….go to war. Paul says plainly that:

Last week I wrote about the critical need for Congress to reassert its authority over foreign policy, and for the American people to recognize that the Constitution makes no distinction between domestic and foreign matters. Policy is policy, and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive. —Ron Paul

this is flatly wrong, starting with George Washington and going fwd. Paul is ignorant of the Constitution and history.

btw, if the War Resolution isn’t the same in effect as congress declaring war. Then why did Paul vote FOR the 2001 AUMF that the Afghan war is fought under??? Did paul vote for an “unconstitutional war”?

of course now, being the kook that he is, claims we are in Afghan to build oil pipelines. He say Michael Moore’s documentary no doubt.

Islam doesn’t threaten the US

What the… what? So who flew into the twin towers? Blew up the USS Cole? The Khobar Towers? African Embassies? Etc, etc…?

Oh God, this is so tiresome and so historically illiterate it barely deserves responding to, but I can’t help myself.

Pray tell what exactly the Arab states have to threaten the West with besides oil embargoes and sand storms? Indeed, France’s present discomfort is not the fault of Arabs and Muslims, but of liberal French multiculturalism and welfare — both of which are exactly what Bush refuses to stand back from with his ideas on immigration and America being the last best hope of the world.

We managed to hold off 40,000 nukes in the Soviet sphere aimed directly at us without having to drop a single bomb in their neck of the woods. (Or did the Vietnam War hold back the giant communist domino effect that was to trample the free world?)

James Burnham set it out decades ago in his book, The Suicide of the West. We will defeat ourselves via liberalism. Bush is a liberal and so is Cheney and the rest of them. Think about it, you can solve this one on your own.

Islam doesn’t threaten the US, nor do the Arab nations, in any significant way. Geez, their combined GDP amounts to something akin to that of Greenland’s. So what are you afraid of?

Putting America first might go a long way in keeping America safe. In the meantime, Ahmandinjad is not Hitler, and Iran is not Nazi Germany. Get over that one and you’ll be a lot farther along in being able to diagnose America’s real threats.

You must really think little of Americans and America if you think Islam is a threat. Or is it that you see America as a morally, spiritually, economically, and militarily, hollowed out shell of a country? If that’s the case, then nothing’s gonna save us from Mohammed.

What I am suggesting is that we can maintain a rule of law in foreign affairs, as marked out by Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington, by adhering to the eighteenth‐century understanding of executive power. It gives the President some independent foreign affairs powers, but it does not, as many Presidents and their advisers would like, give unlimited power in matters touching foreign affairs.

Good point. Now, read the link in the Foreign Policy blog to Ron Paul’s speech, and see that the blogger is not taking into account what Ron Paul was addressing and in light of all his other pronouncements. When Ron Paul talks about Congress reasserting its Constitutionally mandated responsibility in the realm of foreign policy, he has in mind the declaration of war and the power of the purse — both of which could end the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and prevent further tragedy in Iran, were they executed.

Meanwhile, Cheney and Addington are doing everything they can to keep the Executive branch autonomous and not bound by anything other than what they deem necessary for the safety of the country. You might find this comforting, I find it sinister. And you can’t tell me Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison are smiling at these creeps’ shenanigans.

But in light of the war on terror – which is not only global in scope but domestic as well, and which according Cheney, et al, will be a loooooong war, everything comes under executive power. There’s the rub.

You and others may think that anything is the Constitutional prerogative of the Executive branch if it keeps Americans safe from terrorists. Indeed, one still hears the refrain, “If you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to worry about.”

That’s what this is about.

“Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect,” Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. “They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

“However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible.”

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123670.html

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Ramseyonline.pdf

I’d vote for them. The country would go to hell, but we’d be laughing all the way down.

Which one is the elf?

James on November 28, 2007 at 8:14 AM

both

another good example, Paul says that Foreign Policy is to be made by the Congress, not executive. George Washington didn’t get the memo…Michael Ramsey, Scalia’s former clerk and harvard law professor has a great piece on what “Executive Power” meant in regards to Foreign Affairs in the 18th century definition of the term.

Without having yet read Ramsey’s essay, Ron Paul usually has in mind (if I understand him correctly) the president’s usurping or making law at whim. That is, he can’t essentially deny or change the citizen’s legal rights by ignoring or making law. The insanely complicated and sophisticated legal and philosophical arguments circulating before and after ratification surely do not give any indication that the executive is wholly sovereign over law and foreign affairs. Were that the case, we’d have gotten us a King. Cheney’s wet dreams notwithstanding, this is not what Washington or Jefferson had in mind, regardless of their questionable (but rare) legal actions.

