The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Larison Stumbles Again

Text Size

Larison Stumbles Again

By Jeffrey Lord on 12.8.11 @ 9:15AM

OK.

Now it’s hilarious.

Here’s Mr. Larison again. (Scroll down to his update if you are still keeping tabs.) Let me bold his key phrases that repeatedly result in his chasing-his-tail posts.

“Monroe held that the U.S. would regard any attempt to extend a monarchical system into our hemisphere as an unfriendly act, because Monroe and Adams were aware that the Restoration monarchies were actively suppressing liberal and republican governments in Europe. The fear was…”

1. According to Ron Paul Doctrine…who was Monroe to hold anything about any country outside U.S. borders? Blowback, don’t you know? So immediately Larison admits that Monroe was sticking the American nose in a place it didn’t belong.

2. The U.S. would regard? Again, under the Paul Doctrine we are to stay within our own borders – period. It is not for the U.S. to “regard” anything going on in a foreign country.

3. “Our hemisphere”? Who died and gave the Western Hemisphere to James Monroe? Or the United States? Under the Ron Paul Doctrine the U.S. has no right whatsoever to think of the Western Hemisphere as “ours.”

4. “Unfriendly act?” Did Canada invade the U.S.? Peru? Russia? Persia? Invasion, under the Paul Doctrine, would be an unfriendly act. Anything else is not our business – we don’t intervene there, they don’t intervene here.

5. Restoration monarchies were “actively suppressing” governments in Europe? The answer of the Paul Doctrine would be …. “So what?” Not our business. The “fear was”? What fear? That Restoration monarchies were going to invade the United States? If Iran can’t attack America in 2011, how could “Restoration monarchies” invade America in the 1820s? Monroe and company were just neocon paranoids according to the Paul Doctrine.

The problem here is obvious.

Mr. Larison cannot apply his Ron Paul doctrines retroactively without looking foolish. And trying to apply them today is more than foolish — it’s dangerous.

View all comments (86) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 9:25AM

Don't worry. Those paradoxes will be solved by a quote from Ronald Reagan and the standard Paultard sticking of fingers into one's ears and going nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you.

Jack in Wi| 12.8.11 @ 10:02AM

More drooling idiocy from Jeff Lord and his pals. When Monroe issued his doctrine ths USA had a tiny army and small navy. No way in hell did he threaten anyone. He said that the hemisphere was now independent of Europe and wanted to stay that way. England, Spain, Portugal, and France had just got their asses kicked by their former colonies who now had independence. The policy of this country was non intervention, under both Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincey Adams. They didn't threaten anyone with a war period. They had no authority to do it under the Constitution.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:12AM

But we did project our force from this country to the Mediterranean in the example of the Barbary Wars ingnored by Paultards.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:15PM

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."

" Congress explicitly authorized military action by Presidents Jefferson and Madison. Congress passed legislation in 1802 to authorize the President to equip armed vessels to protect commerce and seamen in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and adjoining seas. The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port. Additional legislation in 1804 gave explicit support for ‘warlike operations against the regency of Tripoli, or any other of the Barbary powers."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 9:40AM

For the eventual torrent of Paultards who're sure to swarm to this post like bugs to a zapper, I just wanna say that 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 Paultards? 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.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:27PM

Apparently, Jefferson had some kind of religious hang up about jews.

Thomas Jefferson To John Adams, October 13, 1813

To compare the morals of the Old, with those of the New Testament, would require an attentive study of the former, a search through all it's books for it's precepts, and through all its history for its practices, and the principles they prove. As commentaries, too, on these, the philosophy of the Hebrews must be enquired into, their Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sohar, Cosri, and their Talmud must be examined and understood, in order to do them full justice. Brucker, it should seem, has gone deeply into these repositories of their ethics, and Enfield, his epitomizer, concludes in these words: "Ethics were so little studied among the Jews, that, in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties. From the law of Moses were deduced 613 precepts, which were divided into two classes, affirmative and negative, 248 in the former, and 365 in the latter. It may serve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophy among the Jews in the Middle age, to add that of the 248 affirmative precepts, only three were considered as obligatory upon women, and that in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient to fulfill any one single law in the hour of death; the observance of the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase the felicity of the future life. What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit! It is impossible to collect from these writings a consistent series of moral Doctrine." Enfield, B. 4. chapter 3. It was the reformation of this "wretched depravity" of morals which Jesus undertook. "

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 4:35PM

Yes, Clint. Its been OUR fault, ALL along.

