Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy" (The New American)

[Constitutional Paulicy]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/e901e732248a19c82d85703d6431dc9e_L.jpg

Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy"
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.


On February 6, Senator Paul will deliver a message to the Heritage Foundation entitled “Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy.”

In an outline of the speech provided to The New American in advance of the meeting, Paul says he plans to describe “his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the important role of a strong presidency.” He will also emphasize the importance of “maintaining the strongest national defense among nations while also questioning what constitutes actual ‘defense.’”

more here..... http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14375-sen-rand-paul-to-promote-founders-vision-of-foreign-policy

[supermario21]

Looks like an end to the war machine...good stuff.

[Brett85]

That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.

[talkingpointes]

How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?

[FSP-Rebel]

How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?
The just of what he was saying that some won't accept is that an attack on Israel would be seen as an attack on the US.

[LibertyEagle]

That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.

I think it is more likely that some of the criticizers jumped the gun. But, time will tell.

[phill4paul]

The just of what he was saying that some won't accept is that an attack on Israel would be seen as an attack on the US.

“Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

He thinks it should be announced to the world.

[jcannon98188]

“Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

He thinks it should be announced to the world.

Yeah I am tired of the rand paul spin docters trying to make us look like the bad guy from that statement. Rand clearly states that in HIS OPINION and attack on israel is an attack on us. That is NOT the founder FP AT ALL

[klamath]

I am sure that if Rand would have told the Israeli/and Arabs that they need to work it out themselves RP would have said Rand encouraged the inevitable war.:rolleyes:

[Brett85]

He thinks it should be announced to the world.

He thinks it should be announced to the world because it would be a deterrent against any country invading Israel. He thinks that it would be less likely that Israel would get attacked by another country if that country realizes that they would have to go up against the strongest military in the world. So he basically thinks that by saying that it will serve as a deterrent and keep the Middle East more stable.

[FSP-Rebel]

“Well, absolutely we stand with Israel,” he said, “but what I think we should do is announce to the world – and I think it is pretty well known — that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States.”

He thinks it should be announced to the world.
He's just stating the obvious. Just a reminder to the world that an attack on Israel "will be treated" as an attack on us. More of a recognition statement than a personal opinion yet comes off as a personal opinion to those that need to see it that way.

[Tax the Fed]

That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.

Yeah . . . including criticism from Dad.

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/fpfronpaul.jpg

[phill4paul]

He thinks it should be announced to the world because it would be a deterrent against any country invading Israel. He thinks that it would be less likely that Israel would get attacked by another country if that country realizes that they would have to go up against the strongest military in the world. So he basically thinks that by saying that it will serve as a deterrent and keep the Middle East more stable.

And in the process emboldens the enemies of the state of Israel to further anti-American sentiment. Blow-back.

I wonder how this will be covered from a founders standpoint.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world" G.Washington

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." T. Jefferson

[July]

Looking forward to this...

[FSP-Rebel]

Since Israel is in a unique situation based upon where they lay, I can see why this rhetoric is espoused. No other ally is in a similar scenario, the closest being S. Korea which is pretty much in its own situation of a long standing armistice yet they're ethnically close with their adversary. Religious and cultural differences make the middle east quite different but I too am interested in his complete foreign policy package.

[Brett85]

I don't necessarily think that Washington and Jefferson meant that under no circumstances at all should we ever intervene overseas, even if it's an extraordinary situation. When Washington was talking about a "permanent alliance," I think he was referring to something like Nato which forces us by an international treaty to defend other countries around the world. The U.S should not be involved in any treaty that forces us to defend other countries around the world. It would be nice if Rand believed that as well, but I'm not sure. But I just wouldn't go quite as far as some others in saying that under no circumstances at all should we intervene overseas, even if it's an extraordinary situation. I think I would've supported an exception to my non interventionist stance during WWII when Hitler was massacring all of the Jews, invading country after country, and trying to take over the entire world.

[anaconda]

How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?

Or how a founder president used public money and the military to attack Barbary pirates.

