-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Rand vs. Rubio
Two views on a Tea Party foreign policy.
The Tea Party scored its two biggest triumphs last year with the election of Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul. Both were discouraged from running by leaders of their own party. Both had to overcome the determined opposition of the Republican establishment to make it through their primaries in the first place.
Paul and Rubio were both uncharacteristically honest about the need for entitlement reform, going so far as to contemplate means-testing Social Security even though they needed the votes of senior citizens. Paul was running in Kentucky, where about 60 percent of the registered voters are Democrats. Rubio stood for election in Florida, a retirement mecca.
Both won in November by double-digit margins and have pressured Republican leaders from the right on spending now that they are in office. Rubio has railed against increasing the federal government’s debt ceiling. Paul has proposed his own five-year plan to balance the budget and has chastised Paul Ryan for not going far enough. Both senators voted against the budget deal struck by President Obama and House Republicans.
Their similarities stop at the water’s edge. True, when Obama decided to wage “kinetic military action” against Libya, both senators recognized it for what it was — war — and demanded that Congress authorize the intervention. But Paul and Rubio diverged sharply from there.
In April, Paul introduced a sense of the Senate resolution affirming the following 2007 quote from then-candidate Barack Obama: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” The move so flummoxed Democrats that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid abruptly adjourned the Senate for the weekend rather than have his colleagues vote on the amendment while Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) bizarrely claimed President Bush had broken precedent by consulting Congress before going into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Senator Paul also insisted that Congress vote to formally declare war against Libya and made fairly clear he intended to vote against any such declaration. Neither of Paul’s Libya proposals went anywhere. The Senate ultimately voted down his language agreeing with Obama nearly four years ago, since the Democratic majority wanted to agree with Obama today.
Rubio also proposed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya. But his idea was to make regime change the official policy of the U.S. government, and unlike Paul he fully intended to vote in favor. “This resolution should… state that removing Moamar Qadhafi from power is in our national interest and therefore should authorize the President to accomplish this goal,” Rubio wrote in a late March letter to Reid. “To that end, the resolution should urge the President to immediately recognize the Interim Transitional National Council as the legitimate government in Libya.”
Libya is just one specific example of a broader disagreement between the two Tea Party favorites over U.S. foreign policy. Paul, the son of the noninterventionist presidential candidate Congressman Ron Paul, believes restraint in the resort to arms is an integral part of limited government. Rubio, the son of Cuban exiles, sees a robust foreign policy as indispensable to American world leadership.
On the campaign trail in Kentucky, Paul answered a question about issues of war and peace this way: “I think the most important thing we do with the federal government is our national defense, bar none, but then I think it’s open to debate what’s in our national defense.” In his recent book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, Paul complained, “Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare.”
In a fascinating interview with Robert Costa of National Review Online, Rubio sounded a very different note by inveighing against what he described as isolationism. “There is no replacement for America in the world,” Rubio told Costa. “If America withdraws from the world stage, it will create a vacuum, and that vacuum will not be filled by someone better than us.”
“It is so important that conservatism does not translate into isolationism,” Rubio continued. “Isolationism has never worked for America. It is not going to work in the 21st century.” Rubio’s chief of staff is Cesar Conda, the former Dick Cheney aide who during the 2010 primary season fired off an email warning to Republican hawks: “On foreign policy, [global war on terror], Gitmo, Afghanistan, Rand Paul is NOT one of us.”
This debate is only going to intensify after the death of Osama bin Laden. Many conservatives are likely going to look at the successful strike on the al Qaeda leader and conclude it is possible to fight terrorism without nation-building or invading and occupying countries until they are democratic. Afghanistan is hardly more a functioning democracy than when bin Laden fled a decade ago. It is unclear how sincerely our putative ally in Pakistan was really helping us search for the 9/11 murderer. Some Pakistani forces may have been sheltering bin Laden as much as the Taliban.
Still other conservatives will contend that without a U.S. military presence overseas, complemented by the intelligence gathered through enhanced interrogation, there is no way to identify and disrupt terrorist networks. “It’s important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to defeat terrorist enemies and protect the American people,” House Speaker John Boehner said in his post-bin Laden press conference. “This makes our engagement in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan more important not less.”
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio have already established themselves as two of the most conservative members of the Senate. Rubio invokes Jesse Helms, Paul Robert Taft. They both quote Ronald Reagan. On most issues, they will be allies. On foreign policy, they couldn’t be further apart.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (141) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/03/rand-vs-rubio
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 6:29AM
Nonintervention - A foreign policy of staying out of other countries' disputes.
Isolationism - A policy of nonparticipation in international economic and political relations
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations."
Dr. Ron Paul
"Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; "-- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)
Alan Brooks| 5.3.11 @ 9:49AM
What happened to Palin, is she yesterday's news?
have you jilted her?
Is her foreign policy worldview not good enough for you? men can be so FICKLE sometimes.
Groad| 5.3.11 @ 11:22AM
Sarah Palin does not hold any public office at the prsent time. Your questiuon is irrelevant.
vtwin| 5.3.11 @ 12:51PM
The problem with Rubio’s continuation of interventionism is it as to be paid for with the elderly retirement (Medicare and Social Security) because of Rand’s desire for the continuation of nontaxthewealthyism.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:27PM
Egypt's going secular, Clint. Yup. (GW was President of a very weak young country, incidentally. He also, unlike you, was not an antisemite.)
I would review chaos theory if I were you. It has a strong bearing on current foreign policy issues. Ron Paul is a blithering idiot on foreign policy matters.
Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 3:33PM
I was thinking along the same line Occam. If the French had believed in the same philosophy of Ron Paul we would still be British subjects.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 4:03PM
"England had control of the Atlantic and captured cities on the coast, but usually ended up getting spanked when they moved farther inland where 90% of Americans lived. The British army was too small to occupy such a huge landmass as the 13 colonies and as soon as the army left a city it fell back into rebel hands. Everytime they needed supplies, they had to receive the supplies from across the ocean. Military orders travelled over the sea as well, and most of the time too late. By the time of French intervention, the Americans already defeated the Hessian mercenaries at the Battle of Trenton, the Cherokee Indians (British allies) were subdued and the Loyalist militias were beaten soundly in several battles and didn't present much of a threat anymore, leaving the war effort solely on the British. The Americans had won the Battles of Saratoga (considered the turning point in the war), and the British parliament wanted to make a peace treaty with the colonies. England also had practically no answer for American guerilla warfare and couldn't be brutal in their tactics because they wanted Loyalists to stay loyal and wanted to resume trade with the colonies at the end of the war. Loyalists, slaves, and allied Indians couldn't or didn't want to join the British army, so all troop losses had to be replaced from Britain. The British army was not the greatest in the world like many textbooks would have you believe but often were poorly trained and supplied. Besides, even if France hadn't joined in the war effort, Spain still would have."
Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 4:08PM
So Spain didn't agree with Ron Paul either huh? Clint, honestly, I like Ron Paul on some lines but I do not worship at his altar as you seem to. Anyone even disagrees with him and you become rabid. Being loyal is great but so are fanatics.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 4:39PM
Spain didn't agree with America, in The Spanish American War either. Depends on who's ox is being gored & when & what American National Interests are.
Our Military is not to be used as cannon fodder to force feed democracy around the globe and do other countries fighting for them or allow their ME Agenda Tail to Wag The American Big Dog.
You don't know me.
I have never voted for nor donated a penny to Dr. Ron Paul yet nor previously.
I am a Registered Republican and A Tea Party
Patriot.
Many of We Tea Party Patriots have respect for Dr.Ron Paul and His support is even with Sarah Palin's Support , in the Tea Party.
Read Our Tea Party Mission Statement. It says nothing about Israel.
Let's see Ya badmouth The Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.
Drunken Sailor| 5.3.11 @ 4:46PM
Why would I badmouth Occam on the occasions I agree with him? Your right I do not know you but I do read your, quite often, over the top replies to Occam. You do not know me either. I too am a registered Republican and consider myself a Tea party member. As for the military being used as cannon fodder. I agree and I spent 20 years in that institution. However, I do not feel we should abandon our allies and pull everyone back here as Ron Paul would have us do. And as for Israel, been there and spent several enjoyable port calls in Haifa trading tales with the Israelie troops, enjoying a few beers and the culture. Never once heard a bad word about us from them and I can't even say the same from my own countrymen. Not saying Ron Paul isn't right on some issues. Just saying you would be more convincing without the rabid anti-Israel attacks.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 5:10PM
Because Tool Job is an Israel Firster Fanatic. You're making an argument against yourself.
Also, On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.
If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until last Sunday.
Also, Dr.Ron Paul Voted for The Resolution to go into Afghanistan.
" 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
You may want to comment about illegal Israeli sales of U.S. Weapons Tech to The Red Chinese, Israeli Spy Ben Ami Kadish, who had the same handler as Jonathan Pollard ,out of The NYC Israeli Consulate. Israel Company Checkpoint Systems getting the same treatment by C.F.I.U.S. as Dubai Ports , The Attack on The USS. Liberty.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:51PM
Clint/Tim* is a maniacal maniac fanatically fixated on the Pauls who in his eyes can simply do no harm.
IGNORE the beast.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 10:15PM
Israel Firster Fanatic Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie Is American Spectator's Resident Psycho-Fanatic And Tool Job Is After Her Title.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:30PM
LOL. How quaint.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.4.11 @ 12:59PM
The attack on USS Liberty has been buried under the rug, but neither Rand nor Rubio have introduced any legislation or subpoena to investigate it. Nor has Rep. Ron Paul, who sits on the House Cmte. on FR.
victor| 5.4.11 @ 2:29AM
Clint/Timmy*:
"CutandpasteJob"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Coul.....the_French
Since Clint cannot speak for himself, he let's others put words in his mouth.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 3:57PM
The Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job runs around Playing His Anti-Semite Card On We American Tea Party Patriots and Our Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Raon Paul And Our Tea Party Senator Dr.Rand Paul,Who don't Asskiss Tool Job's Personal Israel Firster Agenda.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
William R| 5.3.11 @ 4:58PM
Anyone that doesn't follow the Israel first position is an idiot when it comes to foreign policy???
victor| 5.4.11 @ 2:32AM
No, just Ron Paul and His Band of Renowned Paul Parrots.
Amazing how the Anti-Semites justify their hatred of Israel.
No One is putting Israel ahead of the US you PaulParrotHead, we are simply standing up for one of our allies.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.4.11 @ 12:19PM
Ron Paul is a kook who is nostalgically longing for a bygone era that never really was. The US never, except for its first few years, abstained from the affairs of other countries (the 1812 invasion of Canada, designed to conquer that country, ring any bells? James Madison, that arch-opponent of standing armies, orchestrated it.)
In any case, Ron Paul is an advocate of isolationism - both refusing to intervene anywhere AND walling off the US economy with trade barriers AND repealing all free trade agreements (you got that, Prime Minister Harper?). He's clearly an isolationist.
Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:33AM
I like you, sir.
Right on.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.3.11 @ 6:45AM
I hope both Rand and Rubio have long distinguished careers in the Senate and that they are joined by many others like them.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 7:42AM
Nice thought Bill. I think having both options will make for a more informed debate and ultimately a sound policy.
JFGalt| 5.3.11 @ 8:59AM
Sorry to disagree. DO NOT TRUST RUBIO! I used to live in SFla where this guy and his whole political family are from. I don't think anyone in that family has ever had a real job. They're slick power brokers and players. This guy is No tea Party guy. He is pure establishment and would kill to become as deep with the elites as he can get. What ever color his stripes need to be painted is what you will see. Each office is just a stepping stone to the next in his ambition. This is a SFLa version of the Chicago Dalys. Keep your hand on your wallet around this guy.
loulou| 5.3.11 @ 12:01PM
Rubio must be watched carefully. He is pro amnesty for illegal aliens, if I'm not mistaken. He's a good guy but he's no Constitutionalist.
Ivan Ivanovich| 5.3.11 @ 6:53AM
From what I've seen of Rubio and Paul it seems they are both gentlemen. I still remember the debates between Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal, gentlemen both. Why do we have so few gentlemen?
JFGalt| 5.3.11 @ 9:00AM
Don't buy the act with Rubio.
RCV| 5.3.11 @ 11:04AM
Ivan - You mean the one where Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi" and Buckley responded with "drunken fag"?
Nick| 5.3.11 @ 8:01PM
RCV,
Actually, Mr. Buckley said this to Vidal: "Now listen you queer, stop calling me a 'crypto-nazi.' Or, I'll sock you in the ***damned face. And you'll stay plastered."
This was after the queer called the World War Two veteran Buckley a "pro-crypto-nazi."
You can see for yourself, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:06PM
Well you DO know that only the Left is permitted to "name call".