You're an f-ing joke. You & your Stormfront buddies can bend this shit all you want. It wasn't f-ing Jews that were pirating ships & holding US sailors for ransom because they were goys, simpleton.

Washington had quite a nice opinion of the Jews. And half letter you posted has Jefferson quoting another scholar. Not Jefferson himself. It doesn't say what TJ thinks about Jews in general, does it? But your level of reading comprehension is that of a 3rd grader, so I'm not surprised.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 9:52AM

Paultards don't even realize we were battling states at the time, not just guys with peglegs who go arr. Then, once their stupidity is pointed out, they'll clamor how, if Paul had been transported back, he would have mercilessly put down the Barbary Pirates. Then, transported to the WWII era, he would have been studiously neutral as Hitler invaded and conquered Europe (no Lend/Lease for RP, he's neutral) until such time as some nation declared formal war on us.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 9:58AM

Ed...

You have the game. Exactly. And, I would add....why is Ron Paul a Congressman from Texas? After all, those neo-con American hordes invaded a Mexican territory and then forcibly took it. Shouldn't we just give Texas back...apologize...and come home to the original 13 colonies? Oops...actually, they belonged to the Indians before those British interventionists arrived...maybe we should just all climb back on the boats and go back to whence we came?

They make no sense by their own standards, as you point out.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:32PM

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."

Ronald Reagan,
"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."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Tom| 12.8.11 @ 4:55PM

Herr Klint, since a common mark of insanity is the repeated attempt to do the same thing even though it has always failed miserably in the past, your continued use of that Reagan quote from the 1970s to impress us definitely puts you over the line.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:04AM

"According to Ron Paul Doctrine…who was Monroe to hold anything about any country outside U.S. borders? Blowback, don't you know?"

Lord, you don't think we've suffered from blowback in the Middle East??

Even you're not that stupid.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 10:11AM

William R...

If that's the measure, everything from our illegal immigration problem with Mexico to our Indian wars was a result of blowback...we were here, and we didn't belong here, we were here...and we were resented. So...are you leaving? With a name like "William" I assume your ancestors came from somewhere across the Atlantic...are you going back to stop the blowback caused by your presence? This is a silly argument....Of course there's blowback from the Middle East...but there was blowback as noted above by ConChef (NB) in 1785 - when we had exactly no troops in the Middle East.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:14AM

Wasn't the Revolutionary War caused by blowback as well. We weren't a country. We had no constitution. We had no right to make a move for independence from England. Why didn't we just sit still and shut up.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:50PM

Take It Up With The CIA And The 9/11 Commission.Israel Firster Flunkie Stooge.

" The CIA and the 9-11 Commission Report and various experts on the middle east have written on violent attitude of radical Muslims; that our presence there in the region with military bases incites passions that radicals have used to recruit. "

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:21AM

You didn't answer my question Lord. You just reflected and dodged and weaved.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 10:27AM

William R...

I answered it directly. Of course there's blowback from being in the Middle East. But you dodged mine: there is blowback right here in America because, by your lights, we were founded by British interventionists and then proceeded to intervene in places like Mexico...to follow your logic we all have to leave...Right?

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:35AM

No Lord. When the European settlers arrived North America was still for the most part a wasteland. No cities, town, roads, or even the wheel. Yes, Indians or native Americans were pushed aside by a superior civilization. Was it right?? Well every place in the world has been pushed aside at what time or another. Now civilizatin has evolved.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 10:57AM

William R...

In other words, as long as you personally benefit, intervention was just fine. You're here. Now, though, it's not so good. That, William, is called a double-standard. And it's a big one. In short, your beliefs are situational. Did the Indians think us superior? Hardly. But using your own belief system we could make the same claim for "pushing aside" Arabs because Western civilization has evolved and left them behind. The point: You don't believe a word you are saying, because when it comes to applying your own standards to you...you won't stand for it.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 11:18AM

Lord, you're trying to compare 1607 with 2011. Sorry, but it's dumb. Explorers. Navigation was a new technology. Advanced civilizations sailed the seas. Spain England and France were very advanced.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 11:42AM

The world is smaller than ever with weapons more powerful than ever. Somehow, that makes isolationism more possible in the Paultard world.

