7 votes

Rand Paul – a new foreign policy - Doug Wead's Blog

From Doug Wead's Blog:
"For the past few years, we in the liberty movement have had the luxury of being able to stand on the outside and lob in grenades at America’s corrupt foreign policy. But now, with one of our own, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky as a potential president, we have to face the reality of how to govern. What would a Rand Paul presidency look like? We got the answer this morning when he delivered a speech before the Heritage Foundation.

Keep in mind, Rand Paul spent seventeen years as an Ophthalmologist. Nevertheless he performed what can only be described as Rhinoplasty – or a nose job – at the Heritage Foundation, outlining before the stuffy G.K. Chesterton conservatives in the audience a new foreign policy for the Republican Party, one that offers a better fit for new realities. Some Rinos will like it, some, who are growing fat as lobbyists for government subsidies, won’t.

Rinos (Republicans in name only) is the acronym applied to liberal Democrats who became Republican during the Reagan years, at the height of the Cold War. They agreed with Reagan that communism was dangerous and America should not accept its inevitable ascendancy and should contest it. Although less enamored by Reagan’s supply side economics and totally rejecting of Reagan’s social agenda they became an important part of Reagan’s winning political coalition."
Continue reading: http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/rand-paul-a-new-for...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My biggest problem with Ron Paul's candidacy

was that it walked right in to a sucker punch, repeatedly, by not taking the lead on pointing out the obvious: wars are cripplingly expensive; we did not have near enough money to even take care of our basics, much less forever war; blowing the budget was what brought down pretty much every major civilization in history...most notably the USSR.

Under these circumstances...OUR circumstances...we needed to begin being WISE and SELECTIVE and exceedingly STRATEGIC about engaging in war. In other words a restrained and conservative military policy was ALSO the strongest military policy in the long term.

In time -- toward the END of the second campaign -- we began to hear more of this from Ron Paul, but not near enough and...certainly...way too late. Not making the argument that HIS policy, a FRUGAL foreign policy, was actually the STRONGEST military policy cost Ron Paul credibility amongst the vast majority of Republicans. Even even cost me, to some extent, as I stopped sending his campaign money to blow on worthless ads which failed to address, straight-on and offensively the fact that wasting money you don't have on wars and military bases you can't afford without borrowing from China was NOT intelligent, NOT wise, NOT "strong", and NOT sustainable. He needed to make that case that HE, in fact, was the candidate with THE STRONGEST MILITARY STRATEGY.

Anyway, I am delighted with the leadership Rand Paul is showing on this issue. We will prevent a lot more wars by taking leadership on the fact that "forever peace" is scarcely more practical than "forever war".

Let the flames begin, but make sure you understand my argument before you start attacking! :-)

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Rand pointed out that it

Rand pointed out that it [radical Islam] is not the tiny percentage it is often alleged to be by politically correct, wishful thinking, American politicians. Rather it is a “robust minority.”

While I may be more inclined to acknowledge radical Islam as a robust minority in a few pockets of the Middle East, I still eschew the term "radical" being applied to the Muslim religion as a whole.

And called for a modern version of Cold War containment...

While this is a step in the right direction, Cold War containment resulted in the 20 year debacle known as the Vietnam War; amongst other conflicts.

I will say though that Rand has stated he would seek Congressional approval for foreign entanglement, which is a huge leap in our foreign policy. Ron introduced legislation to officially declare war in Iraq, even though he and the vast majority of Congress voted against it. He did this to follow the Constitution. If Rand followed the Constitution as he said he would and ask Congress for a formal declaration of war, and Congress again rejected a formal declaration of war, then what can he do? :) He's simply following the rules of the Constitution, which almost all politicians and people profess to love and follow.



Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.