-
U.S. News: Obama-Kelley Meeting
May 20, 2013 | 0 comments
-
The SPLC: Big Bucks, the FRC, and Jimmy Carter
May 7, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Mark Levin Talks to the NRA
May 7, 2013 | 0 comments
-
POLITICO: RUSH LIMBAUGH MAY PART WITH CUMULUS
May 5, 2013 | 13 comments
-
The Problematic Frank Luntz’s Stockholm Syndrome
April 25, 2013 | 11 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Amazingly, Daniel Larison still doesn’t understand Ron Paul. Or the doctrine of “non-interventionism” that Larison seems to be advocating in Ron Paul Style.
Mr. Larison has responded to my post below on his dismissal of repeated interventionist policies by America’s Founding Fathers. Larison’s reply focuses on the Monroe Doctrine — a decidedly interventionist doctrine — by trying to use its language to disprove its very existence.
Let’s remember this from Congressman Paul, who approvingly quoted ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer in his book The Revolution: A Manifesto.
Scheuer is cited for saying with reference to the 9/11 attacks that the attacks “In fact (have) everything to do with what we do.” Paul goes on to say that when the U.S. meddles in the affairs of other nations it is in fact generating “blowback” — and therefore, “actions cause reactions.” Meaning — if America doesn’t interfere — there is no blowback.
Larison submits language from the Monroe Doctrine that is flatly an outright violation of what might be called the Ron Paul Doctrine as expressed by both Paul and Scheuer.
For example, Larison cites this section from the Monroe Doctrine, the bold print Larison’s:
But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.
Catch that language that Larison cites? In bold print, no less. As, amazingly, support for his case.
Here it is:
…we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.
This language from the Monroe Doctrine is an outright violation of the “Paul Doctrine.” In the world of Ron Paul, who is the United States to be getting into the business of viewing anything in Latin America as a “manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States”? In fact, historically speaking, the phrase “Yanqui Go Home” is nothing more than vindication for the Ron Paul Doctrine that the James Monroe Doctrine could only produce “blowback.” In this case: hatred for the U.S. and a drive to get the U.S. out of Latin America. Once one concedes that Latin America — or any other piece of geography outside the physical borders of the United States — somehow gives America the right to decide about whether the rulers of that geography are manifesting an “unfriendly disposition” to the United States — one is violating the Ron Paul Doctrine.
That very phrase Larison quotes in the Monroe Doctrine — “manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States” — is nothing but pure Bush or Rumsfeld “neoconservative” language written in the 1820s. It is precisely the way George W. Bush looked at Iraq. It is the way Ronald Reagan looked at Grenada and Nicaragua. That Harry Truman looked at North Korea. And Franklin Roosevelt at Europe with Hitler and the Pacific with the Japanese.
One could go on and on here, but the short of it is that the deeper Mr. Larison plunges into the actual language of the Monroe Doctrine the more foolish Ron Paul’s views and those of so-called “Paleoconservatives” look. James Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams were effectively the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s of their day.
Again.
One can have a legitimate debate about “interventionism.”
But to try and say the Founding Fathers were not interventionists is a fool’s errand.
James Monroe’s Doctrine — based on the exact language provided by Daniel Larison - being exhibit A.
View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/07/daniel-larison-ron-paul-and-th
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| 12.7.11 @ 7:32PM
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 7:40PM
" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”
Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 7:43PM
Clint...
Newsflash.
Ron Paul and The Tea Party are two different things. Tea Partiers waved Mark Levin's books at their rallies - not Ron Paul's.
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 7:57PM
I was there when Ron Paul's faction, not Ron Paul, founded the Tea Party. And it's still there.
I have met some Beck type Tea Party folks, sure--not that they read his books, but I have yet to meet one who mentioned Mark Levin--that might be a DC-only thing.
Some old ladies screaming "hands off my Medicare" calling themselves Tea Party doesn't change anything, anyway.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:24AM
Plenty of people waving Levin's book here in the Pittsburgh/Western PA area Tea Parties I went to.