Paul Bot| 12.8.11 @ 12:22PM

After it is all over Ron Paul will give the best explanation of why it is America's fault. It is extremely sad that the Paultards weren't around to lecture the Founding Fathers on original intent. We could have avoided a lot of problems.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:59PM

" 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.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 1:56PM

Do Your Homework.

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 3:35PM

William R.

Let me quote someone named Ron Paul on your point that one can't compare 1607 with 2011:

"If the Founders' advice is acknowledged at all, it is dismissed on the grounds that we no longer live in their times. The same hackneyed argument could be used against any of the other principles the Founders gave us. Should we give up the First Amendment because times have changed? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights? ...The principles enshrined in the Constitution do not change. "

In other words, whether its 1776 or 2011, the principles are the same. And whether its 1607 or 2011, ditto. Even Ron Paul disagrees with you. All I'm saying is that Mr. Paul's description of the Founder's principles has been much less than accurate.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:07AM

CIA Bin Laden Chief Michael Scheuer: We were attacked because of our government

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 10:13AM

See quote above, simpleton. They hated us BEFORE we "meddled" in their affairs.

"Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be forwever a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must always remain in the infancy of knowledge."...Cicero

Describes Paultards & regressives perfectly. Perpetual children.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 2:01PM

Take It Up With The CIA And The 9/11 Commission.Israel Firster Flunkie Stooge.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 4:40PM

I don't need to "take it up" with anyone, dumbshit. I've got the words of their ambassador, from historical record, telling our delegation why they make war on us.

READ CAREFULLY AGAIN, YOU F-ING IDIOT! THIS PRE-DATES 9-11:

"Upon inquiring "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador replied:

Now, I know YOU probably don't understand that. But I'm sure the normal folks do.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:17AM

In addition, even granting credibility to Scheuer, we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia and are there at the invitation of its rulers. Do Paultards suggest that we leave that nation and the ME entirely because there are factions that say get out? There are terrorist groups big and small all over the world-do they get to control our foreign policy by threat and where does the Paultard draw the line?

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 2:06PM

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer, Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,

" On Iran, The President Should,
Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.

3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.

4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:18AM

Oh, that's right, the Paultard will pursue isolationism even though the world is smaller than ever and the weapons are bigger than ever. Didn't work in WWII (which the Paultards will tell you we started) and won't work now.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:19AM

You're too stupid to even know what isolationism means.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:19AM

No they didn't. We really didn't have any enemies in the Middle East before the creation of Israel.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 10:31AM

William R...

Have you never heard of Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem...the Arab leader who was in Hitler's corner...before Israel ever existed? Hello?

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 10:58AM

As I stated earlier. Paultards are like regressives. If the history doesn't fit their narrative, they either ignore, lie or obfuscate it.

Tom| 12.8.11 @ 4:46PM

Not to mention the fact that Turkey fought with Germany and Austria in World War I.

But, hey, Paultards never allow facts to get in the way of their ideology.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:24AM

Actually, rulers in the ME were happily aligned with Hitler (hint: this predates the founding of Israel). Does that count as being an enemy?

Mark in LA| 12.8.11 @ 1:20PM

Did they regard America as their enemy? No, they wanted the British out of the Middle East but were not an enemy of the US regardless of whi they were aligned with. They wanted Hitler's help in getting rid of the British and they probably hated the Jews but that is not the same an an enemy to America.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 2:13PM

Do Your Homework.

" Avraham Stern and his followers announced that

“The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:28AM

They were all aligned with Hitler?? Good gravy, you're dumber than a load of bricks.

Ed| 12.8.11 @ 10:36AM

As with the Barbary states, you might want to read a little history. I know that's not a Paultard strong suit but learn a little.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 10:36AM

William R...

Seriously, William. Obviously you are unaware.

Maybe this will help in understanding the Arabs and Hitler...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Tom| 12.8.11 @ 4:49PM

Billy-Boy your sorry excuse for a Paultard mind is so captured by Herr Kult Fuhrer's nonsense that you can't even recognize a simple fact of history.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:30AM

No entangling alliances (19th century)

President Thomas Jefferson extended Washington's ideas in his March 4, 1801 inaugural address: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Jefferson's phrase "entangling alliances" is, incidentally, sometimes incorrectly attributed to Washington.[2]

In 1823, President James Monroe articulated what would come to be known as the Monroe Doctrine, which some have interpreted as non-interventionist in intent: "In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."