Nick| 5.4.11 @ 5:59PM
Margie,
I think the Left rationalizes it by calling it "speaking truth to power."
Margie| 5.5.11 @ 1:36AM
And it's only name calling if we call them what they are.
For example:
Creep.
Punk.
Liar.
et al.
Oh, when I watched that clip.. my reaction was~ Ah, youth!!
Other than that I enjoyed (never saw it before) Buckley's NERVE.
I too don't believe in shutting up when the opposition is in my face.
RCV| 5.4.11 @ 2:37PM
Nick - Thanks for reminding me of the details of the exchange. I love that tape! I used to show it when I was teaching a class on libel and slander law. Those two were always fun to watch, though I never cared much for Vidal.
Nick| 5.4.11 @ 6:07PM
RCV,
I like this clip too. The first time I saw it, though, it was a much longer clip. This is the first one I found when I searched for it.
As someone who was born at the height of the Viet Nam War, '67, it has been through clips like this one, or, the debate between Ronald Reagan and Robert Kennedy, that I have learned what the war debate was really like.
Not the left's distortion of it that I grew up with in the '70s.
Dee See| 5.3.11 @ 6:59AM
BTW ---now that it's ON RECORD that Google is, IN FACT, a hyper-vigilant surveillance grid,
as are PC's, pods and cellphones generally
---WHY is there no vital speculation on the subject of just how pervasive, at this moment,
blackmail is throughout our establishment.
Surely when we consider the frankly second
and third rate offerings on show, coupled with
the fact that no one, but NO ONE, is daring to
challenge the globalist RED China TREASON
and EUGENOCIDE ops ---we'd have to guess
it's very pervasive, and effective, indeed...
William R| 5.3.11 @ 7:09AM
Rand is a traditional conservative on foreign affairs. Rubio comes from the liberal internationalist view of the world.
We can't balance the budget without reducing our footprint around the world. This alone should tell you who is serious about reducing the size of government.l
Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 7:46AM
Rubio isn't a liberal. He comes from the Reagan wing of the Party that believes democracy is a God given right and that more democracies in the world will make the US and world safer and more prosperous.
To describe Rubio as a liberal would be like calling Rand Paul an "Obamaeque supporter of tyrants, dictators and despots." Neither is true.
Big Tony| 5.3.11 @ 8:24AM
Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting over what's for dinner.
-----Ben Franklin----
The notion that if there were just more democracies in the world, that will some how make the world safer for Amercia is fallacious at best. Democracy is a failed form of government as the vast majority of founding father knew. The greeks tried it 2500 years ago and voted themselve into bankrupcy and they are currently doing it again today! That's why the USA was set up as a Constitutional Republic with democratically elected representatives and a limited federal goverment. It's too bad most people today don't understand that. And it's suicidal when we contiune to elect Presidents and representatives who have no concept of this notion and spout off this nonsense that we will be safer if we just embark 0n a world wide democratic nation building enterprise.
Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 8:46AM
Sorry, but that doesn't ring true. Democracies/representative Republics, as a rule, do NOT attack each other and are far more peaceful than any form of dictatorship
Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 8:47AM
Exactly!
Big Tony| 5.3.11 @ 1:31PM
The Nazi's were democratically elected, Italy's fascists were democratically elected, Hamas which regularly attacks Isreal also was democratically elected. Yasser Arafat was democratically elected. When Argentina attacked the British Falkland Islands they had a democratically elected representative form of government.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 6:04AM
Argentina was ruled by a military junta who invaded the Falklands, because of its declining popularity. It was not a democraticly elected gov't.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:29PM
Dear Ryan,
that is true when the underlying rationale for the government is Western. No history on Islamic Republics, because there truly have been none.
Sheila| 5.3.11 @ 11:03AM
Big Tony - apt quote and good comment.
NeilBJ| 5.3.11 @ 11:15AM
I have Benjamin Franklin's quote posted on the wall above my computer monitor. It is a constant reminder that democracy means mob rule, as I was taught in the one political science course I took in my college engineering curriculum.
Most people fail to undestand the implications of a true democracy and it has been become the term of convenience for describing our form of government, albeit incorrectly.
As the quote implies and as you argue, the rights of the minority are not protected in a democracy. The Founding Fathers understood this and that is why we have a Constitution that establishes the ground rules for how we should govern ourselves. (...if we would only follow it!)
Their concern was also expressed in the requirement that members of the Senate should be selected by the state legislatures. This would provide a check on the people who may at times be swept up in the moment and vote for programs that would ultimately be detrimental to their well being. Of course, the people would still have the peoples' house, the House of Representatives.
Roy| 5.3.11 @ 1:21PM
That's just equivocation.
Obviously, he did not mean that kind of democracy. "Democracy" is a shorthand for "democratic republic" as opposed to an "aristocratic republic" ."Republic" = constitutional rather than arbitrary rule, but it doesn't answer the question of who makes the laws. "Democratic" answers that question.
William R| 5.3.11 @ 10:13AM
Reagan didn't believe democracy is God given. That's NeoCon BS.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....-no-neocon
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 12:07PM
Well..William, it is God given and self given with His help. The problem is it can not be United States given. These people, like us, must want it and fight for it..we can not hand it over to them on a silver platter.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.4.11 @ 12:58PM
Rand is a Libertarian (with a big L), not a traditional conservative. Rubio comes from the Reagan Wing of the GOP.
figusja| 5.3.11 @ 7:29AM
Our founding fathers had many various opinions and views. But the country was still founded because they could compromise. There is no compromising with the old guard career politicians. Get the old codgers out of there and let the new blood fix the country that the old guard messed up. Can I get an Amen?
Maxwell| 5.3.11 @ 7:38AM
AMEN
The Duke| 5.3.11 @ 7:59AM
So what? The GOP/Tea Party will take the free-market approach to foreign policy, just like they did in Tora Bora in 2001, when Bin Laden was in our grasp, Rumsfeld outsourced the job to local warlords, never to be seen again until a few days ago.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.3.11 @ 8:17AM
I guess that's better than turning a country over to Muslim fudamentalists (al Qaeda types) like Jimmy Carter did in Iran and Obama so far has done in Egypt and we can only guess the rest of the Middle East.
William R| 5.3.11 @ 10:15AM
And like Bush Cheney did in Iraq. Because once we leave Iraq Iran starts running things.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 6:05AM
No that will be Obama he's the President who seems to want to lose the peace.
victor| 5.5.11 @ 2:45AM
Just as liberals cannot give Reagan, Willliamm cannot give up GW and Cheney.