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 7:50PM
Lord does reveal an interesting point, regarding the Straussian mindset, and its radical, non-conservative being.
It is indeed true that once the forefathers foisted up the Constitution, they began violating it. As a Ruling Class scrib, Lord understands this-at some level, and puts food on his plate.
The people, the historic American people, nevertheless, resisted getting involved in Europe's endless conflicts, let alone a European colony like Israel, and had to be tricked or cajoled one way or the other into various interventions from the git-go.
However, the Constitutional system, the Republic, had restraints on how far the elites could go--there were certainly no trillion dollar debt financed wars fought by girls from West Virginia during the era of the Forefather 'interventions.'
The Forefathers, being actual men, would have found such a thing disgusting.
To confuse, say Polk's land grab with invading Iraq is absurd.
And that is the trick Lord is trying to pull--he still thinks Iraq was a threat and/or in Straussian fashion, Saddam was mean to the Kurds in the 1980s Saddam was a US ally.
And then he invents a link to the founders.
Sick.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 8:00PM
C. Bowen...
No...it is Ron Paul who "invents a link to the founders." I am simply pointing out that factually he is not correct. And now even you are seeing the light.
One doesn't have to agree with interventionism. But one has to be accurate with facts. And the facts are, using Ron Paul's own definitions, the Founding Father's set this country on the path to centuries of "blowback."
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 8:06PM
No, his supporters do that and I am sure you can understand the power of myth and why they might do that. Your Straussian buddies figured out the weakness in Rightwing thought some time ago, and have developed good answers.
Paul has always been careful to properly associate himself with a past 'zeitgeist' that favored small limited government, no standing army, staying out of Europes problemes--the old Patrick Henry-Luther Martin stance melded with the better parts of the Jeffersonian wing.
But this is looking backward.
What matters is right now, and you supported a debt financed invasion of a non-threatening country, fought with women in the military, and are attempting to draw a link to the founders.
That is obscene.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 8:16PM
C Bowen...
You say...
"No, his supporters do that.."
In fact, Ron Paul says it in his book The Revolution. The chapter on Foreign Policy. Read it and weep. I have it here...sorry. Original sources are always good.
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 9:04PM
Paul is appealing to myth in an honorable way, as I explained, however badly.
You, however, appealed to the founders to rationalize your support for a debt financed invasion of a harmless country, with an army that featured girls.
That is sick and twisted and if you had honor, you would not be posting here.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 9:13PM
C Bowen...
First...Texas was once part of a "harmless country" - Mexico. Which posed no threat to the United States. So too California, Arizona etc.
By your lights, Ron Paul should not even recognize Texas much less represent it as an American state. The reason, according to the Paul Doctrine, is that it belonged to a "harmless country" that we had no business taking over...as we did when Americans flooded the Mexican territory and then took it by force. The reason we have the "illegal immigration" problem, if one believes in the Ron Paul doctrine, is very simple: Texas belongs to Mexico - and all of this is just "blowback" in Paul language.
And as to not posting here....this is the attitude of leftism. Which, C Bowen, you give every indication of being a part of.
Conservatives believe in free speech....and in Texas as an American state.
Treason| 12.8.11 @ 12:25AM
Jeffrey Lord, you are what is known as a National Socialist - for all your conservative buzz words and witless attacks on perceived "leftism," what you seek to justify is an extreme-left autocracy by means of soft-fascism. I suppose you justify your violent and evil position by claiming an allegiance to Jesus or Christianity, but who would Jesus bomb? Once again, you are sick, get over yourself.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:27AM
Project much?
Buck O'fama| 12.8.11 @ 10:20AM
Nice one, "treason." By Godwin's Law, you lose.
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 9:55AM
Had Ron Paul been President and remained true to his expressed principles during key historical periods the Louisiana Purchase would never have been made, Florida wouldn't have been joined to the US, the Southwest and West would belong to some other nation, the Confederate States would have been allowed to go their own way.