[anaconda]

I think I would've supported an exception to my non interventionist stance during WWII when Hitler was massacring all of the Jews, invading country after country, and trying to take over the entire world.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gkra27ZzqWcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[CaptLouAlbano]

He's just stating the obvious. Just a reminder to the world that an attack on Israel "will be treated" as an attack on us. More of a recognition statement than a personal opinion yet comes off as a personal opinion to those that need to see it that way.

The contingency that wants their movement to be as small as possible will find anything they can to check another politician off their list. They hear what they want to hear. In reality, it doesn't matter because if it wasn't this statement on Israel, they would find something else. Life goes on without them. For everyone of them we lose, we can gain dozens more genuine activists that understand the long term political strategy of the libertarian/conservative movement and are willing to see it through

[jcannon98188]

Or how a founder president used public money and the military to attack Barbary pirates.

Isn't that legal under the constitution? Letters of Marque right? (I could be wrong, my knowledge of british legal concepts is lacking)

[Brett85]

http://books.google.com/books?id=gkra27ZzqWcC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm not going to take the time to read the entire book. What exactly was Buchanan's position on that?

[jcannon98188]

The contingency that wants their movement to be as small as possible will find anything they can to check another politician off their list. They hear what they want to hear. In reality, it doesn't matter because if it wasn't this statement on Israel, they would find something else. Life goes on without them. For everyone of them we lose, we can gain dozens more genuine activists that understand the long term political strategy of the libertarian/conservative movement and are willing to see it through
Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.

No he said "an attack on Israel will be viewed as an attack on the US". He did not say, that if someone attacks Israel he would subvert the Constitution and carry out military operations from the Executive Branch.

And to the contrary there are some here that if Rand said he enjoyed German food, they would somehow spin that as if he praised Hitler.

Like I said in my previous post - it's no big loss. There are plenty of other people to gain for everyone we lose.

[FSP-Rebel]

Rand Paul could praise Adolf Hitler and you guys would find a way to spin it. He clearly states an attack on Israel is an attack on the US.
Anytime a vague statement like this comes out I try to understand exactly what he actually meant by that remark, not how someone from antiwar.com would take it w/o further introspection. Some people are just quick on the draw I guess.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Anytime a vague statement like this comes out I try to understand exactly what he actually meant by that remark, not how someone from antiwar.com would take it w/o further introspection. Some people are just quick on the draw I guess.

Does anyone know where the complete interview is? The only clip I saw was around 2 minutes or so and seems like it cuts off right at the end of the statement in question.

EDIT: Never mind - read this

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12545-rand-paul-clarifies-foreign-policy-position-on-israel

[phill4paul]

No he said "an attack on Israel will be viewed as an attack on the US". He did not say, that if someone attacks Israel he would subvert the Constitution and carry out military operations from the Executive Branch.

And to the contrary there are some here that if Rand said he enjoyed German food, they would somehow spin that as if he praised Hitler.

Like I said in my previous post - it's no big loss. There are plenty of other people to gain for everyone we lose.

No, he said "an attack on Israel will be TREATED as an attack on the US" is what he said. Spin away.

[phill4paul]

Does anyone know where the complete interview is? The only clip I saw was around 2 minutes or so and seems like it cuts off right at the end of the statement in question.

EDIT: Never mind - read this

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12545-rand-paul-clarifies-foreign-policy-position-on-israel

Oh, now you want to actually see the clip AFTER wading into the issue? Lol.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/25/rand_paul_us_should_make_clear_any_attack_on_israe l_will_be_treated_as_an_attack_on_the_united_state s.html

[FSP-Rebel]

Oh, now you want to actually see the clip AFTER wading into the issue? Lol.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/25/rand_paul_us_should_make_clear_any_attack_on_israe l_will_be_treated_as_an_attack_on_the_united_state s.html
As was stated in another thread, the clip was cut off thus making the vague comment the main takeaway from the audio. Clarification from Rand's Chief of Staff (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?402617-Rand-Paul-s-Chief-Of-Staff-Clarifies-Rand-s-Israel-Comments)

[Agorism]

Rand wants to keep the Department of Homeland Security?