After Tsar Alexander II put down the 1863 January Uprising in Poland, French Emperor Napoleon III asked the United States to "join in a protest to the Tsar."[3] Secretary of State William H. Seward declined, "defending 'our policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,'" and insisted that "[t]he American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference."[3]

The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 11:04AM

Ok, I know you're a Paultard, which means you're just barely smarter than the average regressive, but surely you saw that big post I made above that blew your insipid worldview out of the water, right?

Here, in case you're blind:

I guess we should've refrained from our "militirism" when seeking to trade with other nations. All global commerce should've ceased at that very moment.

I've never seen a group of more idiotic fools, other than regressives, in my life.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 11:14AM

Kid, you're a punk. Classic Israel Firster.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 11:38AM

Wow. You sure showed me! You're a classic bigot. Get bent, loser. Go stick your head back in the sand with the rest of your ilk. Or back up your tuchus.

Nice refutation, by the way. You're just SO SMART!

Tom| 12.8.11 @ 4:50PM

Thus speaketh, Wilhelm R. Klink.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 2:26PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
“Our military’s purpose is to defend our country, not to police the
Middle East.

“As the President prepares to send even more support to Egypt, we should
be reminded that it was our foreign aid that helped Mubarak retain power
to repress his people in the first place. Now we have to deal with the
consequences of those decisions, yet we keep repeating the same mistakes.

“I am not the only one who can see the absurdities of our foreign
policy. We give $3 billion to Israel and $12 billion to her enemies.
Most Americans know that makes no sense.

“We need to come to our senses, trade with our friends in the Middle
East (both Arab and Israeli), clean up our own economic mess so we set a
good example, and allow them to work out their own conflicts.”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Baudy| 12.9.11 @ 12:35AM

Who knows why you think the Barbary Wars refute anything. They weren't an intervention, they were a response to a direct attack on American citizens. Contrary to your delusions, non-interventionists don't want to abrogate America's right to self-defense. You might want to also note that Jefferson first resorted to diplomatic tactics, including negotiations, before deciding on military action. What would McCain do?

9thID| 12.8.11 @ 10:31AM

Ever wonder why when Paul-estinians swarm unto a blog, you start to wonder if you stumbled into HuffPo?
General Points of Commonality Among Liber-als & Liber-tarians (Libertines):
- Revisionist history
- Self-appointed intelligentsia, elitism
- Amoral, Atheist, Agnostic
- Isolationist
- Cult of personality
- Anti-Semitism (it’s those evil Jewish bankers!)
- Conspiracy theorists, e.g. 9-11 Trutherism, etc...
I probably missed a few, but you get the idea...

William R| 12.8.11 @ 10:41AM

You don't even know what isolationism means. Was the father of modern conservatism Russell Kirk an isolationist when he said this at the Heritage Foundation twenty years ago"??

"True, we did not suffer a long war in the deserts of Kuwait and Iraq. But we must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States -- even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq.

In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary; while the Soviet Union, by virtue of its endeavors to mediate the quarrel in its later stages, may pose again as the friend of Moslem lands. Nor is this all: for now, in every continent, the United States is resented increasingly as the last and most formidable of imperial systems.

In this century, great empires have collapsed: the Austrian, the German, the British, the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italian, and the Japanese. The Soviet empire now languishes in the process of dissolution. "Imperialism" has become a term of bitter reproach and complaint; all this within my own lifetime.

American Empire. But there remains an American Empire, still growing -- though expanding through the acquisition of client states, rather than through settlement of American populations abroad. Among the client states directly dependent upon American military power are Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Israel, and El Salvador; and until the withdrawal of American divisions from Germany for service in Arabia, Germany, too, was a military client. Dependent upon American assistance of one kind or another, and in some degree upon American military protection, are the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and Panama; and also, in the Levant, Egypt and Jordan, and formerly Lebanon. Now Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are added to the roster of clients. I hardly need mention America's earlier acquisitions: Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgins, and lesser islands. I refrain from mentioning America's economic ascendancy, through foreign aid or merely trade, over a great deal more of the world. In short, although we never talk about our empire, a tremendous American Empire has come into existence -- if, like the Roman Empire, in a kind of fit of absence of mind. No powerful counterpoise to the American hegemony seems to remain, what with the enfeebling of the U.S.S.R. "

http://users.etown.edu/m/mcdonaldw/Lect321.html

After 9/11 radical got control of our foreign policy. They drove the country over a cliff. There's nothing conservative about them. In 2005 William F Buckley was asked by George Will if Bush Cheney foreign policy was conservative. He replied, it's anything but conservative.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 11:06AM

I love when neo Chamberlain libertarians try to tell conservatives about how to be conservative.