I could go on if these few examples are insufficient, but it should be obvious that Ron Paul's ideas would have led to the United Sates having little use for any flag with more than half a dozen stars.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 11:47PM
The following passage is an excerpt from Senator Robert Taft’s book, A Foreign Policy for Americans.
“War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not interfere according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country.”
http://cvrp2012.com/2011/11/20.....epublican/
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 11:05PM
Bob Taft was an early conservative awarded the title Mr Republican by his peers. Ron Paul can't honestly be compared to Bob Taft, a bigger man in every respect.
It is telling, and rather pathetic, that Ron Paul's worshipers feel the need to magnify his resume, stressing the "doctor" title and his paltry military service, associating him with conservative icons at every opportunity -- Bob Taft, Bill Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Russell Kirk, George Washington, Jefferson and other founders. How long before they add a few more -- John Galt, Vlad the Impaler, Frodo Baggins?
For the rest of us he more closely resembles another small whiny politico who lacked leadership skills -- Ross Perot. Or is it Gollum I have in mind?
James| 12.7.11 @ 7:52PM
The tea party movement is supposed to be about limiting government and getting our deficit under control. That is Ron Paul. The tea party today is not reflective of the movement that started two years ago. Mark Levin....what a joke.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 7:54PM
James...
Ron Paul has taken millions in earmarks. That is not "getting our deficit under control."
All he had to do was just say no. He refused.
C Bowen | 12.7.11 @ 8:00PM
There is nothing wrong with earmarks that would otherwise give the Executive the power to dole out money to his supporters in key districts. It's a check on power.
When Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were voting for budgets that funded abortion here and abroad year after year--now that is something to get sick over.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 8:07PM
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.
Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress.
If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1 percent of the budget. But, if you vote against all the earmarks, you don't cut one penny. That is what you have to listen to. We're talking about who has the responsibility, the Congress or the executive branch?
I'm saying, get it out of the hands of the executive branch. Just listen again about what I have said about the TARP funds. We needed to earmark every penny. Now we gave them $350 billion, no earmarks, and nobody knows..."
Dr.Ron Paul Gets It About Earmarks & Congress Having It's Responsibility Usurped By The Executive Branch.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
William R| 12.7.11 @ 8:29PM
You're just buffoon it is pathetic. No one in congress can earmark one lousy dime has been appropriated. Ron Paul votes against the appropriations. Once he loses the vote he has a duty to get some of the money his constituents send to DC via taxes. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe regarded as the most conservative member of the Senate on earmarks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttg-s5SM210
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 9:34AM
Earmarking is one reason we call Ron Paul a hypocrite. By voting against appropriations he attempts to have it both ways -- FOR tax money going to his constituents, AGAINST tax money being "wasted." It's like arguing against an expensive restaurant meal, then digging in once your friends out-vote you.
Sam| 12.8.11 @ 3:37PM
Are you claiming that if you were with a group of friends and got outvoted on where to eat dinner, that you would then not order any food in protest?
What a horrible friend.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 7:57PM
" Tea partiers in two camps: Sarah Palin vs. Ron Paul
Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that’s libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that’s culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.
The survey, an exit poll conducted by Edison Research at the massive Tax Day protest on the National Mall, found that the attendees were largely hostile to President Barack Obama and the national Democratic Party — three-quarters believe the president “is pursuing a socialist agenda.”
Yet they aren’t enamored of the Republican Party as an alternative. Overall, three out of four tea party attendees said they were “scared about the direction” of the country and “want to send a message to both political parties.”
The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who “best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement” — former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.
Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.
Paul’s thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values — the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.
When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two — with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent. "
I'm A Member Of The Valley Forge Tea Party Patriots, A Tea Party Patriots Group Around Valley Forge.
At least, Two of Our Organizers And Many Of Our Members Are Dr.Ron Paul Supporters.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa And In Valley Forge.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 8:02PM
" Leaders of Ohio tea party groups endorse Ron Paul.
Calling him the "singular defender of liberty" in the GOP field, about 30 leaders of Ohio tea party groups this week endorsed U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas for the Republican presidential nomination.
The leaders, stressing they were endorsing Paul as individuals and not on behalf of groups they represent, said in a press release they are "tired of typical Republican establishment candidates whosw rhetoric do not match their record."
Referring to Paul as a fighter "against big government in Washington for over 40 years," the tea party leaders said, "Ron Paul's record of fiscal discipline is unmatched. In 12 congressional terms he has never voted for a tax increase. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a bailout. He has never voted for raising the debt ceiling."
Among prominent signers of the release endorsing Paul: Joe Bozzi, co-founder of the Ohio Freedom Alliance and Ohio Liberty Council; Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law; and Chris Littleton, co-founder, Ohio Liberty Council and board member of the Cincinnati Tea Party."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa And In Ohio.
Jack in Wi| 12.7.11 @ 8:18PM
Jeff Lord gets destroyed everytime he writes some more nonsense. Jeff grow up you don't know what you are talking about. Non intervention is the traditional foreign policy of this country. George Washington was against entangling alliances. Jefferson did not want to trade with warring powers lest we get involved in their battles. John Quincy Adams wrote eloquintly about staying in our own garden.
The Monroe doctrine was just a statement that we wanted no European power to run the hemesphere, we live in any more. It was nothing but a diplomatic statement not a declaration of war.
A few great non interventionists of both sides of the asile were Grover Cleveland, William Jennigs Bryan, Mark Twain, Robert M. Lafollette Sr. and Jr., George Norris, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Robert Taft, Alfred Regnery, Robert McCormick, Hiram Johnson, William Borah, Burton K. Wheeler, Eugene V Debbs, Victor L. Berger, and Joseph and John Kennedy.
voltara| 12.7.11 @ 8:30PM
More desperate lies against Ron Paul by the Spectator. Another old dinosaur stuck in the tar pit which hasn't realized it yet.
Sea Cucumber| 12.7.11 @ 9:06PM
Larison has updated his blog post with his response.
Keep trying Jeff!
Ed| 12.7.11 @ 9:23PM
Funny. No real responses that are coherent (I know, par for the Paultard course). History doesn't match up to what Paultards believe-bring up a Reagan quote from before Paul went too far out of wack. Bring up the Monroe Doctrine and the Barbary Pirates. What, never heard of em, pirates aren't nations. Too dumb to know that we were fighting African states. Bring up Stormfront and the neo-nazi newsletter editor-huh, what, you must be a jew.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 10:48PM
Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 10:07AM
I imagine Reagan felt real bad about freeing Grenada by direct intervention. Did he ever get around to apologising for it? Or for building-up our Navy? For putting missiles in Europe? For pursuing policies that ultimately broke the Soviet Union?
I knew Ronald Reagan, I supported Ronald Reagan's policies, I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. And believe me, Ron Paul is no Ron Reagan.
Sam| 12.8.11 @ 3:40PM
The soviet union broke itself fighting the US funded and armed precursors to the taliban in Afganistan.
It would seem that their imperialistic overreaches combined with a rapidly devaluing currency brought about their downfall.
Sound familiar?
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 10:30PM
WWRPD? What would Ron Paul do? Chicken-out, I expect.
Paul and the Paulites continually compare him with Reagan, but Ron Paul is no Ron Reagan, nor ever will be. And Sam is either ignorant of history or deliberately obfuscating to promote his cult-leader.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 11:30PM
Chicken out? Ha! Us non-interventionist aren't the ones fretting and hand-wringing about every little pissant foreign country like a bunch of skirt wearing Chicken Littles. You really don't want to talk about who the "chickens" are in this debate 'fraidy cat.
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 11:23PM
Regarding The Newsletter.
Asked And Answered In The 2008 Presidential Election.
Talk To Wolf Blitzer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Sea Cucumber| 12.7.11 @ 9:32PM
I thought it was nice of Jeff to recognize FDR and Harry Truman as his intellectual forebears in regards to foreign policy. If only more movement conservatives were so honest.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.7.11 @ 10:05PM
Right...Supporting Hitler's invasion of America was a good idea! What was I thinking!