>the whole basis of his Foreign Policy is insane, it assumes mankind is fundamentally “good”

That’s not true. Indeed, it’s Bush’s democratic ideology that’s founded on the idea of universal and fundamental goodness: “The hearts of mankind yearn for freedom” and all that. God, read his second inaugural, it’s f*cking utopian.

Drum on November 28, 2007 at 12:48 PM

the idea that if we withdrawal from the world, that the Islamo-Nazi’s will suddenly “leave us alone” and not try to spread Islamo-nazism to the entire world as they’ve states in their goal….can only come from a beleif that man is fundamentally good, and then we’d be able to hold hands and sing kumbaya.

we tried pauls way shamelessly in the 1930’s, passed one Neutrality Act after another while in Britain they ignored Churchill and listened to Neville Chamberline. It cost the lives of 10’s of millions, which is why the nation reacted so strongly against it after we barely won WW2…and we took a very Interventionst stance in the Cold War up until today….call it ‘blowback’. Everthing they learned from that and how it workd, is whats being applied today.

the Islamo-Nazi’s attack us because of Sura 9:5 and 9:29….they divide to world into two camps, House of Islam and house of Kuffar(non-islam)…guess which side we are in. and they beleive as a religious tenet they are to make war against our ‘house’ via Jihad and conquer it.

not at all that different from Imperial Germany or Japan….of the Soviet Commies.

and we are non-internventionist, in the parts of the world we don’t have any national interest….Tibet, Darfur…

however we are engaged in the parts we do, the Middle East(kinda like the Islamic Barbary pirates/terrorist of Jefferson’s day). i do think you can make a case for a draw down in Japan and Germany, not all the way but some…problem is they don’t want it. Our military presence subsidizes their welfare states.

That’s not true. Indeed, it’s Bush’s democratic ideology that’s founded on the idea of universal and fundamental goodness: “The hearts of mankind yearn for freedom” and all that. God, read his second inaugural, it’s f*cking utopian.

Nonetheless, RP would never go for it, he not being the relativist that Kucinich is

when he ask stupid questions like, “how would we feel if China was building bases here” or Iran….he’s being a relativist thinking fool. the founders sure as heck never thought that way.

the whole basis of his Foreign Policy is insane, it assumes mankind is fundamentally “good”….exactly like secular humanist such as Kucinich.

Ron Paul has never said this (find it for me) and never would. Non-intervention is what he prescribes. And as he increasingly is forced to point out, we are becoming more isolationist as the much of the world increasingly tells us to F*ck off with regard to our policies. I have no doubt that we will win whatever it is we’re battling, but for whom and at what cost?

Heh. Lay it out for us readers. What is ‘profoundly flawed’ translate to?

historical ignorance, he’s a crank literalist who picks and chooses what he wants to beleive to fit his liking. same as liberals.

1 example:

“Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government.” http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst050707.htm

problem is, George Washington and the first congress, full of Founders….passed many federal laws relating to criminal matters, one of which was making it a federal crime to interfer with an officer. And of course Washington signed the Judiciary Act which eventually set up the Federal Courts.

another good example, Paul says that Foreign Policy is to be made by the Congress, not executive. George Washington didn’t get the memo…Michael Ramsey, Scalia’s former clerk and harvard law professor has a great piece on what “Executive Power” meant in regards to Foreign Affairs in the 18th century definition of the term.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No1_Ramseyonline.pdf

and of course just the general idiocy/ignorance of claiming the founders were isolationist and ‘advised’ us to be isolationist today. Too bad its not remotely true, the Military has been deployed abroad over 200 times since inception…the best parallel for today being the Barbary Wars by Jefferson.

Since the Constitution does not provide for the Louisianna Purchase, which more than doubled the size of govt. with one stroke of the pen by the President, Thomas Jefferson….I think Paul shouldn’t participate in the Iowa Caucuses, since Iowa, using his logic, is an ‘unconstitutional’ state.

I got it…

The “Lunaticket.”

Jimmy the Dhimmi on November 28, 2007 at 12:04 PM

That’s beautiful, man–the ticket for those who find reality way too confining.

Kucinich is a socialist. He wants a Department of Peace for crying out loud. In other words, for Kucinich it’s not the Fed that disturbs him, but by whom and how the Fed gets run.

RP comes at things from a completely opposite angle and embodies what Reagan had in mind, if not in practice: government is not the solution, government is the problem.

If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination he will most likely run on a third party ticket and this will be devastating to the Republican candidate and the outcome.

I thought he said he wouldn’t do that?

he not being the relativist that Kucinich is.

The sense I get from Kucinich (aside from the wheels-off stuff), is that he is like most people – he sees things through his position. Specifically I think he thinks the Executive Branch abuses power and the Leg. Branch should have more. Just about exactly what you’d think a legislator would say.