9 votes

WSJ: Paul and Amash are Isolationists; Compares striking Syria as the equivalent of striking Nazi Germany

Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal has penned a straight up smear of the non-interventionist movement. His contact information is right below. Because you will probably feel compelled to write Mr. Stephens after you read his article.

Bret Stephens
http://www.twitter.com/@StephensWSJ
Bret.Stephens@wsj.com

With such things as:

"A history lesson: In April 1939, the man known as Mr. Republican charged that "every member of the government . . . is ballyhooing the foreign situation, trying to stir up prejudice against this country or that, and at all costs take the minds of the people off their trouble at home." By "this country or that," Taft meant Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The invasion of Poland was four months away."

Yes, that's right. Bret Stephens of the WSJ says not stopping Syria is like not stopping Hitler.

"Which brings us to another isolationist idea: that what we do abroad takes away from what we have, and can spend, at home. When Barack Obama claims, dishonestly, that the cost of foreign wars is guilty of "helping to explode our deficits and constraining our ability to nation-build here at home," he is sounding this theme. So is Mr. Paul when he demagogues against foreign aid by insisting that "while we are trying in vain to nation build across the globe, our nation is crumbling here at home.""

Mr. Stephens doesn't get that the money for foreign aid comes from somewhere. Either it comes directly from the taxpayers and hurting our economy or it is loaned from the Fed, causing an inflation tax on the taxpayers.

"Taft couldn't understand this when it came to the dictators of his day. Neither does Mr. Paul when it comes to the dictators of today. The junior senator from Kentucky may not know it yet, but, intellectually speaking, he's already yesterday's man. Republicans follow him at their peril."

The neocons are mad. Here's the rest of this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732443240457905...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Bret's Fret Piece

Republicans should know, too, that investing in global order deters more dangerous would-be aggressors and creates a world congenial to American trade, security and values.

Hmm, 'global order' you say ol' Bretty boy? Might that more accurately be...THE NEW WORLD ORDER? Dum, dum, dum! (http://free-loops.com/3268-dum-dum-dum-wav.html)

Neocons rolling out their usual tired standby, isolationists. The propaganda sickens....

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” - Ron Paul

he also attacks Rand Paul in this video

put out on the WSJ youtube channel today, vote it down!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtcqz-oOpg

Besides

Peace messes up all of Rupert Murdochs business ventures in Syria

Well I agree with comparing the situation with nazi germany.....

..... we strike an uncanny resemblance to how they used a false flag as the premise for invading Poland. I guess the best lies are 90% truth after all. :/

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Meddlers, Not Isolationists Promote Rise of Despots Like Hitler

Hmmmmmmmmm, and the Nazis were partly supported by the Rockefeller foundation via technical patents for the production of synthetic oil. Hitler's rise to power was a RESULT of foreign meddling in Germany's internal affairs, not isolationism.

Isolationism is NOT a bad word and perfectly describes the constitutional view of GOVERNMENT'S role regarding foreign policy. The people are free to associate with foreigners according to their heart's desire. Every time the term, isolationism, is used, substitute the term, meddling, for it in response, and then expose the cost and danger of sustaining America's vulnerable empire.

The use of the term isolationism needs to be recaptured like the term, national security. National security means security confined to the 50 states, not international insecurity as a result of the American empire. If failing to unilaterally attack Syria is called isolationism, then America truly is an empire. When is isolating the GOVERNMENT of the USA to concerns within the borders of the 50 states of the union a bad idea? The government's promotion of preemptive war (foreign intervention) as an antidote to war at home, i.e. an attack on one of the 50 states, is proven by history to be a big lie. Foreign intervention always leads to destabilization, blow-back, genocide, the eventual rise of despots, and DECREASING national and international security. Is Syria the 51st state of the union? Meddling in Syria is actually enhancing the rise of despots like Hitler through the ensuing carnage and chaos. Simply recapture the term, isolationism, back from the MEDDLERS and INTERVENTIONISTS in foreign affairs. Attacking Syria for an internal affair is meddling, interventionist and naked aggression.

Tear him up folks.

Tear him up folks.

The only question is:

will Rand, now that he sees he can't lie to sway neocons to support him, simply blow them off entirely and cater to the pro liberty crowd exclusively? This may be a wake up call to those who believe a "stealth" liberty candidate is the way to go for promoting liberty effectively.

This was one of the most blatant hatchet jobs I've ever seen from the MSM. You're right, they're scared.

My email to Bret

Isolationist

Only a dishonest hack will deliberately misuse a word so easy to understand and look up in the dictionary….

That is not something you would do is it?

Go straight to the comments!

They are excellent indeed.