Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

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



    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
    “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
    - Josef Stalin



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Looks like an end to the war machine...good stuff.

  4. #3
    That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    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.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    That sounds good. Maybe he's heard some of the criticism from some of his previous foreign policy comments.
    Yeah . . . including criticism from Dad.


  7. #6
    How does this mesh with the "the us should retaliate if anyone attacks Israel."?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by talkingpointes View Post
    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.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    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.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    “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

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jcannon98188 View Post
    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.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    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.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    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

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    “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.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by FSP-Rebel View Post
    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

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by talkingpointes View Post
    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.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    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)



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jcannon98188 View Post
    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

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    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.

  22. #19
    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.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  23. #20
    Looking forward to this...

  24. #21
    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.

  25. #22
    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.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    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=gkr...page&q&f=false

  27. #24
    I'm not going to take the time to read the entire book. What exactly was Buchanan's position on that?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Rand wants to keep the Department of Homeland Security?

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Agorism View Post
    Rand wants to keep the Department of Homeland Security?
    When did he say that?

  31. #27
    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?

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Pisces View Post
    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.

  33. #29
    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.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  34. #30
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2013, 11:47 PM
  2. Replies: 212
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 11:31 PM
  3. Sen. Rand Paul to Promote "Founders' Vision of Foreign Policy"
    By FrankRep in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-31-2013, 10:02 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2010, 10:34 AM
  5. Promote movie "Where in the world is Osama?" it supports Ron's foreign policy
    By FreestarMediaDotCom in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-02-2008, 02:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •