EXPOSING THE TRUE ISOLATIONISTS

Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.

Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.

In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.

In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad.

America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.

Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.

Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board?

To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry.

WHAT I THINK....BOB MURPHY

Let’s get this out in the open right away: I am not a fan of President Bush, and I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Even so, I believe the typical Republican voter should pay heed to this article, because chances are you’re overlooking some important considerations about presidential candidate Ron Paul. To anticipate my conclusion: You should vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary, and then vote for the Republican nominee (probably Giuliani) in the general election against the Democratic nominee (probably Clinton).

Let’s face it, the single biggest objection to Ron Paul’s candidacy is simple but blunt: "He can’t win." Nobody wants to vote for a sure loser, and Republicans certainly don’t want to throw away their vote on a purist and thus allow Hillary to win.

But I’m not asking you to write in Ron Paul in the general election. No, I’m just asking this: If you believe that Ron Paul best represents the conservative ideals of limited government and Constitutional rule, then vote for him in your state’s primary. You don’t have to worry about strategic considerations too much. Chances are, Rudy Giuliani will still receive the nomination, despite your vote for Paul.

That’s fine. You can still vote for Giuliani (or whoever the nominee is) in the general election, when all good Republicans join forces to oppose a Clinton or Obama presidency. You have absolutely nothing to lose by my strategy. You’re not "wasting" your vote on a dreamer, because you can still vote for the "serious" candidate in the general election.

My plea is so simple that you think there must be some trick involved. I understand your apprehension; let’s go through this slowly to make sure there’s no skullduggery afoot. Typically, most voters don’t actually vote for the person they think will do the best job, because they’re worried about strategic considerations. For example, a lot of people admitted to me that they loved Harry Browne’s platform when he ran on the Libertarian ticket, but they didn’t want to risk a Democratic victory and so they voted for the lesser of two evils (i.e. the Republican).

You don’t have to worry about this type of thing with Ron Paul. He is running on the Republican ticket. If he were to pull off the unlikely feat of winning enough primaries to secure the Republican nomination, then he wouldn’t draw your vote away from the Republican candidate – he would be the Republican candidate. The purpose of the primaries is for the party to select the candidate to represent it in the general election. So if you, as a registered Republican, think Ron Paul best upholds your principles, then say so in the process designed to elicit your opinion. There will be plenty of time for you and other Republicans to put aside your differences and band together against the common foe, come November 2008.

Again, let me bend over backwards to make sure I’m not losing you. You might be worried about a convoluted scenario where my recommendation could backfire. For example, suppose that Ron Paul Republicans foolishly vote their conscience in the primaries, and as a consequence Romney ends up winning the nomination, even though a majority of Republicans would’ve preferred Rudy if Ron Paul hadn’t been in the race. Then the Mormon loses to Hillary in the general election, while Giuliani at least stood a chance. Curse that spoiler Ron Paul for messing things up!

In fact, I think this type of worry has it exactly backward. I know it seems ridiculous – I too thought it was unrealistic optimism when I first read James Ostrowski’s analysis – but if you think it through, you’ll realize it’s true: Ron Paul is the one Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Put aside your own feelings about the liberal media and its coverage of the war. Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Americans are furious with the Republicans over Iraq. The one Republican who can beat Hillary on this issue is Ron Paul. And even though you might have gone through the roof over his comments about us being "over there," at least he’s been consistent – as opposed to some "antiwar" politicians who supported the invasion back when it was popular.

In case you’re not following too closely, here’s another secret: Ron Paul is cool. If you think he’s a nerdy Ross Perot type, you must not have seen him on the Colbert Report. Paul's interviews and appearences are available on YouTube.com. I personally realized that Ron Paul actually had a chance of winning when I saw this amazing moment during an appearance on the Bill Maher show. Move the pointer to 7:00 minutes into this clip and watch. Yes, you saw right. Ben Affleck is dutifully clapping (while looking pensive) because Ron Paul’s candidacy is now "deep" and cool. As a movie star with a camera on him, Affleck felt compelled to clap for Paul’s remarks about foreign policy, just as surely as if some Greenpeace activist had called for planting trees. You’re telling me that if the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate, he might not just make mincemeat of Hillary Clinton in the general election?