Iraq/Iran is now Obama's to lose.
And he will let it slip through his nicotine stained fingers.
ConChef | 5.3.11 @ 8:03AM
Ask Thomas Jefferson how that "non-interventionist" thing worked out for HIM. Barbary Pirates, anyone? People are going to want to disrupt &/or destroy America & her commerce & interests around the world, they always have, & they always will. The Paulites don't seem to understand that.
Len| 5.3.11 @ 9:04AM
You're confused there, Jefferson acted per legislation passed by the congress authorizing six frigates to be used as he would direct. He then continually went to the congress informing them of his actions and making sure he was not stepping out of bounds. In fact he stated unequivocally that he was not authorized by the US constitution to go beyond defense. How does that equate to invading foreign nations that have not attacked us, or policing the world for democracy?
As for Libya or really the lie that the president as CINC has authority to use the troops as he sees fit, that is garbage. In creating the US constitution, powers that had been the executive's in Britain were given to the congress;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
To provide and maintain a Navy
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces
All previously understood to be executive powers, but now given to the congress. And why? Because the founding generation understood that war increased the power of the executive and they wanted to avoid the president rising to monarch-like status.
Even Hamilton the monarchist admitted as much concerning the weakness of the president in regard to war;
Federalist 69,
First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.
Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.
This also speaks much to whether the military is actually upholding and protecting the US constitution when they continue to follow unlawful and unconstitutional orders, such as being involved in Libya. It also speaks much to a majority of those who call themselves "constitutional conservatives", yet support violations of said constitution.
The Bishop| 5.3.11 @ 8:16AM
I think highly of both senators and am glad they are both in the Senate. But, on this issue, I will side with Rand Paul. Our interventionist policies have stretched our military resources so thin that it increases our vulnerability and is draining the national treasury (not as much as entitlements, but it still adds up). Why, 65 years later are we still a military presence in Germany and Japan? Do we not really trust these post-WWII allies?
I do not grieve the departure of bin Laden or any of that terrorist ilk. Evil is evil. But have we not learned anything from the Soviet quagmire in Afhganistan? This is a debate worth having.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:31PM
I believe we should get out of NATO, and possibly South Korea. But we have vested interests in the Middle East, and the last time I checked, there weren't any "hate the USA" protests in Israel.
Louis Jenkins| 5.3.11 @ 8:36AM
Regardless of where Rand or Rubio stand on the issue of national defence, they're playing second fiddle to Obama. Obama is out to wring the last golden egg out of the goose, and that includes our military. We cannot afford the results. Soon our forces will be as Carter's military, a former shell of itself. So go ahead and debate the two bright spots of conservatism, the real danger is Obama.
hardcard| 5.3.11 @ 8:37AM
divide and conquer beware of commander zero's minions
Ryan| 5.3.11 @ 8:47AM
I think that Rand is asking a lot of the right questions - I am not for absolute withdrawal, but there is a good point to be made that there are international relationships that we don't need to be putting money toward.
youfamissim | 5.3.11 @ 9:32AM
Amen... Military Industrial Complex vs The Nanny State Hmmm.... Seems to me they both work to accrue tax dollars. One, however, actually delivers a product(s) that improve life as we know it. The other works to expand indolence, demands for larger stipends, and the processes enacted to fulfill that mission increases controls over a set of diminishing freedoms/liberties. I'll take the M.I.C. every time. Make no mistake about the troubles facing America - they all are tied to Marxist principles. Marxism is incompatible with Federalism / US Constitution - which is WHY Progressive adopted the comprehensive approach to fill the schools, the Courts, and Gov't agencies with hardened ideologues who share their vision. The plan of incrementalism is 40+ along and going strong. The only hope for salvation and a return to Federalism is to end Marxism in the Government or for States to choose to ignore edicts issued from DC. Starving the Beast is not enough. Like any parasite, it will linger until it kills the host - that is the Progressive plan.
calvin | 5.3.11 @ 10:29AM
To Ivan;
Gentlemen? I recall as a kid watching live the Republican Convention. Vidal called Buckley a Nazi. Bill shot back with, "I fought the Nazis, you --- d--- little queer." I thought he was going to get out of his chair and brain him.
Joe R| 5.3.11 @ 10:48AM
I don't trust Rand Paul any further than I can throw him. The apple dont' fall too far from the tree.
Len| 5.3.11 @ 11:06AM
Right, clearly the man that consistently adhered to the US constitution and never backed down, and continually forces into the congressional debates the constitutionality of legislation is untrustworthy.
Meanwhile folks like Allan West who voted for the Patriot Act which includes the blatant unconstitutional NSLs are unblemished saints.
Got it. The US constitution is meaningless, but the neocon agenda is desired.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 1:55PM
You seem to have forgotten the fact that West and others have voted for a revised patriot act that has dealt with some of the controversial aspects of the original. Rand is a sincere man as well as West, both have contributed to this country. Believe me there is no one that is unblemished including a smart ass like you.
Len| 5.3.11 @ 3:03PM
Yes or No SNLs are blatant violations of the US constitution, as in the fourth amendment's protections against such things?
All those having voted for the Patriot Act have violated their oath and those Tea Partiers in particular are hypocrites.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 7:47PM
Blah, blah, blah.....There is no use in feeding a troll. I will say it again, I like Rand Paul and feel he has a great deal to contribute to this subject and his cautions and warnings should be taken into consideration. I am also proud to know we have Americans like West and Rubio as well. What I can not stand is cranks, isolationist, neo-cons, war mongers, and peaceniks and smart ass, contentious fanatics like you.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:32PM
I love Allen West. I sit around dreaming up theme music for his campaign.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 7:49PM
Me too.
Joe| 5.3.11 @ 11:15AM
The difference:
Rubio is a Dick Cheney proxy.
Paul is his own man.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.11 @ 12:04PM
Joe,
thank you for that highest of compliments, "Dick Cheny proxie".
Dick has been one of the most selfless public servants in a long...long time.
He took a back seat to help and support Dubyah with no further ambitions.
Look folks,
I know Dick. I've negotiated contracts..."in competition with him"....across the table from him.
He may be the smartest man I have ever met, and ALSO one of the most honorable.
(He can also be one of the most delightfully witty/funny guys you could ever imagine)
I worked (against, smile), with him between his gubmint jobs at Brown and Root, and just kept up with the "pen-pal" relationship until he left office.
I am saddned to have lost touch with him since, but you folks with a stitch of sense should envy me, and no, I never went bird-hunting with him, (heh.)