Clint| 12.7.11 @ 10:46PM
Dr. Ron Paul voted with the majority for the original Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in Afghanistan.
Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.8.11 @ 10:10AM
---Dr.Ron Paul,
" I would ask Congress for A Declaration of War against Iran, if necessary.---
This is why I consider the word "if" the biggest word in the English language. It can cover a huge amount of weaseling.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 8:56AM
Hitler invaded America? How did I miss that? Must have been in that history textbook written by Jeffrey Lord. You know, beside the part about no one other than a Democrat or a Republican ever being elected President.
Lord, if you are going to keep writing, get yourself a fact checker.
Jeffrey Lord - The Real One| 12.8.11 @ 9:09AM
Red...
Ahhhh...You seem not to know about the Nazi sub landing agents on Long Island? The plot to blow up the "Horseshoe Curve" - railroad tracks in Pennsylvania over which troop trains were running? Yes...Hitler was here....the saboteurs were caught, some executed...they were here Red.
Historical fact is a bummer.
Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 7:00PM
Jeffrey, you said "invasion." When did Hitler "invade" America? Words mean things. Germany, which isn't that populous of a country anyway, was already overextended on two fronts. There was never the slightest threat that they were going to invade and subdue the US mainland.
Besides, Sea Cuc. said something about FDR and Truman and you responded with some remark about Hitler. How was that even related?
I took it as typical interventionist hyperbole which y'all frequently resort to since the facts on the ground don't justify your hysterical alarmism. Normally with regard to Germany it goes something like this: "If we hadn't ... blah, blah, blah ... we would all be speaking German right now." Umm ... no we wouldn't be for the reason stated above. This is of a kind with the statement regarding Islam that "We'll all be praying to Mecca unless we ... blah, blah, blah." Umm ... no we want. This kind of hyperbolic nonsense and rhetorical escalation has no place in a rational adult conversation.
Sea Cucumber| 12.8.11 @ 9:07AM
Jeff, I think even you realize that even if Hitler intended to invade the United States (hint: he didn't), Nazi Germany had no means of carrying out any such ambition.
Ed| 12.7.11 @ 9:44PM
That update of Larison's doesn't make any sense. Ignoring the actual words of the Doctrine, it somehow respects sovereignty to order other countries not to come into our hemispere even if invited by those other sovereign nations we are respecting. How does that work?
Steve Teters| 12.7.11 @ 10:23PM
Dang it, google alerts did it to me again! I need to know how to filter out Lord's articles so I can read coherent ones written by my Golden Retriever.
Steve Teters| 12.7.11 @ 10:23PM
Dang it, google alerts did it to me again! I need to know how to filter out Lord's articles so I can read coherent ones written by my Golden Retriever.
Bob K.| 12.7.11 @ 10:34PM
Seriously folks. This is a real stretch of the Monroe Doctrine. Mr. Lord should go back to the drawing board on this. Everybody knows what Paul's stance on interventions is. The questions here are what is Mr. Lord's stance when they are necessary and how does he justify them.
Does anyone recall FDR mentioning the Monroe Doctrine (after Pearl Harbor almost exactly 70 years ago) when telling the American Public that a State of War existed between the USA and Japan?
Marsho| 12.7.11 @ 10:42PM
"But to try and say the Founding Fathers were not interventionists is a fool's errand."
Perhaps it is, but the Founding Fathers did several other things that were unconstitutional, like the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Bob S.| 12.7.11 @ 11:23PM
Uh, can we distinguish between the constitution and what some - not all - of the so called founding fathers did?
That's the point.
Yes, your practice is supposed to live up to your principles, but just because it doesn't, does not automatically void the principles.
That seems to be Mr. Lord's problem with Congressman Paul's position.