If you think Ron Paul is the best candidate based on the merits, then there is absolutely no risk in my recommendation. If you truly believe in the stated Republican ideals of lower taxes, lower spending, and Constitutional governance, then vote for Ron Paul in your state’s primary. Chances are, Giuliani will get the nomination anyway, and then you can vote for him and pray that he beats Hillary.
On the other hand, Ron Paul just might secure the nomination, if you and enough other Republicans actually do what the primaries intend you to do. And in that wonderful scenario, the country could see what a true fiscal conservative can do to turn this country around.

WHAT I THINK.....TIM BOYLE

Every individual having a natural right to life, liberty, and property, in turn, has a natural right to defend them.

Any law meant to deprive an individual from obtaining the means necessary to defend these rights is an infringement on his liberty and is unjust.

If I wish to own a hand gun, I have that right.

If I wish to own a hunting rifle, I have that right.

If I wish to own an assault rifle — as outrageous as that may sound to you — I have that right and it can not legitimately be taken from me.

Those who wish to deny individuals their natural rights, even when done for apparent humanitarian reasons, are acting as tyrants. The gun control advocates' goal of disarming every individual destroys his/her right to self-defense and, in turn, puts every other one of his/her natural rights in greater danger. Gun control laws are morally wrong, constitutionally illegal, and detrimental to the safety of many peaceful citizens.

As Thomas Paine once asked, —¦If a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?" To say one must allow such destruction of one's life, liberty and property, and to not allow for the means to protect such rights, is to say that the individual does not hold these natural rights, and that whoever holds the power shall decide what "rights" will be granted. Such an idea is preposterous.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not grant but acknowledges the individual's natural right to defend him or herself with whatever means he deems necessary. Our founders understood that this right must be protected in order to allow the protection of their other natural rights.

But protection from whom? As Thomas Jefferson explained, it wasn't just from other individuals, but in fact "the strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Our founders understood that government is and always has been the greatest enemy of the people and that any government which disarms their citizenry should never be trusted since it makes it only that much easier to take the rest of their rights. As George Washington once said, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Gun control advocates often argue that we would be safer with more gun laws. The truth is the exact opposite. As Thomas Jefferson explains, "laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Gun control advocates always point out how many gun-related deaths there are per year (11,628 in 2004, says the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control), but what should also be looked at is how much good firearms do. As Dr. Jeremy D. Blanks writes, "The numbers have varied from a low of around 100,000 crimes prevented every year by armed citizens to a high of over six million crimes per year." The accurate number probably falls somewhere in between, but even if it were just the low of 100,000 crimes prevented does that not show that more good comes from gun ownership than bad? And what if it is 6 million crimes prevented? Knowing this, how can you honestly argue for the disarming of peaceful American citizens?

The truth is that you cannot disarm the people without becoming a tyrant.

And you can't disarm the people without making the criminals and the government even more powerful and more of a threat to our individual liberties than they already are. The gun control advocates' intentions matter little if the means is immoral and the end undesirable.

If you care about your natural rights as a human being, if you wish not to be controlled as if a slave to the government, than there is only one candidate to vote for: Congressman Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is the last man in Washington that understands the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon and the only politician left who is fighting for your rights as an individual.

GLOBALISM

The recent defeat of the amnesty bill in the Senate came after outraged Americans made it clear to the political elite that they would not tolerate this legislation, which would further erode our national sovereignty. Similarly, polls increasingly show the unpopularity of the Iraq war, as well as of the Congress that seems incapable of ending it.

Because some people who vocally oppose amnesty are supportive of the war, the ideological connection between support of the war and amnesty is often masked. If there is a single word explaining the reasons why we continue to fight unpopular wars and see legislation like the amnesty bill nearly become law, that word is “globalism.”