Nope,
Dick will be one of the most important unknown heroes of our life-times.
Heck, he doesn't care. He did his best for our country...and don't forget that Dubyah assigned Dick the defense of the homeland, while Dubyah tried to wrestle with international.
(Duh, eight years with no Hassans)
He led a succesful effort.
Dick tried his best...and NOBODY could have done better.
Thank you, Dick!
JimH| 5.3.11 @ 12:55PM
At least Cheney had a medical reason for not serving in the military. Not so Marco. If you want to send the military all over, you at least ought to have first paid your dues. I voted for Rubio as the best of what was available. That and he seemed to be outside a corrupt Florida Republican machine. In terms of direction for the GOP, I am a proud Paulist.
Jack in Wi.| 5.4.11 @ 6:28AM
Cheney took education deferments and the fact that he had a wife and family as reasons for not going in the military. He was and is like most neoconservatives. Now the Republican party is divided and and we are going to lose badly if we keep up with this endless backing of war. The country is sick of it and Obama will look more moderate to the majority of voters. Ron Paul has been right about most everything from the economy to the futility of these wars. Someone like him is the only person capable of winning a majority of independents.
skip| 5.3.11 @ 1:23PM
Best United States President: George Washington
Best United States Vice President: Dick Cheney
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:35PM
I agree with you, Ken. In addition, Dick shot an attorney, thus doing a public service, which is a point I made in Union discussions in New Zealand.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:39PM
Amen, Old Tex, Amen!!
Maxwell| 5.3.11 @ 6:48PM
Ken (Old Texican) I hope you add more about Mr. Cheny, I'd love to hear.
Wayne | 5.3.11 @ 11:36AM
I think Rand has it right. We can not do all the heavy lifting for the world. We need to first get our OWN house in order and let the rest of the world solve its problems. UBL attacked us, so we were right to go after him. If we went after Qaddhafi for his role in terrorism I could go with the rationale, but not to be the one who chooses the good guys and the bad guys. I especially would not put that power in the hands of Obama. This is were Rubio seems a bit naive. He trusts the judgement of Obama.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:36PM
I can choose bad guys pretty easily: if you stone women, throw acid in the face of little girls going to school, and indiscriminately rape, you're a bad guy.
Quartermaster| 5.3.11 @ 7:15PM
All well and good, and I agree with your judgment on such people. But, do we have a national interest going after the people that do that if they are no threat to our national interests.
I'm sure you have a facile argument or snarky retort to that, but I've seen nothing of substance as yet.
I think going into Iraq was a foolish act (as did many of my fellow Cold warriors). If going in we had simply deposed Saddam and handed the keys to someone else with the statement "don't make us come back" we might have accomplished something in the long run. Instead we got Bremer, an idiot of there ever was one, and either a permanent dependent or a minion of Iran. Dubya was very foolish there. many from his father's administration were highly critical of what he did. Brent Scowcroft was not exactly a noninterventionist, and he was only the loudest.
In AFG, we needed to insure they no longer harbored our enemies, or were capable of doing so, then left. The nation building stuff will not succeed because they have no foundation for it. Our foundation reached back to ancient Greece. Their foundation reaches back to a 7th century warlord/highwayman. It's truly idiotic to believe they will have anything like what we have, and what we have is falling apart because so many have lost any connection, intellectual or spiritual, with what gave us what we have.
Like one guy above stated, accurately, there is a difference between noninterventionism and isolationism. A very large difference.
I like Dick Cheney as a man, but he was dead wrong on the neocon invade the world/invite the world trash. We can't afford to police the world, or "going abroad seeking monster to slay." If we won't stop on our own, our finances will. And when the finances stop us, our national defense will be in serious doubt and the power vacuum in the world will be palpable.
skip| 5.3.11 @ 8:01PM
Throughout the '70s, '80s, and '90s, video footage was common of Arabs from just about every middle eastern country in the streets burning the 'stars and stripes' and shouting 'death to America' chants.
Then some actual death to America occurred in 2001. Every U.S. and European intelligence agency was in agreement Iraq had WMDs, and Saddam Hussein was aiding and abetting the terrorist groups responsible. Even the incompetent and corrupt cretins at the United Nations officially announced Iraq was in violation of 17 separate resolutions 12 years after Iraq voluntarily agreed to the resolutions after surrender in '91. While the U.S. was in Iraq again it was determined that a democratic form of government would be established.
Now in 2011 video footage is common of Arabs from just about every middle eastern country in the streets shouting chants. Not 'death to America' chants but 'we want democracy' chants.
Consider how events would have played out in the '70s, '80s, and '90s, and in 2001, and in 2011, with respect to U.S. foreign policies of noninterventionism and isolationism, as well as of George W. Bush.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 6:06AM
Scowcroft is an Arab apologist and lobbyist for the Saudis.
Jack in Wi.| 5.4.11 @ 6:34AM
Brent Scowcroft is one the finest officers to ever serve this country. He has always put America First not some other foreign entity. He was right on Iraq all the way. He didn't let his personal friendship for the Bush family get in the way of his duty to the truth and this country.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 11:59AM
The key to resolution to both of these men's views is in one phrase," A REAL THREAT to our National Interest." Intervention on the world stage, as our founding fathers made quite clearly, should only be undertaken when this condition occurs. We do not have to have a contentious and unecessary dichotomy of views on this subject. It does not have to be only two choices, isolationism or nation building. We certianly can not be policeman of the world both practically and economically. History has shown that all these approaches have led to serious disaster and incredible waste of national treasure and american lives. Our wars, first and foremost, should be fought under the condition of a vital threat to our national interest and security. Quick and limited action to attain results should be the rule rather than the exception. We should no longer pick up the tab and rebuild these countries that have indeed attacked us. We should time limit our occupations. Occupation should be the exception not the rule. Aid of arms can, under certain circumstances, be given to to true democratic revolutions..no boots, however. We should never enter a conflict without knowing the players, the entrance, and the exit. As conservatives, we need to respect the libertarian views on this subject and the spirit and wisdom within the philosophy and at the same time balance this with the practical realities of the world. That is why I welcome Rand to the debate. We need to temper our understandable desires to "help" and are tendencies to react with force when we see injustices in the world. Rand can offer a sobering warning and caution for us to first think this out before making quick actions.