Treason| 12.8.11 @ 12:14AM
You get a "10" for your mental gymnastics. You're desperately trying to find an excuse to justify your desire to control other people's lives. You believe that your masters are also the masters of the rest of the world - the problem is: the rest of the world doesn't recognize your master and you’re hoping for a little slave-on-slave violence to teach them a lesson. You’re sick. Get over yourself.
aware| 12.8.11 @ 6:18AM
"One can have a legitimate debate about "interventionism."".....Yes, one could, but not with you in the debate. That you are a petulant hack is bad enough but you look like the Wiley Coyote with your latest Acme device always blowing up in your face. Your credibility flatlined some time ago.
Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:34AM
Clint, the Robo Posting Ru Paul Acolyte, Quotes Reagan:
Ronald Reagan,
" Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.
In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
You're so amusing. All of you isolationist (forget calling you "non-interventionists") fools have not ONE CLUE about how the real world works. And you WOULD, if you didn't, like lefties, re-write history to suit your narrative. Let's try THIS, shall we:
"In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."..."American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas Jefferson Papers,"
But I'm sure if we leave THEM alone, they'll leave US alone, right Clint? It must've been that we allowed Jews in the country at the time that pissed the Berbers off, since there was no official State of Israel for you to blame.
Buck O'fama| 12.8.11 @ 10:27AM
Ron Paul earmarks for just one year (2009):
http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma.....or-fy2009/
cfountain72 | 12.8.11 @ 4:14PM
Con Chef (NB),
I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that "Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman" is not a threat to the US anymore. The fact that he (or the regime he represented) was attacking US-flagged ships in the would not seem to have much bearing on our current situation. As it applies to Ron Paul (the apparent bane of your very existence), he would ask Congress for proper war declaration and/or use Letter of Marque and Reprisal. As best as I can tell, we didn't leave troops in Tripoli for the next 50 years to occupy their land after we had taken care of the problem.
Now, are you implying that all Mooslim's think the same as the Barbary pirates, and as such, they all want to kill all of us Infidels. To which I might wonder, what pray tell are the 5 million+ Muslims living in the US waiting for? Or better yet, what are the 1 billion+ Muslims worldwide waiting for?
As far as I can tell when I look at the ledger, we have killed far more of them than they have killed of Americans. So how much more blood will have to be spilled before you are satisfied?
Mark G.| 12.8.11 @ 2:59PM
Regarding earmarks...he is a representative elected by his district to represent them. He is playing by the rules of the sham, he actually asks for over the top stuff to prove how pointless the system is. He votes against it yet it passes and his district gets the fruits of a spoiled lot in Congress and Dr. Paul gets reelected. If he excepted nothing and everyone else did he would be voted out of office. He is just exposing a corrupt system by expoiting it in hopes that is will change. That is how i see it. I also think your interventional neocom foriegn policy is fine when you have a thriving well republic that is fiscally able to help the world through it's intervention. The USA is bankrupt and running about telling peeps how great we are, do like us, be like us we are the model to emulate. Laughable really when we are going broke, are indebt up to our eyeballs and instead of looking around are already blind to the dangers that have befallen us, making the grave mistake of thinking we are getting out of it. We are being set up to fall, and our wealth redistributed, our country takenover from within and for our own good will give freely our soveignty away. Unless we see the change Ron Paul represents or someone like him, cause the DNC/GOP are both draing the sewers.
Earle Belle| 12.8.11 @ 7:16PM
Return Of The War Party?
http://www.theamericanconserva.....r-party-2/
Ron Paul: Israel “Our Best Friend”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....FZpL8F4FgU
Earle Belle| 12.8.11 @ 7:17PM
Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideC...../id/420247
Earle Belle| 12.8.11 @ 7:17PM
Ron Paul’s Mainstream Foreign Policy:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....ts/249081/
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12.....or-empire/
Dwayne Stovall | 12.9.11 @ 6:22PM
All I can say is wow...You are no where near the mark. Why don't you listen to the correct assessment of the Monroe Doctrine.
http://mikechurch.com/Today-s-.....ctors.html