[Pisces]

Would Monroe be considered a founder? Remember the Monroe doctrine where the US warned the European powers that if they interfered with the new republics in South America, the US would consider it an aggressive act and would be forced to intervene to counter them?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh, now you want to actually see the clip AFTER wading into the issue? Lol.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/25/rand_paul_us_should_make_clear_any_attack_on_israe l_will_be_treated_as_an_attack_on_the_united_state s.html

No I just want the full context and anything that followed. However, the article I referenced is satisfactory for me.

I am past the point of trying to sway the "pro-Ron/anti-Rand" folks. As I stated a couple of times here today, there are plenty of more activists out there to be had rather than worrying about a small number of people from that crowd.

If you don't want to support Rand should he run in 2016, I really do not care. I am happy to be able to support him, and anyone who supports someone else is the opposition.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Would Monroe be considered a founder? Remember the Monroe doctrine where the US warned the European powers that if they interfered with the new republics in South America, the US would consider it an aggressive act and would be forced to intervene to counter them?

He is considered to be the last of the founding fathers in fact.

[phill4paul]

As was stated in another thread, the clip was cut off thus making the vague comment the main takeaway from the audio. Clarification from Rand's Chief of Staff (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?402617-Rand-Paul-s-Chief-Of-Staff-Clarifies-Rand-s-Israel-Comments)

Do you mean "Spin from Rand's Chief of Staff?

“The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel. In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state,” explained Stafford. “Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.”

This interview was not "the one case." Obviously. The lead in was about his return from Israel and the controversy surrounding foreign aid. The discussion in the clip focused on foreign aid and Rand made his declaration out of that context.

ETA: Now even if, IF, the proceeding question was about a nuclear attack do you not think that he should have made that clear in his answer?

[Brett85]

Rand wants to keep the Department of Homeland Security?

When did he say that?

[Tax the Fed]

Isn't that legal under the constitution? Letters of Marque right? . . .
right . . . letters of marque authorized in war powers act clause of the constitution at the constitutional convention of 1787 -
delegate Elbridge Gerry of Mass. played important role in that cause with his family involved in shipping
and commerce that needed protection without the possibility of a declared war -

genius constitutionalist Ron Paul's introduction of a house bill a short time after the Sept 11, 2001 attack
intended to invoke the concept and idea of air piracy as a way to battle the terrorists involved in those four planes -

which btw was ridiculed by the hysterical media pundits if any of them even paid any attention to Congressman Paul

[Uriah]

Or how a founder president used public money and the military to attack Barbary pirates.

I was thinking about that too. But you don't have to go overseas to find American wars.

American marines burned all of the deeds of Mexicans legally owning land in Texas. President after president ordered the aggressive wars against native americans. Even in times of peace with treaties signed the US military has instigated war and massacred innocents.

I admire Andrew Jackson for taking down the central bank in his time. I equally despise him for forcing the mostly peaceful Cherokee off their land especially after they created their own written language and wrote their own constitution.

[dinosaur]

Yeah I am tired of the rand paul spin docters trying to make us look like the bad guy from that statement. Rand clearly states that in HIS OPINION and attack on israel is an attack on us. That is NOT the founder FP AT ALL

We were given some sage advice about entangling alliances. But the constitution does allow for defense...of ourselves or others. Rand would be telling a lie if he said that defense was immoral or illegal under the constitution. Limiting ourselves to real defense would be an incredibly radical departure from our current foreign policy. Our current policy has nothing to do with defense.

[kcchiefs6465]

I can't wait. I want to hear his positions on Israel and Iran in-depth. Hopefully he takes the time to dispel some of these rumors that are floating around.

[supermario21]

Just wondering, why did Chuck Hagel never come out and support Ron or Rand Paul? Wish Rand was on Armed Services to question Chuck, but like I've said before he seems like an enigma.

[FrankRep]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/e901e732248a19c82d85703d6431dc9e_XL.jpg (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14375-sen-rand-paul-to-promote-founders-vision-of-foreign-policy)



In a speech to the Heritage Foundation, Senator Rand Paul will announce his plan to promote the founders' vision of foreign policy.


Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy" (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14375-sen-rand-paul-to-promote-founders-vision-of-foreign-policy)


The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
31 January 2013


Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told a gathering of conservative activists on Monday that he plans to offer legislation preventing the purchase of F-16 fighter jets by the new Egyptian government.