William R| 12.8.11 @ 11:15AM

Russell Kirk libertarian. You're delusional.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 11:40AM

I was referring to YOU, not Mr. Kirk. You're a dipshit.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 2:59PM

His post was almost entirely a Kirk quote which flies in the face of neo con policy. Tell us again how "conservative" you are.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 4:42PM

Great. Another libertarian who thinks their the arbiter of what's "conservative." You people are a trip.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 5:59PM

Wrong Bucko. I am a political anarchist because politics is a game of criminals and their dupes, like you, dupe. You wouldn't understand because you are a dupe.

I'll just give up before you hit me with a "yo momma".

Tom| 12.8.11 @ 5:12PM

"libertarianism, properly understood, is as alien to American conservatives is is communisim."

Russel Kirk, "The Politics of Prudence," page 170.

Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 6:41PM

There is some truth to what Kirk says, but Kirk was a conservative and he opposed interventionism. He opposed the first Gulf War and got called bad names by the neocons for suggesting American foreign policy was too beholden to Israel. Interventionism is opposed by libertarians AND authentic conservatives. It is supported by radicals.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 12:58PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 1:10PM

Another un-related, un-informed cyber fart from Clint. Shocking.

Clint| 12.8.11 @ 2:33PM

The Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Flunkie Stooge Con Job wrote,
"I love when neo Chamberlain libertarians try to tell conservatives about how to be conservative."

Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit.
Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 4:56PM

Yet another canned cyber fat.

Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 6:36PM

Con Chef, you wouldn't know conservatism if it bit you on the rear. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a paleoconservative (a.k.a. a real conservative) and I oppose interventionism BECAUSE I'm a conservative. Interventionism is a radical Jacobin like ideology that has America as an ideological state with a duty to safeguard the world. It is no coincidence that the first neo"cons" were Trotskyites. Trotsky yearned for worldwide revolution with the USSR as the ideological state bringing enlightenment to the rest of the us. The analogy is one to one, and if you can't see it you're dense. Support your radical interventionism all you want, but please do not lecture me about conservatism.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 7:41PM

Nor should you presume to lecture me, sir. You don't know about me or my views, or how they were formed.

I believe that the best defense is a good offense. We have over 70% of our international commerce that comes, by sea, TO us & FROM other nations. Those routes & interests need to be protected. We ain't eh only people with a blue water navy who do this. But boats don't have tank treads. We have interests in other parts of the world that are important ot our economy. And we have many more strategic interests in which we are ALLOWED, by foreign governments, to build & maintain bases.

On the commerce end of this, I would love nothing more than to starve OPEC by drilling ALL our own oil & natural gas & even exporting it. That would go a great way to reducing our need to keep AS MANY troops in the mid east as we do.

And the same would hold true even when NOT talking about energy. Unions, eco pukes & onerous regulations have destroyed what used to be the most productive economy/society history has ever seen. And because of that, we rely on as many imports as we do. However, if we were to fix ALL of that, & turn it around in the same way we could the energy biz, then we'd also be EXPORTING alot of goods. Trade routes must be protected.

As for strategic planning, its folly to believe that there aren't nation states that're JUST as committed to our destruction as any terror group. Amd MANY of those nations FUND those terror groups & give them sanctuary. Let's be honest, Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran. It may as well be a unit of the IRG or Quds. We have a blue water building China & at BEST, given the current unrest there due to the undoubtedly hinky elections. an unstable Russia.

I'm a student of history. Athens retreated within herself while Philip encroached on her. And Demosthenes stood & warned the men of Athens about it. And he was ignored. Athens was never again what it was, & Demosthenes offed himself shortly after Alexander came to power because he'd spoken against HIM as well. Read the Philippics. And learn of the folly of isolationism.

Just as these libertarians are not the arbiters of conservatism, nor are you. Nor am I. You asked me not to lecture you about conservatism. I wasn't even addressing you to begin with. I believe this nation hasn't had the balls to acutally FIGHT a war since August of 1945. And I agree that "nation building" is a load of crap. But our enemy is more asymetrical than it has been in the era of nation state vs nation state.

Red Phillips | 12.8.11 @ 8:19PM

"We have over 70% of our international commerce that comes, by sea, TO us & FROM other nations. Those routes & interests need to be protected..."

