Romney Delegate Asks for OUR Advice! Let him have it...

[Matt Collins]

An 'at large' delegate for Mitt Rommey here in Tennessee called into Phil Valentine's show today asking for advice. He wants to know what to do at the convention because Mitt will not be able to win.

Yes, a "politically homeless" delegate is soliciting advice from the general public on who to vote for.

Here is his info:
mike@michaelpatrickleahy.com
615-243-6869

fax:
615-261-9100

[hawks4ronpaul]

I assume "let him have it" means to show the "electability" mirage and then to welcome him AND ALL ROMNEY DELEGATES to the true conservative RP camp.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

[Matt Collins]

I assume "let him have it" means to show the "electability" mirage and then to welcome him AND ALL ROMNEY DELEGATES to the true conservative RP camp.Exactly.... something like that

[constitutional]

Check out his web site, more than likely he is going for Huckleberry.

[Kotin]

hey man, i heard you wanted advice on who to cast your delegate vote to.


I honestly think that neither john McCain nor Mike Huckabee represent
remotely close to Republican Values.

Mike Huckabee gave State Sponsored College Tuition to Illegal Aliens, he also raised taxes by 48%, that is not conservative.

and John McCain, he sponsored a bill to help mexicans in mexico recieve social security benefits, he jokes about bombing other countries, he is a republican by name only.


I have been introduced to the Republican Party Platform from my
Grandpa, he was an amazing man

he always taught me about Limited Government and Low Taxes, and How
The Republican Party was The Party of The Constitution, he had so much
Reverance for the Constitution,


so i have turned 18 and am running for city council as a Ron
Paul/Berry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan Republican not the Republican by
name only..


please join our Revolution and help us legalize the Constitution again.


please support us in St.Paul. we can take back our Republic!!




sincerely,

Luke.

[Dave Wood]

bump

[Cinderella]

i like ur letter luke...its very personable... :)

[Matt Collins]

Sir,

You should consider voting for US Congressman Dr. Ron Paul at the convention.


Huckabee will be unable to win the general election and McCain will not be a conservative President no matter how much pressure is on him to do so.


Thanks for your time,


-Matt Collins
Former Candidate for Delegate of 5th District
Antioch, TN

[Crickett]

Someone should show him that Huck was horrid in AR and is on the list of the 10 most corrupt politicians...

[Matt Collins]

SENT TO ME TODAY:

"Thanks for the suggestion, but to my mind, Ron Paul's foreign policy does
not promote our national security.

Best Regards,

Mike Leahy"

[kirkblitz]

hahah most people i meet feel that way, they love everything but his foregin policy. Guess they would rather we crumble from within then the imaginable soviet al qaida duo come and kill us all

[homah]

SENT TO ME TODAY:

"Thanks for the suggestion, but to my mind, Ron Paul's foreign policy does
not promote our national security.

Best Regards,

Mike Leahy"

UGH

[hawks4ronpaul]

SENT TO ME TODAY:

"Thanks for the suggestion, but to my mind, Ron Paul's foreign policy does
not promote our national security.

Best Regards,

Mike Leahy"


RP provides the best military. All the others weaken our military.
RP provides the best national security. All the others weaken our security.
RP provides the best intelligence. All the others weaken our intelligence.
RP provides the best foreign policy. All the others weaken our foreign policy.
RP provides the best internationalist foreign policy. All others isolate America with blowback.

Ron Paul’s strong foreign policy:

Keep an unbeatable military.
Uphold the Constitution and US sovereignty: Declare the war, fight it, win it, and come home.
Fight terrorists with intelligence and special units to stop overstretching our troops and to keep our conventional forces free and ready for major conventional threats.
Secure our borders and enforce our visa laws to stop terrorists.
Maintain financial security through sound money, fiscal conservatism, and non-intervention (the smart way to be globally active)—You can’t win a war when you’re bankrupt.

This article specifically discusses how RP is better than Romney was on economics and security: http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/02/economics-experts-endorse-ron-paul.html

[Matt Collins]

Hawks -

Did you e-mail that to the delegate in question? If not, please do!


mike@michaelpatrickleahy.com

[Kotin]

Luke,

Thanks for your advice.

I agree with you that Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater are the standard
bearers of conservative principles of limited government. I don't see Ron
Paul in that tradition, because he fails in the area of protecting the
security of our country, in my mind. Isolationism in the 21st Century is no
longer the option it may have been in the 18th Century.

The dilemma, I think is this:

Support McCain or acquiesce to either Obama or Clinton. The latter two would
be highly destructive to the country. And McCain, while right on Iraq and
national security, is wrong on several key conservative issues.