Len| 5.3.11 @ 12:09PM
Which clause was that, National Interest? A rather nice vague term to justify violating the US constitution to go on using the military throughout the world, not to protect us here but to push our agenda internationally. You know like propping up dictators like Mubarak, Hussein, Syngman Rhee, etc., etc.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 1:34PM
Apparently, you did not completely read my comment and comprehend anything in it that you did read. The many writings on this subject by our founding fathers and the subsequent writings of many great Americans speak of our national interest in regards to the motivation for war. Obviously, a real threat to us is a threat to our national interest. Cutting off our trade routes and pirating our ships might ring a bell for you. My god, I am agreeing with you. Vague, indeterminable, contradictory claims of threats to our national interest and security should not be tolerated or supported. Me thinks you might be a troll. Are you? Or are you just dense and like to stir up controversy?
Len| 5.3.11 @ 2:41PM
My above comment stands. I understood what you were saying, and as I said "national interest" is an excuse to intervene where we may deem instability a problem, or come to the rescue of an ally. These actions are not authorized, and people like you can go on using isolationism as a dirty word, but it's a virtuous concept where the government of a people do not take up causes, other than those of defense and protecting trade.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 7:37PM
No, you apparently did not.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 1:45PM
futhermore, the constitution, if you had actually read it, does not break the subject of national security and national interest down when it refers to war powers and the enactment of them. Nor does it limit a threat solely to an attack on US soil and nothing else as a precursor of justification for war. You are a troll..only a proggie troll would have used the phrase propping up dicators..that's a liberal talking point not a conservative one. The US does not prop up dictators. Yes, it makes unsavory alliances with dictators sometimes for national security reasons. It does not put these dicators in power or prop them up. The people of those nations put them there and the corrupt elites and thugs in that country prop the up.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:38PM
Simon, you are a saint. Nice blogs.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:41PM
I second that emotion, and fact.
Thank you, simon.
WELL DONE.
Len| 5.3.11 @ 2:52PM
You either have your head in the sand, or don't care. We send the CIA and money to train the soldiers of other countries, we have a School of the Americas here, we even created Osama bin Laden, and lied about it. Initially our government claimed that it did not support him until after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, but it was eventually forced to admit that it had been involved with for six months prior to the invasion, and in fact may have been the cause for the invasion.
No we're not even close, and no the US constitution is very clear that it is for common defense and protection of trade and that does not somehow magically extend to "working" with dictators overseas.
Here is the US constitution:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
provide for the common Defence
That's it, but people like you will never admit that you're liars and must find imaginary powers in the US constitution, so I can only hope that those who have any appreciation for the truth will read and consider and come to the right conclusion.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 7:35PM
Really, and what would you call Pearl Harbor?
What does this phrase mean, "and Offences against the Law of Nations." Working with dictators is not an act of war...and further we do not work with them. Once again, troll or idiot. Pick one. So, you admit you are an isolationist. Well, I can not help you as you are irrational and live in a dream world. Rand himself is not an isolationist per se according to your standards. Thank God, you idiots did not rule the day in 1941. No one is advocating imaginary powers or supporting frivolous reasons to go to war. You read one word and like a good knee jerk liberal or isolationist, your off on a rant. Yes, the word national interest has been abused by politicians..that is why I said a REAL THREAT to our national security and interest. I used the trade example and pirates, jack ass, to illustrate the concept of national interest. You either did not read that far or just want to confuse, agitate, and cause dissension. Me thinks, you are a troll.
Nick| 5.3.11 @ 7:47PM
"[...] we have a School of the Americas here, we even created Osama bin Laden, and lied about it."
You know who else rails about the School of the Americas, Len? Phil Donahue, Micheal Moore, Amy bin Goodman, and others of their ilk.
Do you really want to be in the same camp as these....kooks?
Usama bin Laden was a foot-soldier in the Mujahideen. We, i.e. the U.S.A., did not create him. That is more left-wing propaganda.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 7:52PM
Thanks, Nick..this troll's irrational and misleading drivel gets tiring....
Nick| 5.4.11 @ 5:54PM
Mr. Templar,
Glad I could help!
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.11 @ 12:06PM
Simon,
well spoken, sir.
Smirking Weasel| 5.3.11 @ 1:56PM
Senator Wetback is a classic example of the modern chickenhawk-his parents ran away from their native land, rather than fight Castro, and snuck into America. Now, their big-talkin' , no actin' brat goes around shooting his mouth off about bein' tuff 'n takin no guff! Of course, he could not be personally bothered to actually do any of the 'tuff' stuff himself-hilarious an image as that is.
simon templar| 5.3.11 @ 2:19PM
Perhaps, you would rather have a modern, socialist poser set out to destroy his country whose parents were a radical, spoiled rich white girl and a father which was an African seperatist and communist who grew up with a black american communist as a mentor specially picked out by his grandparents that financed his education in an Indonesia Muslim school. I think I'll take the loud mouth as you called him. Troll.
Occam's Tool| 5.3.11 @ 2:34PM
Yes, you are a weasel, but no Gulo Gulo.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 6:30PM
Heh, I think Clinty/Timmy* has many names here, perhaps?
And whether or not it's him, only the cowardly, most profane and bigoted of men resorts to racism.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 7:15PM
Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie sees Tea Party Clint behind every bush.
I got $1000,00 that says it ain't my post Paranoid Crazed Zany Joisey Bitch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Carpe Diem.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:04PM
LOL.
You're suuuch a sweetheart.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 8:17PM
Laugh Out Louder.
You're Such A Smacked Ass.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:46PM
LOLOL.
Sweetheart.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 10:10PM
You Ain't My Sweetheart Fat Ass Joisey Bigot Pig.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:32PM
Yer so adoooooooooorable. Sweetie pooh.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 11:05PM
Yer so adllllllllllled. Sweaty Hog.
Osamas Pajamas| 5.3.11 @ 3:06PM
As many another man has observed, ideas rule the world. The triumph of American ideals worldwide clealry would obviate the impulse to war.
I refer to the unalienable and perfectly-natural and universally-valid human rights of life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of personal happiness.
The first article of private property is "the self" and all other rights are derivatives of and flow from these cardinal rights. These rights ---- The Rights of Man ---- are the gift of nature or of nature's god ---- and they belong to all human beings, everywhere.
Smuggling these ideas into the world's "closed" societies and arguing the case for them would not be easy --- but universal individual freedom is the best insurance against warlike dictatorships.