Many countries rely on the US for grain. Do they get to/need to station troops here to ensure the free flow of grain? Also, many nations get a lot of their goods by sea, yet only America spends a trillion a year on defense. If this is true for the US why isn't it also true for China, Japan, Russia, etc.? Yet none of them even spend 100 billion.

Baudy| 12.9.11 @ 12:24AM

The irony is that 'isolationists' tend to favor prudent cooperation, while the 'non-isolationists' call for things like booting ambassadors and imposing trade embargoes. It's the internationalist bullies who have isolated America, not Ron Paul and co.

SteveJ| 12.8.11 @ 11:34AM

Mr. Lord seems to be inferring that since the Monroe Doctrine is not the Paul doctrine, it must belong in the boardroom of neocon inc.

I think at the end of the day the difference between leftist thought and Conservative thought lies in an understanding of what Constitutional Democracy actually is.

It has been my impression that leftists, and I include neoconservatives in this, don’t understand the actual form of government we have or how it came about. The Founding Fathers most certainly did. And I think this understanding has some repercussions regarding your enthusiasm for intervention in other places.

Land reform and the development of private property were the building blocks of freedom. It is property owners who banded together to form real Parliaments with real power. And it is private property that is necessary for the real diffusion of power that causes a real checks and balances system. To start forming these things you need stability that is provided by an Absolute Monarch.

The general progression in Europe and Japan and by extension Korea was Absolute Monarchy progressing to Constitutional Monarchy progressing to Constitutional Democracy. The United States itself came out of a Constitutional Monarchy -- not a dictatorship.

The idea that you can go from dictatorship to democracy to Constitutional Democracy would have been rejected by the Founding Fathers. (The Federalist Papers makes the case that democracy is worse than dictatorship.) Yet these appear to be the political objectives that a lot of Republicans and Democrats want to pursue in foreign policy.

For whatever reason, the necons i.e. liberals never appreciated the fact that Germany and Japan, unlike Vietnam and Iraq (and a host of other places) backslid into dictatorship and only for a brief period of time. Japan embarked on something known as the Miji Restoration during the 1860s -- and used as a model the Constitutional Monarchy in Prussia. And this went on well into the 1930s. Germany has constitutional development going back to feudal Europe. The Nazis only ruled for 15 years.

To claim that we provided the Constitutional backgrounds for these places is beyond ignorant.

There may be some things the United States can do to help create the circumstances for Constitutional development in other parts of the word. But spreading democracy isn’t one of them.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 12:08PM

Lord, STFU already. You are plainly twisting the facts. Monroe was about preventing the interventionism of the European powers against Latin America(actually Russia's claim to the northwest and Spain's claim to Florida). The Monroe Doctrine is an anti-interventionist manifesto. Intervention by them is required to even trigger a response by us. What part of this don't you understand?

Here: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e.....fm?doc=392

Note the last paragraph: "Our policy in regard to Europe, which we adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers..."....funny this almost sounds like non-interventionism to me.

How you can twist this to support interventionism is a mystery only the neo con can fathom. Whether Larison has "stumbled" is a matter of opinion, but you are plainly on your face and floundering. Larison judged your response "buffoonish" and I can't improve on that.

You are providing the hilarity here, Bud. In your phobia to "get" Paul you are continually shooting yourself in the foot. Desperation is making you despicable.

David T| 12.8.11 @ 1:15PM

You are obviously not aware. Mr. Lord turns your argument on its head when he points out that implicit in the Monroe Doctrine is the assumption that we have the power and authority to intervene in other nations' affairs.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 2:42PM

Maybe you are too stupid to realize the paragraph quoted in my post is from the ACTUAL Monroe Doctrine? The document itself is turning Lord's argument on its head. Implicit don't mean shit when we have EXPLICIT. Try reading the link, smart guy.

Maybe if you and he weren't so busy "implying" you could read what we historians refer to as primary documents.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 3:38PM

aware...

I've read the primary document...and the threat of force is implicit throughout.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 5:11PM

Force is not the issue we are debating here, its intervention into the affairs of other nations. You know this and are trying the distraction ploy again.

There is no such inference(of intervention) in the document. It clearly threatens force AGAINST other nations that practice interventionism, in this case European nations against nations of this hemisphere.

If you can't see this you are being more than dishonest. It is a warning AGAINST interventionism and you are attempting to claim it supports what it is against.

