Ron Paul: Real Conservatives Don't Start Wars, They End Them

The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he's still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn't he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican?

He told me he is--just not the same kind as the rest of them.

"I think their definitions are different," he said. "Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don't believe they're really conservative. I think they're really liberal in the modern sense of the word--they're big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism."

Paul certainly doesn't believe in "military adventurism." He articulated an anti-preemption stance, geared toward avoiding another inextricable, Iraq-like conflict in the future. And unlike some politicians, he usually acts in accordance with his stated philosophy. For example, he was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.

"The traditional conservative--which the Republicans used to be--did not advocate aggressive war, usually got our country out of the wars such as after Korea and Vietnam..." he said. "We've done exactly the opposite. And because I'm a strict constitutionalist, this has separated me from the other candidates."

Some have called Ron Paul an isolationist, in part because of his views on foreign aid and the use of military force. He strongly disagreed with the association.

"I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today."

He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit."

Finally, Paul believes that the United States should not be entirely dependent on other nations for its energy.

"I think the most important thing is to let the market set the price of energy and get out of the way of alternative energy," he said. "We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. So the most important thing is to recognize that the government bureaucrats and politicians have no idea what is the best alternative fuel, but if the market pushes the price of oil up, then people are going to say, 'Hey, they're running out of oil! And oil is now $200 a barrel, we better do something,' and the market's going to come up with the best alternative."

These goals may seem ambitious, but Paul is conservative about what he could accomplish unilaterally, stressing that he would need to rely on congressional support that a mandate, in the form of his successful election to the presidency, would grant him.

"You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do."

Comments

[Deltoid]

askmeificare,
To balance things out, you may want to read about Christian Reconstructionism in America and what Rousas John Rushdoony has to say.
Rushdoony wrote, "The only true order is founded on Biblical Law. All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion." He also made it clear that he expects that force will be necessary to impose such order, "Every law-order is in a state of war against the enemies of that order, and all law is a form of warfare."
The Reconstructionists believe they have a mandate to claim more than the land of Palestine, they believe they are commanded to conquer the entire world and exercise "dominion" over all its peoples. That is why Reconstructionism is also known as "dominion theology."
So what are you going to do now, askmeificare? Are you going to wage war in every American city to oust the Reconstructionist? As long as you are petrified of radical Islam, you should be just as petrified as to what is going on in America with its radicals as well. We have lots of them and they have infiltrated the Republican Party in many forms. Where is the outrage over Christian Reconstructionist?

[endofworld]

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney are the only candidates that are for the people, and not bought by the mega-corporations. So, if you value freedom & the constitution & want to stop the wars those are your choices. All of the other candidates are puppets of the CFR, AIPAC, PNAC, and will only lead to more war, and the destruction of the middle class & this country. Imagine if they used the 800 billion on the war to rebuild New Orleans, improve health care... they only care about their own wealth and power. Time for a rEVOLution. FREE ED BROWN!

[HumeSkeptic]

'He (Ron Paul) also wants America to withdraw from the United Nations and NATO. He is against the government's "delusional, feel-good" policies of giving aid to needy countries in places like Africa; instead, private citizens and private groups should give charity if they want to. He has written that Americans "don't need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun."'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_2.html
------------

And here, silly me, I felt proud that my country was able to help the victims of that Tsunami in Indonesia, to go to the aid of our fellow human beings, to save lives, to provide medicine.

And how would private charities have handled massive airlifts that were needed and ships that had to be diverted by our Navy to help the needy?

And what does Ron Paul find so objectionable to our government helping figh AIDS in Africa?
Would he have his local Catholic church handle a problem of that magnitude with Sunday collections?

And, somehow, I never felt that I was "forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun".

What Government gun?

Is that not a good way to spend money overseas, even from a diplomatic and political viewpoint, even if we discard all morality?

And where is it in the Constitution that our government should not help human beings in need?

[huffnpuffn]

Anyone remember 2006? We gave the Dems control of both houses of Congress with the mandate to do something about Iraq. A year on the Dems are still sending Bush whatever he wants. Seventy billion more last week!!! And they're going to run on the same platform next year. "Vote for us so we can get this country out of Iraq!" Excuse me? The Dems already set the agenda. They don't need a veto-proof majority to take on the president. They just need some courage and some leadership. Unfortunately the American people evidently have to look elsewhere for that.

Imagine Hillary or Obama in office in 2009. Bush leaves with Iraq in shambles and well over 100,000 troops still in-country. What to do? "Well, we can't leave now. The Republicans will call us weak." The same arguments Pelosi and Reid make now will be the same arguments that keep us there for God knows how much longer with our 14 military bases and embassy the size of the Vatican.

No, we need someone who sees that this is not sustainable, nor is it just.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who's serious about pulling us out of not just Iraq, but Japan, Korea, Europe and points in between. I simply don't trust anyone else in either party to do as much.