Jack in Wi.| 5.3.11 @ 5:32PM
The Constitution relegates the war making powers to the Congress, not the President. He only has the executive power once war is declared. Obama should be impeached for making war without congressional aproval. It isn't like all the chickenhawks there would not have gone along. But would have been a good debate anyhow. The Napoleanism of the modern presidency must be stopped. Rand Paul for President Ron Paul for Vice President.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 5:42PM
If Rand Paul was a HAWK he would be GREAT.
But, alas.
WilliamR| 5.3.11 @ 10:18PM
You mean a liberal internationalist.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 10:19PM
Dr.Rand Paul would then be a Neo-Chickenhawk Coward like Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie from Joisey.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:33PM
Aww shucks guys, you're just so swweeeeeeeet.
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 10:52PM
Aww shit girl, you're just so sweeeaaaatty.
The Duke| 5.3.11 @ 8:39PM
Well, every dog knows his own. Cheney never wanted differing opinions around him, so it`s safe to say that this guy is a neoCon. And he admits that Rand Paul isn`t one of them.
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 8:56PM
Personally, I think Rand Paul looks like a little beelzebub in that picture. Just look at the way he's looking at Rubio.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.3.11 @ 9:42PM
Margie,
I have to gently disaggree. I think Rubio and Rand are both fine men. Rand has a problem. His Dad is Ron Paul. "the shrink from responsibility guru.".
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:37PM
Ah come on, Tex, you don't think he's looking a bit devilish there?
OK, I'll rephrase: he looks a bit snidely whiplash there. That better? :^).
Margie| 5.3.11 @ 10:44PM
p.s. I really like Marco Rubio, and agree with you that he's a fine man.
I cannot say that I agree with you about Rand Paul, as I know he has ties to one rogue anti-war character by the name of Adam Kokesh and shares his views, which are despicable.
Adam Kokesh loves the Code Pink crowd and protested at the McCain/Palin campaign stops.
I'm not really seeing any good in this type of agreement. If he shares his daddy's views on foreign policy, he is not someone I'd want to see as President.
Maybe he's a good man who is faithful to his wife and honorable in that way. Lots of men are. My Dad's a lifelong Democrat and Union man, but he also is a good man as far as loyal to his wife and family~ hard working at age 79 and still going.
I wish him well. I just wish he were strong where it would really matter if he wanted to ever become President.
What say you? Make good sense?
:^).
Clint| 5.3.11 @ 11:03PM
RINO-CINO Chickenhawk Israel Firster Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie badmouths A Combat Marine.
" Kokesh enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1999, while still in high school in New Mexico.In 2004, he served in Fallujah. Working a checkpoint was a responsibility while in Iraq. He brought home a pistol from Iraq in 2004, violating military rules, and preventing him from returning on a second Iraq tour.Kokesh "had risen to the rank of sergeant after three-and-a-half years in the Reserves" and "was demoted to corporal and soon thereafter discharged honorably with a re-enlistment code that basically said, 'you can't re-enlist.'"Having experienced combat in Fallujah, Kokesh received the Combat Action Ribbon and the Navy Commendation Medal after his honorable discharge from active duty."
VFW position
The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars has defended the right of Kokesh and others who have been given honorable discharges to protest in uniform.
Margie| 5.4.11 @ 12:29AM
Kokesh is a punk, like you.
Anyone can do the research.
He's a Code Pink crony.
A royal loser like you.
WilliamR| 5.4.11 @ 10:12AM
Palin throws her NeoCon advisers over the cliff
http://gawker.com/#!5798241/sarah-palin-breaks-with-the-neocons
Margie| 5.4.11 @ 12:58PM
God's gonna throw anti-semites over the cliff one day.. and into the flames. It's call the Lake of Fire for those of you in Liberal Land.
WilliamR| 5.4.11 @ 6:17PM
Sarah Palin: Neocon no more
http://theweek.com/article/ind.....on-no-more
Margie| 5.4.11 @ 11:16PM
What's a Neocon, Wm. R.?
Margie| 5.4.11 @ 1:00PM
Hey Ken,
You think Rand's a fine man but you did call him a doofus the other day.
Now, I said, above that he had a beelzebub look on his face at Rubio.
Maybe I should have said he looked like a doofus?
jKR| 5.3.11 @ 9:59PM
I'm pretty sure Rubio reneged in his debate on changing social security and promised not to. Rand seems a fair bit firmer and more fiscally conservative from where I sit.
JohnB| 5.3.11 @ 10:01PM
I am with Sen. Rand Paul on this issue. The U.S. has no business bombing Libya without a Congessional declaration of war. Arguably, we shouldn't be in Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter.... U.N. resolutions do not substitute for our own Congess's declarations. And no treaty trumps the Constitution -- any such treaty, whether ratified by the Senate or not, can trump our Constitution. If our Supreme Court and President and Congress want to appeal to "international law" and to treaties -- even those duly signed and ratified -- then THAT is unconstitutional, too. The reason is that Constitutional Law cannot change except through the Constitutional Amendment process as defined in the Constitution. Therefore, any treaty that garners 2/3rd of the Senate STILL does NOT have the overwhelming majority required to revise our Constitution. As President, I would declare null and void any executive orders, bureaucratic ukases, Presidential decrees, and even Supreme Court decisions that rely upon "international law" or treaties for their so-called legitimacy. It is Constitutional originalism -- we will NOT be ruled by "treaties" and "international law." Our ONLY law is the Constitution. RAND PAUL understands this -- and THIS is the imperative that we must adhere to if we would save our Republic.
Michael Tomlinson| 5.4.11 @ 6:08AM
You may have missed it, but Congress voted in the affirmative to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.4.11 @ 12:42PM
Both Rubio and Rand are right - on some of the issues James Antle listed. Rand is right on Libya and the Constitution's requirements. Rubio is right about the fact that America cannot afford a policy of "noninterventionism" (which is a mere euphemism for isolationism); but then again, America cannot afford promiscous interventionism, either.
In any event, the answer to the implied question of this article - "What should the foreign policy of the TEA Party Movement be?" - is in the name of the movement, rather than the acronym:
Taxed Enough Already.
This whole movement was inspired and built upon a solid foundation of people who want lower taxes, less spending and smaller government. Those were the issues that brought us all together and gave us this historic victory.
Texans have a saying "Ya gotta dance with the gal that brought ya, if ya don't wanna go home alone."
It wasn't isolationists, ultra-interventionists, social conservatives, 2nd Amendment supporters, or privacy advocates who fueled this engine. It was fiscal conservatives. It was TAXES, SPENDING and SMALLER GOVERNMENT (PERIOD).