Paul unexpectedly appeared at the meeting via Skype. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) was scheduled to appear alone, but after an unavoidable delay to vote on the Hurricane Sandy relief bill (Senators Lee and Paul voted against the bill’s passage), Lee pulled Paul and other Republican senators in for a few comments.

In his impromptu remarks, Paul promised to thwart plans announced by the Obama administration to bypass Congress and send at least 20 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighters (http://www.worldtribune.com/2012/12/12/obama-defies-congressional-leaders-oks-delivery-of-f-16s-to-egypt/), as well as 200 M1A1 advanced combat tanks, to the government of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

The first four fighter jets are scheduled for delivery in February 2013 according to published reports (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/22/gift-us-f-16-fighter-jets-en-route-to-egypt-amid-criticism/).

Senator Paul, who has expressed interest in running for president in 2016 (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13715-rand-paul-interested-2016-run-for-the-white-house), appears to be building his pro-Israel credibility in advance of the campaign. Last week, for example, at a closed-door meeting of GOP bigwigs in Charleston, South Carolina, Paul reportedly told (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/rand-paul-in-south-carolina-on-inauguration-day-86509.html?hp=l8) a Christian minister that Israel would be among his highest priorities.

There is no disputing that foreign policy is on Paul’s mind lately.

On February 6, Senator Paul will deliver a message to the Heritage Foundation entitled “Restoring the Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy.”

In an outline of the speech provided to The New American in advance of the meeting, Paul says he plans to describe “his vision of a foreign policy that respects the plain language of our Constitution, the legal powers of Congress and the important role of a strong presidency.” He will also emphasize the importance of “maintaining the strongest national defense among nations while also questioning what constitutes actual ‘defense.’”

At the meeting, Senator Paul will point out the aspects of current U.S. foreign policy that betray the constitutional conservatism he espouses and then recommend the course that he believes our nation needs to follow in order to repair our international reputation and our budget.

Paul plans to discuss the conflict between prolonged foreign wars and the fiscal realities of financing these missions. The senator will “map out a foreign policy of clear and defined missions without prolonged military engagement.”

In this, as in many other key policy positions, Senator Paul’s point of view doesn’t jibe with establishment GOP leadership.

During the recent debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, Paul cosponsored with Mike Lee (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/13827-sens-lee-and-paul-feinstein-lee-amdt-not-touchdown-but-positive-play) an amendment that would have explicitly guaranteed due process for citizens and permanent residents. The amendment was shot down, owing principally to opposition from notorious Republican warmongers John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

In September 2012, Senator Paul ruffled Republican feathers by calling for an end to foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/12850-sen-paul-calls-for-end-of-aid-to-pakistan-egypt-libya), pointing to attacks on consulates, embassies, and posts in those countries, specifically the murder of U.S. Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens.

The total amount of foreign aid to Pakistan, Libya, and Egypt is roughly $4 billion annually. Senator Paul’s amendment would have stripped that money from those three countries and added $2 billion of the money saved to a veterans job bill. The remaining $2 billion would have gone to deficit reduction.

Again, Republican congressional leadership opposed Paul, painting his position as soft on terrorism.

Despite his run-ins with the GOP establishment, Senator Paul hopes to somehow repair the damaged relationship between the Republican Party leadership and the younger, activist, libertarian bloc of voters who for years have followed his father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul, and looked to him for leadership and inspiration.

There’s a lot of work to be done after the way the GOP leadership treated Ron Paul and his supporters at the Republican National Convention in Tampa last year (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/12660-republican-convention-rules-changes-how-the-establishment-stole-the-gop).

The affronts to the Paul campaign specifically and to the electoral process in general were many.

First, the RNC denied credential to 10 Ron Paul delegates from Maine, robbing Paul of a majority of that state’s delegation. One disgusted Maine delegate described this decision as a “huge slap in the face.”

Next, as the Convention Rules Committee met August 28, the Romney campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg showed up and pressured members to accept radical changes to the party’s rules governing the binding of delegates and the way rules are to be revised in the future.