The international elite, including many in the political and economic leadership of this country, believe our constitutional republic is antiquated and the loyalty Americans have for our form of government is like a superstition, needing to be done away with. When it benefits elites, they pay lip service to the American way, even while undermining it.

We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” – the underlying principle is globalism.

Although different rhetoric is used in each instance, the basic underlying notion behind replacing regimes abroad and allowing foreign people to come to this country illegally is best understood by comprehending this ideal of the globalist elite. In one of his most lucid moments President Bush spoke of the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” Unfortunately, that bigotry is one of the core tenets at the heart of the globalist ideology.

The basic idea is that foreigners cannot manage their own affairs so we have to do it for them. This may require sending troops to far off lands that do not threaten us, and it may also require “welcoming with open arms” people who come here illegally. All along globalists claim a moral high ground, as if our government is responsible for ensuring the general welfare of all people. Yet the consequences are devastating to our own taxpayers, as well as many of those we claim to be helping.

Perhaps the most seriously damaged victim of this approach is our own constitutional republic, because globalism undermines both the republican and democratic traditions of this nation. Not only does it make a mockery of the self-rule upon which our republic is based, it also erodes the very institutions of our republic and replaces them with international institutions that are often incompatible with our way of life.

The defeat of the amnesty bill proves though that there is no infallible logic, or predetermined march of history, that forces globalism on us.

LEE ROGERS INTERVIEW, PART FOUR

LEE ROGERS INTERVIEW, PART THREE

LEE ROGERS INTERVIEW, PART TWO

LEE ROGERS INTERVIEW, PART ONE

LINKIN PARK SINGS

SIGNING STATEMENTS ERODE CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE

Recently, the General Accounting Office studied nineteen instances where the President issued so-called “signing statements.” In such statements, the President essentially begins the process of interpreting legislation – up to and including declaring provisions unconstitutional – hence often refusing to enforce them.

The GAO study found that in nearly 1/3 of the cases studied, the administration failed to enforce the law as enacted. This approach is especially worrisome for several reasons.

First, these signing statements tend to move authority from the legislative branch to the executive, thus upsetting our delicate system of checks and balances. Next, these statements grant the President power not given by the Constitution, allowing him to usurp powers of the judicial branch. Finally, the idea of agencies refusing to enforce the law as enacted sets precedent for the type of run away administrative actions our constitution was expressly enacted in order to avoid.

Although these signing statements are at record high numbers, the problem is not with a single administration. Contrary to the claims of those who raise this issue for purely political purposes, the most significant challenge to liberty presented by these statements is that they can serve to further erode our constitutional republic.

I have long been skeptical of the line item veto on spending bills for the same reason I oppose these signing statements. The legislature should not yield its authority to the executive. Our constitutional republic demands that all branches of government understand and respect our system and jealously guard their own prerogatives.

In modern Washington nothing is more misunderstood, and less appreciated, than the genius of republicanism. Presidents issue signing statements that effectively “approve in part and reject in part,” laws of the land – even though there is no constitutional provision for such a process. In addition, Congress cedes its powers at the crucial moment when a decision on whether or not a war is to be fought will be made, only to then criticize the effort it could have used its powers to stop.

In his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson spoke clearly and directly about the idea of elected representatives delegating their responsibility to other branches of government, saying in no uncertain terms that since such representatives had received their authority by delegation from the people – expressly for the use as representative – the legislature had to choose to either use the authority granted or return it to the people. In other words, there is to be no delegation of authority from the representatives to the executive branch of government.

Concerns with signing statements ought to include a concern for the health of our constitutional republic, it ought not to be based upon the political battle of the day. Regardless of whether the President is named Bush or Clinton, and without respect to any particular political interest, we in Congress need to fulfill our oath of office and protect and defend the constitution and our republic. Our constituents deserve no less, and should demand it of all of us.