I think we're going to ask to meet with him in person and make our case.

Do you think he will listen to us ? And do you think he will heed our advice
?

Mike Leahy

[Jodi]

SENT TO ME TODAY:

"Thanks for the suggestion, but to my mind, Ron Paul's foreign policy does
not promote our national security.

Best Regards,

Mike Leahy"

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they think we should be in Iraq fighting them over there so they won't come over here when our front and back door is wide open to whomever wants to come here!!!!!!!

[rmholla]

I wonder if the fact that the soldiers who are fighting this war he seems to favor send their money to Ron Paul would have any impact on him? I doubt it. He seems to already have his mind made up.

-

[Matt Collins]

Kotin - have you explained to this guy that Ron is NOT an isolationist?

[Bern]

I talked about this (Republicans not being sold on RP's foreign policy) before (see link in signature), but not many here were apparently not interested in discussing it.

The campaign did not tailor the marketing of the platform in a manner persuasive to many Republican voters who agree with the neocon vision of Pax Americana.

[Meekus]

The remarks by this delegate are the same remarks I get from other Republicans I know. It comes down to this notion of "national security" they have.

[jason43]

Of course, we provide more "national security" for Iraq, than we do our own borders and are spending so much money there that we are going to have 20% interest rates in order to reign in inflation in the next 5 years and our economy is going to go into the shitter.

Great idea, Vote McCain!

[jahazii]

Hi there as you know we face a big crisis in our nation. Whether it is another 100 years in Iraq from John McCain or a Fair Tax implemented by Huckabee. Face it these men are not conservative by any means. Their fiscal policlies are atrocious Huckabee raised taxes by 48%, while McCain believes we can afford 5 generations in Iraq. There is no way that republicans can win the general election with to Neo-Conservatives like these two men. McCain ethics, and temper are something I do not want to ever see in the white house even if it means letting the Democrats win. Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama will increase government spending by roughly 200 billion a year that is added to our 9 trillion in debt. Our national security is in jeopardy when our military has to be financed by other countries. McCain is granting Amnesty, while Huckabee gave tuition money to illegals in Arkansas. None of the Candidates will take a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table for Iran. The chief United Nations for Iraq weapons inspector says that when the nuclear genie gets out the bottle you are not putting it back in, I can find the video if you want. I have a lot more to say because I am so passionate about this country, and the message of liberty. Please take a moment to watch any of these videos, and the article below shows how one Candidate has the only wise option for our Nation Security.