According to the revised Rule 15 (to be renumbered as Rule 16 in the new rule book) as proposed by Ginsberg, every state must amend its nominating process to ensure that their delegations are bound to vote in accordance with the winner of the popular vote as cast at state caucuses or primaries.

Ginsberg’s version of Rule 12 empowers the RNC to bend its own rules to suit their needs at any time without submitting the changes to party members gathered at the quadrennial convention. This unprecedented revision places the control of the GOP in the hands of the establishment candidate without suffering the inconvenience of listening to dissenting voices. In the future the nomination of an incumbent Republican president is guaranteed and upon leaving office, he will be able to name his chosen successor through manipulation of the party rules.

Curiously, the driver of a bus carrying the delegate holding the official objections to the proposed rule changes circled the venue refusing to stop, causing that delegate to arrive too late to file the objections. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) then proceeded to call for a vote on Ginsberg’s rewrite of the Republican rulebook.

Standing at the podium and reading from a teleprompter, Boehner instructed those in favor of the rules to say “aye” and those opposed to say “nay.”

Video of the vote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3AfR0kvoYk) clearly demonstrates that those against the adoption of the Romney-friendly rules numbered at least as many as those in favor. In light of the closeness of the voice vote, Boehner should have called for a roll call vote rather than a voice vote.

More shocking than the speaker’s ignoring of the dissenting votes is the revelations that came through cellphone video posted to the Internet only minutes after this “vote.”

These videos record the script scrolling on Boehner’s teleprompter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_ylYNbAlY) and reveal that the adoption of the rules was scripted and that the new rules weren’t voted on at all. Regardless of how long before Boehner's appearance the script was written and entered into the teleprompter, the undeniable fact is that the outcome of the vote was decided in advance by whoever typed that text into the teleprompter.

Put simply, the passage of a radical new rulebook rewritten by a lawyer from the Romney campaign was predetermined and the voice vote taken at the convention was a sham, sound and fury signifying nothing.

Senator Rand Paul referenced the mistreatment of Paul delegates in a statement provided to The New American wherein he said he is prepared to reach out to the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), Reince Priebus.

"I look forward to working with Reince Priebus to grow the Republican Party. To grow we need to reach out to grassroots conservatives and libertarians, many of whom felt disenfranchised by the delegate process and the rules changes,” Paul said. “To grow we need a concerted effort to reach out to various ethnic and ideological groups. I hope to be a bridge between the establishment GOP and the new younger voters who want to see a more open, libertarian GOP."

Senator Paul will spell out his plans to restore the Founders’ vision of foreign policy on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 11:00 a.m. at the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium in Washington, D.C.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14375-sen-rand-paul-to-promote-founders-vision-of-foreign-policy

[muzzled dogg]

Israel first

[FrankRep]

Israel first


Rand Paul in Israel: End All Foreign Aid Gradually (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/14147-rand-paul-in-israel-end-all-foreign-aid-gradually)
08 January 2013


Speaking in Jerusalem, Sen. Rand Paul said all U.S. foreign aid should be ended gradually, including aid to Israel.

[Sola_Fide]

"I look forward to working with Reince Priebus to grow the Republican Party. To grow we need to reach out to grassroots conservatives and libertarians, many of whom felt disenfranchised by the delegate process and the rules changes,” Paul said. “To grow we need a concerted effort to reach out to various ethnic and ideological groups. I hope to be a bridge between the establishment GOP and the new younger voters who want to see a more open, libertarian GOP."

And that is pretty much the Rand Paul 2016 campaign in a nutshell. The crazy thing is...it might actually work.

[alucard13mmfmj]

end foreign aid to israel's enemies..

what neocon can argue against that?

ending some foreign aid to some countries is better than electing another obama or a rubio/romney and not ending ANY aid.

if electing Rand would end aid to countries like egypt, china, pakistan... and continue to give aid to israel during his term.. i'll vote for him still.

change has to happen incrementally. similar to how our rights are being taken away.

[J_White]

sounds good - take a hint from Orwell and name things appropriately.
in addition, i would love if he starts calling anyone who opposes this policy "Un-American". or more British like or wanting to return to being a colony or something.