RON PAUL INTERVIEW WITH WORLD NET DAILY

WND: In your 1988 presidential bid you called for the dismantling of the Border Patrol. Is that a position you would still adhere to today, have there been changes or was it a mistake back then?

Ron Paul: No. I do not call for that, and I do not recall calling for that. I'd have to have somebody show me exactly where that was said. I have no recollection of that and it's certainly not my position, because I emphasize beefing up the Border Patrol.

WND: You've drawn distinctions between the Iraq involvement and in Afghanistan, yet your former aide, now running against you for the Texas congressional seat, claims it was like pulling teeth to get you to support the war in Afghanistan. Please set the record straight.

Ron Paul: That's totally untrue. It's not true. He's a disgruntled former employee who needs to be fired.

WND: You suggest the nation would be better if it were left to the Democrats to investigate 9/11. Do you believe the Bush administration has anything or something to hide with regard to the terrorist attacks?

Ron Paul: No. I don't think so much to hide about ulterior motives as much as, I think it's very natural for any government to resist investigations because they want to hide ineptness, you know, there's always mistakes. Bureaucracies are always inept. And I think that nobody wants to be investigated because it makes one look bad. Obviously if you have something as tragic as 9/11, somebody slipped up somewhere, and I think that's the main problem with these investigations. Even though I've given some token support to the idea that we ought to really look into it and find the real truth, frankly another government investigation is not likely to reveal a whole lot of difference because government is sort of protective of itself, sometimes even party to party they do that.

WND: In general terms, what role do you believe Israel plays in the Middle East? Is it generally a positive role, or generally a negative role?

Ron Paul: I don't know whether you should pick either one. I think they provide a balance of power there. I think unfortunately we get in their way, because they depend on us for money. They also depend on us for permission. We hinder Israel by not allowing them to do what is necessary for their own defense. If they thought they needed to take out somebody they have to get our permission. On the other side of that, I think they would play an even better role if we would allow them to negotiate with Syria and other countries, and there's been some strong hints that they would like to do that. In many ways I think that they have a balance of power there. Nobody's going to touch them. They don't really need us. They have 200-300 nuclear weapons and nobody's going to attack Israel. Israel would be even more secure if they didn't depend on us so much. because they wouldn't have to get our permission. There's no way – Iraq and Iran they don't even have – neither one has nuclear weapons. Iraq didn't and Iran doesn't, but even if they did, Israel's going to take care of it. So I think they play an important role in the balance of power there but I think it would even be more powerful if they weren't so dependant on us.

WND: You often cite George Washington's warning to the U.S. to, quote, avoid foreign entanglements, end quote, but under that rule the U.S. probably would not have fought and defeated Hitler's Germany, which never attacked the U.S. In your view is there ever a legitimate reason for the U.S. to invade a foreign nation to free an enslaved people or to save a nation from being invaded and assimilated by another?

Ron Paul: Well your question is inaccurate in the sense that Germany declared war against us. We didn't declare against them. We didn't go to war just on our own. They made the declaration, and we declared war against them the following day. The president actually has clear authority to pre-emptively act in defense of this country if a nation has attacked us or if there is an imminent attack. He doesn't even have to ask the Congress to do that. But just to say for humanitarian reasons or for some other reasons for us to pre-emptively attack somebody, Iraq or Iran, no, I think it's completely wrong. It's unconstitutional, it's immoral, it's unwise. And when you don't declare the war, you don't win the war, so Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and probably the war that's coming in Iran, I think these are way beyond the scope of what the Founding Fathers intended and I think that's why we haven't been winning wars much since World War II.

WND: Do you think a conflict in Iran is inevitable or en route?