Taxed Enough Already
Therefore, if it involves lowering taxes, cutting spending or reducing the size of government, then that's where we should focus. Dance with the gal that brought us to the party.
Certainly, I hope that America's elected representatives at all levels will work on other political issues. But all of my phone calls and emails to them will be focused on lowering taxes, cutting spending and reducing the size and intrusiveness of government. After all, if the dollar collapses, the question of whether to oust Qaddafi or not will be the last thing on everyone's mind (including Rubio's mind).
So we now have a new populist movement started by the people which is rocking the Beltway. Everyone wants to ride on its coattails. Isolationists and the ultra-interventionists (neocons) are just two of the many groups that want to bend the TPM to their agenda. Both are trying to subvert the TPM and subordinate it to their proven losing agenda. But we must remember how this movement started. It was not the libertarians or any other RP-adoring isolationists who started the Tea Party movement and propelled its representatives to the Congress. Nor was it the ultra-interventionists. It was fiscal conservatives.
Taxed Enough Already
Sure, the TPM got the votes of both isolationists and ultra-interventionists. But the most important fact, a fact which we must never forget or ignore, is that the TPM got the votes of independents and moderates. These people didn't come over to the TPM because it was going to kill Qaddafi, bomb Iran, and oust the Sandinistas. Nor did they vote for the TPM because it was going to demand an isolationist foreign policy. They came over to the TPM because we focused on Lowering Taxes, Cutting Spending and Reducing the Size and Scope of Government.
Taxed Enough Already
So what does this mean for foreign policy issues? Well, in line with the Weinberger Doctrine, to which the TPM's de facto leader Sarah Palin has at least recently subscribed, if America's interests are threatened, the US should fight, and fight to win. But if crucial American interests are NOT at stake, the US should avoid conflict and use only the normal diplomatic channels.
Defense of the country is the #1 duty of the Federal Government, a fact recognized by both Rand and Rubio. But that doesn't mean a blank check for the Federal Government to INVADE any country it wishes. Defending the country and invading other countries are two different affairs.
Foreign policy is, in other words, a secondary issue for the Tea Party. Its focus is, and must remain, on FISCAL ISSUES (taxes, spending, and the size and scope of government).
Everyone is now trying to exploit the TEA Parties - homosexuals, the Christian right, RINOs, 2nd Amendment groups and lots more. But it doesn't matter if I am a social conservative, who is a Gun Owners of America member. I'm going to keep my focus on the target that got us here.
Taxed Enough Already
It's critical that we keep our eye on the fiscal ball. We gotta dance with the gal that brought us. If we do that, then we'll prove to the Independents and moderate Democrats that we'll do what we say and at the same time, since we elected conservatives, it's a pretty sure bet that other conservative issues will be positively addressed, along the way. We just must not allow any group not related to Lowering Taxes, Cutting Spending or Reducing the Size and Scope of Government, to push their agenda on the TEA Parties. We must stick with the winning issues that brought us this far.
Taxed Enough Already.
Intelligent Design| 5.4.11 @ 2:21PM
Skip the labels, such as isolationism and interventionism. Let's focus on what makes sense. It does not make sense to have our troops chasing around Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists are capable of forming a base of operations in many countries, including Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Morocco, Kenya, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It isn't realistic to think the United States can put significant forces ("boots on the ground") in all those countries. Instead, the United States should look at the core problem, which is Islam. More particularly, we should target the Muslim Brotherhood and all the Islamic terrorist organizations. We should focus on the potential for terrorists to gain access to Pakistan's and Iran's nuclear weapons. When Muslims are fighting and killing other Muslims, such as in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, we should let them. For example, the Libyan rebels have ties to al Qaeda, and Gaddafi is a monster. They are both our enemies. We should shut down all immigration to this country by Muslims, and ban Muslims from U.S. airports and airplanes. No Muslims should be allowed to serve in our government or military, at any level. We should give more military assistance to Israel, and stop giving hundreds of millions in aid to the "Palestinians". We should station about 25,000 soldiers along the Mexican border to stop infiltration by illegals of all kinds, including Muslim terrorists.
Islam is totally hostile to our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and freedom everywhere.
Francis W. Porretto | 5.5.11 @ 2:13PM
A sensible foreign policy for a freedom-oriented nation would send its forces off to war if and only if the following conditions are met:
1. The war must be winnable with the forces available.
2. The objective must be clear and specific.
3. Attainging the objective must advance or satisfy a vital national interest.
The key word in the above is, of course, vital. War involves death for some and great hardship for others. Thus, to ask fighting men to go to war implicitly says to them, "What we seek by sending you forth is worth risking all your lives to gain, and though it will assuredly cost the lives of some of you, the nation will count the expenditure, though tragic, justified."
There will always be gray areas. Operation Iraqi Freedom was a gray-area war, inasmuch as there was considerable uncertainty just how great a threat to American interests and regional peace Saddam Hussein's regime was. But the criteria above strike me as the only defensible ones into which to send the sons of a free and life-loving people.
mzk1| 5.5.11 @ 3:55PM
Well, when it comes to that, the fact that the men actually doing the fighting support the war means a lot.
It isn't hard. We were attacked by terrorists. The thing to do is to go after the state sponsers. Iraq was CLEARLY such a nation, whether or not it was the exact group that attacked us is completely irrelevant.
mzk1| 5.5.11 @ 3:52PM
He mentions that Rand mentions Robert Taft. But it's important to note the not only did Taft back FDR 100% after Pearl Harbor, but that Taft was one of the few people (Roosevelt NOT included), who cared about what was happening to the Jews in Europe. That puts "Mr. Republican" VERY far from today's paleo's. Remember that the contemporanous America First Commitee was outright anti-semitic.
jwpegler | 5.8.11 @ 9:28PM
Since they were elected...
Rand Paul has been all over the news promoting change.
Rubio has been silent.
Rubio is a follower. Raul is leader. Or Rubio is a coward and Paul is a leader.
Either way, Rubio is not speaking up and not leading.
I liked Rubio during the election, but right now I have NO respect for him at all. None.
I know a lot of pretty faces who were given the benefit of the doubt and then failed because they didn't have the intellectual bandwidth to succeed. Rubio will be the next pretty face to fail.
jgo| 5.19.11 @ 6:37PM
I'm more worried about softness on border security and going after visa over-stayers. At the very least we should be out of the "visa waiver" scams, and run proper background investigations on every applicant. And our standards on which applicants to accept are way to low and the numbers of visas way to excessive.