Much has been written about Ron Paul's Congressional record. Unlike many of his colleagues in Congress, he has been particularly serious about the oath he has taken each time he's beaten challengers – sent by both the Republican and Democrat parties – in both districts he's represented. He has been consistent in voting for and introducing measures which uphold the principles of the constitution he's sworn – 10 times now – to uphold.
While Dr. Paul has sometimes mentioned it, I don't think his introduction of two bills in particular can be stressed enough. The bills, had they been adopted and passed, might have allowed the U.S. to avoid the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq and more than likely would have by now resulted in the capture of Osama bin Laden; perhaps achieving some measure of justice for those affected by the attacks of September 11, 2001, sparing nearly 50,000 wounded and 3,100 dead U.S. soldiers.
I am referring to the Air Piracy and Reprisal Act of 2001 and the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
Some background on the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal:
From the early 17th to nearly the end of the 19th century, piracy was a lucrative and popular business (crime pays). A nation's shipping over the high seas was its health if it had any natural resources to exploit. Navies were formed not necessarily to defend borders or implement first strikes, as 20th century navies have been used, but to protect oceanic trade routes. In those days even naval vessels were not immune to acts of piracy. During war, it was common for nations to grant letters of Marque and Reprisal to privateers. These were private citizens given license to steal from foreign vessels flying the flag of enemy nations, merchant vessels from their enemy's shores and/or pirate vessels. Privateers were essentially state-sanctioned pirates though their employ was for the purpose of exacting revenge against nations which had violated the laws of nations or the laws of war. Most nations recognized letters of Marque and would therefore give safe passage to ships whose Captains could produce valid letters (and were not at war with them). What ships and goods these privateers recovered were to be brought back to maritime courts. The property was held in escrow, allowing owners time and opportunity to reclaim captured property and the State to tax the privateer some portion of the unclaimed goods he kept. This made privateering almost as lucrative as piracy. Robert Morris, the first millionaire in the American colonies, and George Washington both owned privateer ships.
Typically, privateers were used in conjunction with war operations. However, they were quite useful in tracking down rogues who could not be tied to any particular nation-state's official conduct. Our founders thought Letters of Marque useful enough to include Congressional authority To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.
As with many bills that Dr. Paul introduces which seek counsel from the constitution, the two bills in question were ignored by the rest of the Congress as well as the Executive. The Marque and Reprisal act would have, if passed out of Congress, given the President the authority to issue letters of Marque and use funds from the forty billion dollar discretionary fund authorized by Congress on September 14, 2001, as bounty. Critics claimed that letters of Marque were anachronistic and that the April 16, 1856 Declaration of Paris ended the practice. However, the U.S. never signed the declaration and is not therefore bound by it. As to the "anachronistic" nature letters of Marque represent, this is easily dispatched.
Let's roll back in time to see what happens when very few in Washington want to take the Constitution seriously. On October 7, 2001, the first bombing sorties were executed against Afghan targets. It wasn't until 2002 that the first American and British troops arrived, a full 3 months after 9/11. During those months, the U.S. mainstream media broadcast government's theories about who was responsible – OBL did it (in spite of his denial) – and therefore we were going to send our boys over there to get him. We gave Osama bin Laden a 3 month head start by broadcasting, literally, military intentions. Osama apparently fled to Pakistan, our ally, with plenty of time to spare.
Now imagine what might have happened had anyone in Washington, aside from Ron Paul, been serious about either bringing to justice those who were allegedly responsible for the attacks or upholding the constitution.
The refusal to use the military, with or without a declaration from Congress, would have eliminated any known timetable. No plans, no leaks, no warning. In the 18th century, news traveled but it didn't travel fast by comparison to today's standards. Even a full-scale war could have been planned and leaked without an enemy overseas discovering the plan until just before the troops arrived. A three-month lag in modern times is a veritable eternity to make preparations or flee.
It should be noted that the Afghanistan government was ready to extradite bin Laden if the Bush Administration would have provided them with evidence showing he was responsible for the attacks. So in reality, neither war nor privateers were absolutely necessary in order to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. One might argue that providing such evidence would expose certain intelligence assets but it would be a bit absurd to think that the then-current intelligence practices and sources were worth much; they didn't prevent the attacks from occurring. What's a burned intelligence source to an operation which demonstrated such total and complete failure?
Assuming that there was enough intelligence to implicate bin Laden, and protecting sources was a real concern, letters of Marque could have proven very useful. Unlike news of a planned military attack, news that Letters of Marque were being issued would provide no benefit to the perpetrators. All the guilty parties would know is that they were wanted and that any number of intelligence and mercenary forces would be competing for large bounties. There would be no knowledge broadcast about when these bounty hunters would arrive, their identities or even how they might operate. It would be highly unlikely that privateers would announce their presence by wearing uniforms bearing U.S. insignia, riding in noisy tanks or large, smoke-belching troop carriers.
Osama's choice of Pakistan as a safe haven was brilliant. Because Pakistan is an ally, the U.S. government cannot afford to use military force inside Pakistan without potentially ruining its relationship there and/or provoking her to forge an alliance with Iraqi insurgents, Iran, or worse, provoking a nuclear retaliation against U.S. bases in the region. It was this Administration's insistence on using a military response which allowed bin Laden this option – or, more accurately, allowed his move into Pakistan to be an effective deterrent to his capture.
A private mercenary group or individual could slip into Pakistan (or any other country) without causing an international crisis even if discovered by local authorities. Pervez Musharraf, just like other leaders in that region has to be careful. He can't condone foreign military forces acting inside his borders but he could probably direct his internal police agencies, intelligence agencies and military to recognize letters of Marque without raising any eyebrows. Furthermore, it may not be necessary for terrorist leaders to be captured to render their threats moot. If the privateer is able to lift various supplies and items valuable to a terrorist operation, such as arms, computers and communications equipment, that organization could be rendered incapable of carrying out significant operations. A letter of Marque is not, after all, a license to kill. Maybe the privateer doesn't even leave the U.S. Maybe he is an extraordinarily good hacker, able to gather enough information to transfer funds directly from a terrorist organization's bank accounts. There are many possibilities which would render total chaos to terrorist organizations without resorting to cold-blooded murder or kidnapping (or all-out war).
And that is the beauty of the privateer in cases like terrorism and piracy. The tactics are not left to bloviating politicians or career military generals seeking favor from their CIC. Their employ also doesn't require 10 billion dollars a week. The privateer doesn't even see a dime unless and until he has accomplished something. All risk is borne by the privateer. Money left over in the original discretionary fund might have been used to conduct a public trial for the perpetrators captured.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, avoidance of a full-scale military operation would minimize the risk that innocent civilians would be victims of "collateral damage." Privateers were historically subject to civil and criminal actions should they overstep their bounds or unjustifiably cause damage to life or property. The Acts that Ron Paul drafted would have required any privateer to put up his own bond. In the event of mistaken identity, accidents or criminal acts, innocent victims would have solid recourse and the American taxpayers would not have to foot the bill or suffer the ill-will directed at them because their government acted irresponsibly and with impunity.
Rather than being the antiquated oddity often asserted, Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have been a far superior, creative and modern response to the attacks of 9/11 than was a full-scale military operation. Tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan have paid the price with their lives and property and still the alleged perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks remains at large. Once again the ideas of the "experts" fail miserably yet we are asked to reward this failure by voting for "top tier" candidates who merely offer more of the same.
Those who compete with Ron Paul for the Presidency show that they are not serious about bringing justice to the families affected by the attacks, or, if they even acknowledge that there is the slightest desire for justice, are either proposing solutions which would create more terrorists (Bomb Mecca!) or in all likelihood would result in war with Pakistan.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly respects the Constitution, your liberties and the liberties of innocent people in other nations. Ron Paul has shown that he has wisdom and sound judgment when it comes to foreign affairs and has acted in accordance with his principles and the rule of law. Perhaps this is because he is one of the few running who have served in the military or perhaps it is because he considers it important to read and understand the constitution he swore to uphold. Either way, he's really the only qualified candidate for President in the race. The rest should spend more time reading and less time inventing new ways to commit our soldiers to die overseas and our children to foot the bill.