Ron Paul: I think if our policies don't change it's about as inevitable as you can expect because we're unwilling to talk to them and every week we're passing more sanctions and rules and intimidations and accusations and provocations. I mean we're surrounding Iran and there's very, very little understanding of that history, the American people don't know how we have been involved since 1953 in interfering with their government and it has hurt us and I think they're moving quickly up there. We're failing in Iraq and our government would like to have a distraction from that so they are blaming the Iranians. Not on our failures and not on our foolish policies, but they're blaming the Iranians on this. And that's why the war propaganda is building. I don't think we'll have an old-fashioned invasion but, you know when you put blockades around a country and people suffer from it and you try to starve people and humiliate them and take away their source of energy those are acts of war. Then if you start bombing them, others are going to come in. By that time maybe the Chinese will find out it's in their interests to defend the Iranians, and who knows what kind of financial attacks they can place against us, against the dollar. Yes, I think our policies if not changed will end up with a war against Iran.

WND: If elected, what would your priorities be for the first 100 days?

Ron Paul: I think the first one would be in foreign policy. The announcements would be that our policies have changed, we're going to be friends with people and we're going to start backing away from entanglements in the internal affairs of other governments. I would back the Navy away from the coast of Iran, and invite them to have conversations with us, which actually our administration already has hinted, which I think is very good. I would suspend any effort by our CIA to overthrow the government and make sure they know that. If the Soviets had or the Russians had somebody in this country with a regime change idea about our government, every American would stand behind our government. Yet that's our policy right now, regime change in Iran, and the probability of our CIA being involved is very, very great. The announcement would be that that no longer exists and we're going to approach these things a lot differently. And I'd bring troops home out of Iraq, because Americans are dying for a cause that nobody understands. We went in there under false pretense. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and the sooner the American people realize that the better. But the other things depend on just how much you can get the Congress to agree. The president is not a dictator, he's commander in chief and can do something with the military but when it comes to legislation or trying to solve the problems of a bankrupt Social Security system, whether he can modify the monetary policy, you have to work with Congress and change the law and get people to understand it and get people to agree. Same way with taxes. I want to get rid of the IRS but the president doesn't have the authority to do that, so it's working in a different manner with the Congress rather than always seeking more power in the executive branch. I would be anxious to be more partners with the Congress. They have responsibilities too. Presidents can't go to war without the Congress, and Congress ought to know that and people ought to know that. There's a lot of hard work trying to get the American people to understand what the Constitution says about separation of powers and why we have three branches of government.

WND: Describe your perspective on the status of the U.S. border, security and the position of those who are in the United States illegally. What should the government's next step be?

Ron Paul: There they have a responsibility. We shouldn't be sending our border guards to Iraq to train border guards in Iraq. I mean that's pretty hard to understand. The people don't understand it. Of course, I'd be bringing troops home so we'd have personnel and we'd have funds to use to beef up our borders, and that's one way you can pay for it. Today you have no way of paying for anything because we're in horrendous debt. So, we should stop the inflow, but I emphasize in a strong manner the idea of removing the benefits, no amnesty and changing the law so it's very clear there's no birthright citizenship and making sure there are no federal mandates on the states for free services, no free medicine, no free education, no bilingualism where we have to pay more money to teach kids in Spanish to illegal aliens to having food stamps and getting on our Social Security. You've got to get rid of the incentives and I think the whole process would change. Right now, there's a much greater move on for the New World Order which incorporates the North American Union. I don't think our current leaders in either the Republican Party or the Democrat Party care about borders any more, and I would be emphatic. Although the law was not changed in 2005, our president agreed with Mexico and Canada that they would work in that direction, that they would have a North American Union and I would make it very clear that that's not my intent, and yet I would still want to be friends with our neighbors and trade with our neighbors and be peaceful and not get involved in their internal affairs. I certainly would change this whole attitude about the obliteration of our borders and working toward a North American Union.

WND: Would you support an amendment to the Constitution limiting marriage to one man and one woman?

Ron Paul: I tend to like the principle of the Constitution that our problems are dealt with by the states. I don't want more power, I want to remove power from Washington. I don't want it going from Washington and then to the United Nations, so …on the marriage amendment I want the states to deal with that. I think it's a good system. I think federalism is the best way to do it. Those problems on marriage should be defined by the states.

