a new york times retraction: Editors' Note: The Ron Paul Vid-Lash - NYTimes.com I thought this would be handy. I've been met with resistance from conservatives over this topic and I quickly addressed it with this retraction. I just wish Ron would be more explicit on his foreign policy. His speeches on monetary policy are great.. his foreign policy needs to be spelled out for people.
As Blacks can be some of the most racist people you will ever meet; who cares whether he is a racist or not. RP's weakness is foreign policy. Remember the last time when he said we'd get out of the region and go into Pakistan. If we get out of the region; all the infrastructure (food, ammo, med vac, etc) is stretched.
I agree on the FP. He could, like many other POTUSs, learn that OTJ. Obama has no FP experience either. Hence the major change from election to bombing Libya. Luckily, he has at least listened to those that do have experience in FP and defense matters. The POTUS doesn't have to know everything. He has to have the right ideals and the ability to pick the right people to advise on his weaknesses.
He not only must chose the "right" advisers; he must also listen to them. He must be wise enough to adjust if he is wrong. However, we ignored Afghanistan and as a result thousands of Americans died; so FP is highly important.
He does have a very succinct foreign policy, one which I totally agree with. It is spelled out clearly in his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom". But the neocons in the GOP and the MSM's propaganda has been very successful in negating and belittling his policy to the point that many people believe that he has none or is weak on it. Not the case at all. He espouses a non-interventionist policy that would see an end to nation building and regime change that we have been involved in for over a hundred years. An end to costly, useless foreign wars. An end to billions of dollars spent on housing troops around the world and of foreign aid to countries that hate us. And I believe it would reduce the terrorist threat to our country and our people considerably. You can buy the neocon "they hate us because we're free" line if you want but the truth is that "they" hate us because we have meddled in their affairs for over 100 years. Overthrown their leaders, propped up tyrannical dictators, funded their enemies, and turned a blind eye while their US backed and sponsered puppet regimes raped and pillaged their own people. If that is what you call being "strong" on foriegn policy then I say we need a change. Ron Paul has it right. I just wish the people of this nation would realize that before it's too late.
Thanks for the book reference. I've been looking for something concrete from Ron Paul. I've found short videos in which he sounds more realistic than the 30 second sound bite from the recent debate. I just keep on wanting to make sure I understand what he's saying. When I first started reading up on him with a purpose, I kept finding too many articles where he just didn't seem to be able to express it properly and so I sided with non-interventionist.. which is where I stand.. then I'd hear things like the debate and I'd say to myself, "I don't think he grasps that Al-Qaeda can just make up any excuse they want for attacking us and they can have more than one".
I just came across this in a newsfeed. Ron Paul wins GOP Calif. straw poll - politics - Decision 2012 - msnbc.com Ron Paul wins California Straw Poll. Ron Paul 44.9% Rick Perry 29.3% Mitt Romney 8.8 % Michelle Bauchman 7.7% I wonder if the MSM will comment ad nauseum on this like they did when Bauchman barely squeezed by Paul in the Iowa straw poll. I doubt it. Straw polls don't mean anything when Ron Paul wins them. Here is a quote from his speech that pretty well defines his foreign policy. At a noon time speech to 500 organized by the Republican Liberty Caucus of California, Paul elaborated on his dislike for international agreements in matters of national security. "The position we should have is no entangling alliances," Paul said, adding, "We shouldn't be in NATO." The comment met with applause. "Why not go to war if it's a declared war, and forget about the rest of them?" he continued. It was a reference to America's involvement in Libya - a NATO mission - and a criticism of American presidents dating from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
IMO, there are and have been times when immediate action is required to protect Americans or America's interests abroad; RP needs to clarify where he would stand on such issues. Getting rid of NATO or for that matter, the UN is easy. There are 192 members of the UN; if the cost of operating the UN is $192 each member pays $1. A "law" stating America will not borrow money to give away as foreign aid.
IIRC, the War Powers Act allows a president to authorize military force immediately but it must be reviewed by congress within 30 or 90 days. And a congressional declaration issued to provide funding and legality for the action. That is what Presidents have been sidestepping for decades by declaring it a "Police Action" as in Korea or "not a war" as Obama recently claimed in Libya.
The War Powers Act was put into law in 1973 when some contend Congress usurped the power of the Executive Branch. Which is interesting but it doesn't answer what RP would do.
The Constitution of the United States divides the war powers of the federal government between the Executive and Legislative branches: the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces (Article II, section 2), while Congress has the power to make declarations of war, and to raise and support the armed forces (Article I, section 8). Over time, questions arose as to the extent of the President's authority to deploy U.S. armed forces into hostile situations abroad without a declaration of war or some other form of Congressional approval. Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War to address these concerns and provide a set of procedures for both the President and Congress to follow in situations where the introduction of U.S. forces abroad could lead to their involvement in armed conflict. Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to "insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities," and that the President's powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541). The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b). The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities "without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization" at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544). War Powers - Law Library of Congress (Library of Congress) Presidents are the ones who according to the constitution have usurped the power of congress by sending troops to fight in undeclared wars at their sole discretion. The War Powers Resolution sought to limit that ability and place the decision to deploy troops back where it is supposed to be, with the congress. Ron Paul has said and reiterated many times that he is not opposed to war when necessary . He is not the bleeding heart pacifist that the neocons would have people believe. He is actually very hawkish on the subject. He doesn't believe in pussyfooting around with organizations like NATO and the UN. He believes in doing it by the book, ie the constitution. Present the case to congress, get a formal declaration and then commit 100% to an all out war to achieve our goals and then come home. And we don't need to ask anybodys, help, opinion or resolution. "Why not go to war if it's a declared war, and forget about the rest of them?" -Ron Paul