Further, there is no inference anywhere in the document that says if we don't like how a nation is running itself that we intervene. Only that intervention by outside powers(European) would trigger a response from us. And it was the British navy that "enforced" this for decades after because we didn't have the forces to do so. Without JQ Adams there would have been a joint declaration from us AND Britain. Hypocrisy for another debate. Politicians(even founders) have always been the same.

You are still face down and floundering. Maybe you were channeling Monroe to receive this take which clearly is NOT contained in the original document.

cfountain72 | 12.8.11 @ 2:31PM

The Monroe Doctrine was akin to a Western Hemisphere Neighborhood Watch Program, keeping an eye out for folks with no good business coming into your neighborhood, trying to cause trouble.

The Lord Doctrine appears to be that, instead of a Neighborhood Watch concept, we have the God-Given Right--no, Responsibility--to go to the other side of town in search of gangs, wife-beaters, drug dealers, jaywalkers, etc. to kill. Sounds like a great idea, except when you murder the wrong people, get some of your fellow vigilantes killed, and waste half your paycheck on guns, ammo, and repairing your damaged ride. Then, a few days later, after someone 'over there' figures out where the killer of his brother came from, he decides to bring his crew to your 'hood and cause some trouble of his own...

Perhaps RP's non-interventionism is too extreme for some of you laptop bombardiers to handle. But it's pretty clear to me that we'd be a trillion less in debt and have several thousand less dead American troops (and Iraqi's) if we'd actually followed his counsel.

Peace be with you.

Jeffrey Lord | 12.8.11 @ 3:58PM

cfountain72...

There you go with more Neo-Con nonsense.
You said:

"The Monroe Doctrine was akin to a Western Hemisphere Neighborhood Watch Program, keeping an eye out for folks with no good business coming into your neighborhood, trying to cause trouble."

Then what? So you find somebody in the neighborhood that YOU have declared him to have no business in...Although HE has a different opinion. So...what are you going to do it about it? You are implying the use of force.....and the Monroe Doctrine implied the use of force in neighborhoods far, far distant from America in the 1820's. Just as George Bush defined"the neighborhood" as including Iraq. So too, in your example, do exactly the same thing. YOU define the neighborhood...and you threaten others if they don't do what you want. You, cfountain72, are a NeoCon.

The Paulists are watching. Be careful. Particularly when you reveal their dirty secret - they're NeoCons too.

aware| 12.8.11 @ 5:18PM

If only you had listened when I said to STFU. Poor fellow...

realCon| 12.8.11 @ 7:04PM

We need more of Lord's boobery, not less.

He's a walking, talking advertisement for Ron Paul.

Con Chef (NB) | 12.8.11 @ 7:44PM

Funny. We think the same thing every time you neo Chamberlains try to rewrite history. Y'all have more in common with the regressives than you realize.

Baudy| 12.9.11 @ 12:17AM

It's always 1939 with you internationalist idiots. Israel isn't Poland, Iran is not Nazi Germany, and Ron Paul isn't Neville fucking Chamberlain. Do the misused historical allusions never stop with you folks?

Con Chef (NB) | 12.9.11 @ 8:58AM

Do historical parallels not add up to YOU folks? And you can take it back BEFORE '39 too, dude.

cfountain72 | 12.9.11 @ 6:31PM

Hmm...so you're not joking? You really think that invading and occupying Iraq is equivalent to enforcing the Monroe Doctrine? Really?

Kevin| 12.8.11 @ 10:41PM

Ron Paul doesn't say "stay within our own borders." He voted to retaliate against the Taliban. Either Mr. Lord is writing about things he knows not of, or he's lying. Take your pick.

There's a serious discussion to be had concerning foreign policy. Rather than presenting his own position and contrasting it to Ron Paul's, Lord lies about Ron Paul's. I wonder why.

Baudy| 12.9.11 @ 12:20AM

Nowhere in non-interventionist/realist doctrine is there anything that denies a nation's right to self-defense. This should be common sense, but to many here it's not.

A Remnant Conservative| 12.9.11 @ 3:52PM

I'm delighted we have Lord writing these essays. He shows how intellectually bankrupt his, and neocon, ideas really are.

Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman blow his article out of the water: http://www.mikechurch.com/Toda.....ctors.html

I can't wait for Lord to reply to them, if he has the courage and believes his ideas are strong enough to withstand debate.

Woods already showed how little Lord has a handle on the issues a while ago: http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods180.html