WND: Please share with us your perspective on abortion, Roe v. Wade, and when the Constitution's protections for life should apply.

Ron Paul: The Constitution now does not explicitly interfere with the states obligation to punish people who commit murder, and killing an innocent fetus is to me an act of violence and it should be permitted that states prohibit this. I want to repeal Roe v. Wade. It should have never been heard, and the federal government's obligation is to make sure that nobody is ever forced to fund abortions, yet we're doing that all the time. We fund hospitals that do abortions, we fund international programs that do abortions. We have to move away from that. The protection of life in most cases today, even in spite of our big problems, most acts of violence are still taken care of by the federal courts, and I don't want to distinguish the killing of a fetus one minute before birth from the killing of a fetus one minute after birth, because if we don't invite the federal government in when the teenager kills her baby as soon as the baby is born, they are arrested and they are charged for the crime by the state, and I think that's the way the abortion issue should be handled.

WND: At what point do such agreements (the Security and Prosperity Partnership) with other nations actually endanger the sovereignty of the United States?

Ron Paul: It's incremental. It sneaks up on us. When we joined the WTO I objected and they said it's no big deal, they won't force us to do anything. They try to reassure you. Yet to be an upstanding member of the WTO we have already changed our tax laws. We have gone to war under U.N. resolutions. As a matter of fact, this excuse of giving the president the authority to go to war and Congress ducking their responsibility, it was to give the president the authority to enforce U.N. resolutions, so it's subtle but it's there, and it's not legal in the sense that they say a treaty is the law of the land so we join the U.N. and you have to do these things. But you cannot amend the Constitution with a treaty. I think it's already happening. I think it's going to get a lot worse. This Security and Prosperity Partnership is something most members of Congress are totally unaware of and when you tell them anything about it, they say that's all conspiratorial and it's not true and they don't care. The American people are facing some serious problems because of the fact members of Congress aren't alert to what's happening.

WND: What is your belief about the terrorist threats U.S. citizens are facing without our own borders?

Ron Paul: It's growing every day because we have refused to understand the motivation, and the motivation is occupation, and Robert Pape is the expert on this, and he just studied hundreds and hundreds of cases on how an individual could be motivated to such an extreme move as to commit suicide and the No. 1 reason behind – it's not the only reason – but the No. 1 reason is occupation by a foreign power. Or even the perception of that. Our occupation of the holy land in Saudi Arabia, that motivated al-Qaida. They saw this as an affront to their religious beliefs and to the sovereignty of Saudi Arabia, so yes and now, since 9/11, although Wolfowitz thought this was great because now if we get bases in Iraq we can remove the incentive that existed that prompted the 9/11. He says boy this is good, now we can get our troops off Saudi Arabia terrority, because they don't like us. He admitted what I am claiming. But what he doesn't understand, and the world has to understand and the American people have to understand is that invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran doesn't help us at all. It makes it worse. So as long as we have troops all over the Middle East like this, you can expect that they will continue to attack us. But they're quite content to kill our people in Iraq. They're up to 3,600 now, and 25,000 wounded. They're bleeding us financially. They're bleeding us morally. They're bleeding our morale in this country, and they're loving it. If the American people ever came to a conclusion we actually fell into a trap. I think Osama bin Laden is quite delighted with our policies, and besides the Iranians like it too. We got rid of Iran's two arch-enemies, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. So we have done a great favor for Ahmadenijad, because he doesn't have his arch-enemies over there. So as long as that exists, we'd better be prepared because they will not let us rest.

WND: How would you like to direct the national discussion during the campaign?