[HumeSkeptic]

"Ron Paul may seem an unlikely advocate for the repeal of federal drug laws, but this stance stems from the same impulse that leads him to call for the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration and its "health nannies." He says that decades of government programs can soften Americans' sense of personal responsibility and that the free market can do a better job of keeping people safe and healthy than the government can."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_2.html

---------

Now, I can see an argument for repealing some of the drug laws, but abolishing the Food and Drug Administration beacuse they are "health nannies." ?

Really?

So all those food labeling and drug warnings are useless, or would each have to do our own research to protect ourselves from whatever companies put in our food?

And "free market" would take care of our health?

Really?

How well has the free market done so far, since that is pretty close to what we have, with some 45 million uninsured?

Great idea, Dr. Paul!

[HumeSkeptic]

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_2.html
------------

Now, mind you, it is not just that Ron Paul is mad at FEMA, which we all were. It's not that. Ron Paul is against the very IDEA of government helping people after disasters like Katrina.

He says that none of the tax money from people of Arizona should go to help NOLA.

Really?

Then why in the heck do we call the U.S. a country if we refuse to help our fellow countrymen in need?

And what is the "proper function" of the Federal Government if not to provide safety and protection for the people?

Should we have told New Yorkers to take care of 9/11 themselves, because it is they who decided to build those tall towers?

What is wrong with Ron Paul?

[HumeSkeptic]

Ron Paul on Social Security:

"As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation­."

...

In other words, Paul thinks we are better off without Social Security. According to him, it caused poverty, and there was no poverty before 1935.

Really?

"Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . ."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_3.html

[gowestyoungman]

Paul is a Republican and in the modern day that says it all. He is a part of the party that sold this country down the river. Let's let them all disappear like the dinosaurs that they are. He's against abortion, he's a religious whackjob, he's against Roosevelts New Deal policy's. Therefore he's against the common man. Against minimum wage, the 40 hour work week, gov't regulation of corrupt corporations. In America in 2008 every corporation is corrupt! So he wants to let them have free reign and it will all fix itself?! Stupid on it's face. Paul supporters are all over left wing threads these days attempting to convert. I thing it's a ruse to help the Repubes at the top by dividing the left wing base because Paul is anti Iraq war. Left wingers need to stay focused on true free thinkers like Kucinich and steer the party further left. do not be distracted by an enabler like Paul. He is a part of the problem. Let's let the dinosaurs rest in peace.

[Wiredwilly]

Ron Paul got many of the ideas expressed in this article from George Washington's Farewell Address to the Nation. The day the ideas of George Washington are looked upon as " radical " in America is a strange day indeed. The real issue is MONEY. The other Candidates are either oblivious to, afraid of, or under the control of International Banking. Ron Paul is the only candidate taking the Banking System seriously. Thomas Jefferson was opposed to a Central Bank because he knew it put too much power in the hands of a few, yet today everyone unquestionably accepts it as Gospel. It has given us the Great Depression, Two World Wars, insanity in the Middle East, rampant inflation ( in 1930 the average price of a car was $640. ) and a sinking dollar. Please explain what's so great about a Central Bank, especially one not owned by the People, but owned by a private Cartel charging us interest on our own money. Personally I prefer Kucinich. Universal Health Care doesn't have a prayer if Paul gets elected. However, if the entire economy collapses and we becomes slaves to plastic currency owned by a Monopolistic Banking System, not only Universal Health Care but basic goods & services will disappear as well. Go Ron Paul.

[Wilbur]

Paul's comments that the "real" republicans acted to get the U.S. out of Vietnam quickly just goes to show how ill-informed and off-the-wall he is. Nixon did not try to END the Vietnam conflict immediately - he tried to "WIN" that war. More American soldiers lost their lives AFTER Tricky Dick was in office than when LBJ was there. Only after Nixon had resigned the office of the President and Congress had stopped funding that frickin' mess did we get out of there. That was in April of 1975, rfemember, Congressman Paul??

Wilbur

[mellene]

If only more who say they're conservative would actually be a conservative. The only one of the dems running that acts as a conservative is Ron Paul. The rest just talk about being one.

[kenmitchellzeke]

Today we have Ron Paul. In the Vietnam era we had Karl Hess. A real conservative who went on to be a Libertarian. Go Ron.

[TWOSHORT]

I've heard Ron Paul speak on iusse of race and smaller goverment.­Ron Paul is a nut case turning back the clock on iusse like climate change with a smaller goverment it will be up to local and state goverment to solve there problem of enforcement and clean up! cost past on to tax payers of those communitys and there local goverment.­Schools across america will be able to close there doors to some minority groups in community around america!University won't have to enrollment minority students if they can't pay.Ron Paul is wolf in sheeps skin

[cognate]

We LOVE Ron Paul!

[chronic]

liberalism


Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism



1: the quality or state of being liberal

2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity

b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard

c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties



Ron Paul, you are no liberal. I bet he voted for the giggling murderer in the White House in 00 and 04.