What I just sent to him.

[goat farmer]

Dude, that's great, but I couldn't even read that and I'm a paul supporter.

[Cleaner44]

Hi Mike,

I hope you are having a great day. I am writing you because I have heard that you were taking input as a delegate to the Republican convention. I would like to address any concerns you may have with Ron Paul's foreign policy. I think I may know how you feel and as a military veteran this was also a concern for me.



I have studied Ron Paul in depth and fairly recently finished reading his book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom. What I found was a foreign policy that not only makes sense, but in my opinion is the smartest way to keep America safe and provide for our national security.



Let me share with you how I see Ron Paul's ideas working for us. These are my words and not his. They are meant to express his approach as I understand it.



Let us protect our nations borders and not the borders of Japan, Germany, Israel, Korea, Peru, Portugal, etc.

Right now our southern border is wide open to terrorists while our politicians tell us, "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" and I for one just don't buy it. It has been 2354 days since 9/11/2001 and we have had ample time to secure our nations borders. It has been estimated that we have 10,000 illegals entering our nation each day and while I can not verify this, I do know that if only 1 terrorist came in each week, we would now have 336 new terrorists inside of the United States. I think we would be foolish to assume that Osama bin Laden is not smart enough to buy plane tickets to Mexico City instead of Bagdad.



Let us only spend the taxpayers money defending the national security of the United States and not the United Nations.

Right now the United States is in debt more than $9 trillion and yet we are borrowing money to give to nations like Saudi Arabia (an extremely rich nation), Pakistan (a country lead by a military dictator) and many many more. While I am sure these nations are glad to receive this free money, we simply can not afford it. I find this very disturbing when we consider that 15 of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia and especially because Osama bin Laden has been hiding safely in Pakistan for 6 years. With the debt that we have it is irresponsible for us to drive the future of Americans even further into debt purposes of the United Nations.



Let us only ask our soldiers to die when necessary for the defense of the Unites States and not to police the world.

When I was in the military I would have given my life to defend this nation. I still would die for this Republic that our founding fathers gave us. What I do not like is the idea of spilling American soldier's blood for nations around the world that will not even stand up for themselves. To ask any soldier to put his life on the line for a U.N. Resolution that has nothing to do with the national security of the United States is disgusting to me. We need to be careful with the lives we risk and never ask our military to die for a purpose other than the liberty of Americans.



Let us preserve our resources and soldiers lives so they will be ready for threats to our nation and not waste them on U.N. Resolutions that are not a threat to the United States.

Right now the United States is faced with a very real financial threat. Every dollar we spend defending Korea is a dollar we don't have to defend the United States. Every soldiers that dies in Iraq right now is a soldier we don't have to defend our nation against attack. We are getting weaker by the day as our money, equipment and soldiers are depleted. If you have ever read the words of Osama bin Laden then you know one of his goals is to bankrupt us. We need to stay strong by wisely using our resource and not wasting them on efforts that do not add to our national security. We are not well prepared to face a new threat because we have been very wasteful. We need to correct this before it is too late.