Ron Paul: I direct it mostly around the Constitution, because all of us , liberals, conservatives, libertarians and Democrats, everybody should agree that without the rule of law there is nothing. We can have our disagreements, but we should not ever reject the idea of the rule of law. Our problem we have today is that courts take it upon themselves to legislate, we have allowed our executive branch to legislate through the administrative courts and through the writing of regulations. We have allowed the president to go to war, the Congress to reject their responsibilities, and then when they do write laws they don't obey the Constitution. But I think what the American people want are members of our government to obey the rule of law. If they want to have No Child Left Behind, the federal government running our public schools, at least change the Constitution. There was a time when this country, they thought they were going to make the country a better place to live and they said nobody should drink alcohol. Well they went out and amended the Constitution. They had a lot of respect for the law. Today there is no respect for the law, the Constitution. That is what I'm going to do, is direct my attention to solving any and every problem. Of course my thesis is that the mess we have with its financial, monetary or foreign policy has all occurred because we have ignored the Constitution. If we decide we want to solve some of these problems, I venture to bet we can find most of the answers in the Constitution."

WHAT I THINK....MARY STARRETT

The Congressman from Texas is quite simply, ‘the best they’ve got’. The physician is the only candidate who has a 100% constitutionally-correct voting record. Because he votes against unconstitutional bills every time, he earned the label “Doctor No.”

He alone in the entire GOP lineup is the only one who voted against the war in Iraq. On every single issue he is a pure, unadulterated, founders-woulda-loved him conservative.

Paul never voted to raise taxes. Not once.
Paul never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Paul never voted for any infringement on gun rights.
Paul never voted to raise his pay.
Paul voted against the blatantly-unconstitutional power grab that is the Patriot Act.

Paul does not participate in the congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year – a rare Congressman who practices what he preaches!

The attempts to ignore Congressman Paul have been calculated and sinister. Though MSNBC reported that Ron Paul scored the highest positive votes in both Republican presidential debates and the polls showed he beat Romney, McCain and Giuliani, the media took no notice. Next, a text message poll after the Fox News GOP debate showed Ron Paul winning handily; still no notice from the media lapdogs.

Sean Hannity was less than fair and oh-so–off-balance the night of the Fox News debate when he “refused” to believe Paul won the debate. In fact, Hannity was downright apoplectic. Within short order, the poll numbers quickly showed a lagging Giuliani had overtaken Paul. Kind of makes you want to say “hmmmm.”

In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. So many men, so few true Constitutionalists.

A very natural question at this point would be, “Why is the Constitution Party not supporting the campaign of Ron Paul?”

The Constitution Party presidential candidate will be selected at its convention in the spring of 2008. We can't say for sure what will be decided by the convention delegates, but as the party who puts principle above party loyalty, it seems that in the unlikely event that Doctor No is able to capture the Republican nomination, we would stand behind him 100%.

The dilemma we have is that we cannot sit around and wait to see what the Republicans are going to do but must build the ark that true Constitutionalists can find refuge on when it dawns on them that the Republican and Democrat parties will let them drown. To that end we must work to secure ballot access in all 50 states NOW and find a candidate who can carry our principles into a presidential campaign which will more than likely find a left-of-center candidate carrying the Republican mantle.

If the Grand Old Party does choose to return to its conservative ideals by supporting Congressman Paul, then there will be ample opportunity to throw our support behind him should our delegates so decide. If he does not win the GOP nomination we will have done much of the work to gain the ballot lines necessary to field a candidate who shares our values and who will govern constitutionally. That candidate could be Ron Paul should he decide to continue his race by seeking the Constitution Party nomination.

At this critical juncture in our history it is with firm hope we work toward the election of a true statesman who will seek to maintain the Founder’s vision in adherence to our great Constitution.

WHAT I THINK....JOE SOBRAN

I guess I've known Ron Paul for a quarter of a
century now, and I don't remember how we met. My first
memory of him is a quiet dinner on Capitol Hill, during
the Reagan years. He told me with dry humor of being the
only member of Congress to vote against some bill Reagan
wanted passed. For Ron it was a matter of principle, and
he was under heavy pressure to change his vote.

What amused him was that the Democrats didn't mind
his voting against it; all the pressure came from his
fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were
embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for
their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so.