I hope this helps you understand that Ron Paul has every intention of being strong on foreign policy. In fact his ideas would keep us safer than the approach we have been taking over the last few decades. By that I mean, we once backed Saddam Hussien and Osama bin Laden and look how that worked out for us. The games our politicians play displacing foreign governments does not make us safer, it creates more problems for us.



I thank you for your time and I also recommend reading Ron Paul's book A Foreign Policy of Freedom for yourself as it is very educational.



Take care and I will leave you with a quote that I find very credible.



Michael / Cleaner44



"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
- Ronald Reagan

[Paulitical Correctness]

Seems like he's set in stone when it comes to Ron Paul. IMO these longwinded emails are just going to be thrown out the window.

Screw this guy. I'm sick of these people. :mad:

[mczerone]

An 'at large' delegate for Mitt Rommey here in Tennessee called into Phil Valentine's show today asking for advice. He wants to know what to do at the convention because Mitt will not be able to win.

Yes, a "politically homeless" delegate is soliciting advice from the general public on who to vote for.

Here is his info:
mike@michaelpatrickleahy.com
615-243-6869

fax:
615-261-9100

Did you get a snailmail address? Hand-sent typed pages would probably be much more effective than a flood of emails.

He doesn't have to make up his Mind until the convention, so please take time proofing whatever you do send, use logic, and make it air-tight.

/
I'm not the first to cry 'conspiracy', but the war-machine really does have our country by the balls.

[kathy88]

Since he replied to you, Matt, send him some links to Ron's ACTUAL foreign policy stances, not the crap you hear from his opponents.

[Kotin]

Kotin - have you explained to this guy that Ron is NOT an isolationist?

this is what i replied, he never replied back..


im glad you brought that up.




the fact is ron paul is great on National Defense.


first of all, how can anyone be good on defense if they dont protect our borders.

none of these candidates will, how can they send our border gaurds to iraq?

while two of our country's border patrolman who are in prison, agents Ramos and Compian.. Ron is the only one who said he would pardon them.


Ron Plan for Imigaration

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

now, on to the war on terror.

i dont know if i can convince you that its not what we should be doing, i have talked to many soldiers in my town, i live near ft.hood Texas
they are saying the war is wrong and if people knew what was going on there, we would leave.

Ron Paul is by far the best on defense, please review the following:

written by Ron Paul.

It has been over 6 years since the atrocities of September 11 were committed and there are still some very basic measures that need to be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice and make America safer. I have proposed legislation to help with these efforts and will continue to fight in Congress for the safety and security of the American people.

My legislation entitled The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 (HR 3216) makes the surgical strike option available to the President in our mission to capture Bin Laden. Our military has been pursuing him without result for far too long now, and it is high time ALL constitutional tools were utilized in the hunt for this dangerous madman. As an American it sickens me to know that Bin Laden and top leaders of al Qaeda remain at large and thumbing their noses at us, while we unravel the sacred fabric of our constitution out of fear. It is Osama Bin Laden and the perpetrators of terrorist attacks that ought to be afraid of us, not the other way around. The answers are found in the Constitution. We should boldly root out the perpetrators and not let them get away with their crimes against us. As the home of the brave we should use Letters of Marque and Reprisal to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.

A lot has been done to fight the War on Terror and much of it has been misdirected, but there are some tools still needed and more progress to be made. My bills The Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 and The Terror Immigration Elimination Act are logical steps in the right direction.


A defense policy designed to keep Americans safe should start with the idea that we must secure our borders from those who would cross them to do us harm. Currently, the United States maintains hundreds of thousands of troops in more than 100 foreign countries. In many cases, they are there to defend foreign borders. Maintaining such a global empire drains nearly one trillion dollars from the U.S. economy each year, while offering very little real security for the American people. What's worse, our U.S. Border Guards are sent overseas to places like Iraq while our own borders remain porous and vulnerable.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001, had obtained some 24 visas to enter the United States under false pretenses or with incomplete or misleading applications. All these should have been caught and refused. The fact that this did not happen is another indictment on our inadequate border security system.



Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we're paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

[Matt Collins]

Did you get a snailmail address? I looked but I didn't find one that I could be sure about. If anyone else has better detective skills than I do, please go for it!

[Matt Collins]

Since he replied to you, Matt, send him some links to Ron's ACTUAL foreign policy stances I have. RonPaulLibrary.org is a great resource :D

[hawks4ronpaul]

Hawks -

Did you e-mail that to the delegate in question? If not, please do!


mike@michaelpatrickleahy.com

Everyone, please feel free to use that summary and my http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ site to email to everyone who might benefit from them.

Matt, I commented on his blog and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1295697&posted=1#post1295697

[hawks4ronpaul]

Duplicate post erased.