That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole
country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans
still want to get rid of him. The party's hacks, led by
Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in
his own Texas district.

They're right, in a way. He doesn't belong in a
party that has made "conservative" a synonym for
"destructive." George Will calls him a "useful
anachronism" because he actually believes, as literally
as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his
unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he
stands alone.

He may have become at last what he has always
deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S.
Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for
president who is truly what all the others pretend to be,
namely, a conservative. His career shows that a
patriotic, pacific conservatism isn't a paradox.

If they can't expel Ron Paul from the party, they
can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP
front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion
more than any other constitutional right (or words to
that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation
during the first "debate" when Paul said simply that the
9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign
policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions
of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that
crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has
delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)

Ron -- I'm very proud to call him my friend -- fares
well not only in comparison with the party's sorry
current candidates, but also with its legendary
conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan's matchless
charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth,
historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant
him some of Reagan's luck!

Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul
have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that's
about it. He doesn't have a billion dollars; delivering
babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a
staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special
and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy's and
Hillary's coffers. Sorry, this isn't a Frank Capra movie.

But virtue -- honor -- is rare enough to be an
asset, especially when the two big parties don't have
much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York
liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a
third option, especially since Giuliani could smash
what's left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while
Hillary remains, well, Hillary.

What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the
Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest
that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many
years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we
were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes
deep chords in people's hearts.

Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or
even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and
wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one
given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely
to.

The odds are heavily against his being elected
president next year. But if he is on the ballot in
November, the odds are far heavier against his
candidacy's being forgotten. He will say things worth
pondering long after the votes are cast.

Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by
pretending he wasn't there. But the silent treatment can
no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved
right too often.

RECAPTURING THE SPIRIT OF INDEPENDENCE

This week Americans will gather around the grill, attend parades and watch fireworks displays, all in the celebration of the signing of our Declaration of Independence. At the same time, we will have thousands of bureaucrats, troops and agents stationed in countries across the globe being paid by American tax dollars.

On the anniversary of our declaring our own independence from the British, it is certainly appropriate that we reflect on the nature and spirit of independent nationhood. While our founding fathers were individual men in a historically unique situation, they posited that the principles upon which they rested our national independence were timeless.

If we truly honor the men who brought about Independence Day, we would do well to spend at least as much time reflecting on the Declaration of Independence, and the principles upon which it is based, as we spend at the cookouts, parades, and fireworks displays. With the trend toward globalism that has been with us for the past century, we should be specifically thoughtful about how our celebration of independence can be made consistent with the policies that have been advocated by the American government -- as well as many of the nation’s elite— or what we used to call the Eastern Establishment.

I believe there is no way to square our nation’s traditions and reverence for independence with the globalist policies these elites are currently pursuing. The American concept of independent nationhood inscribed in our Declaration cannot be maintained if we are going to pursue a policy that undermines the independence of other nations. National independence is an idea, and the erosion of the independence of other nations only serves to erode that idea.

At the same time, if we allow the erosion of that idea, by ignoring it in certain instances, we will be contributing to its erosion in all times and nations, even our own. In this way our nation’s independence is linked with the independence of all nations. The sooner we realize this truth, and enact a foreign policy that is consistent with it, the sooner we will be able to recapture the spirit of independence.

In addition, as our founding fathers understood, the idea of national independence is inseparable from that of constitutional republicanism. Only the safe-guards and limitations that are enshrined in a constitutionally-limited republic can prohibit a nation from lurching toward empire. Recognizing these same protections is also the very best way to eliminate the need for civil wars and the violence of civil strife.

Moreover, this constitutional republicanism is essential to protecting the individual rights and self-determination that is at the heart of our Declaration. As we celebrate the 231ist anniversary of our nation’s birth, I hope every person who reads or hears this will take the time to go back and read the Declaration of Independence. Only by recapturing the spirit of independence can we ensure our government never resembles the one from which the American States declared their separation.