It is a tragedy that until 2011 Americans have not had the slightest chance to return to the federal republic form of government espoused by our Founders. Peter S. Onuf, writing in The Origins Of The Federal Republic, explains, “There was little disagreement in theory about what Congress should do. John Adam’s prescription was typical. He thought that Congress’s ‘authority’ should sacredly be confined to… war, trade, disputes between Colony and Colony, the Post-Office, and the inappropriate lands of the Crown.” And how are we doing?
Today I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat because neither party has any interest in doing what is best for America or adhering to the intent of America’s Constitution. A handful of elected politicians are on the right track and do know what should be done. And one of them was on stage in the recent Republican debate.
I read that Mitt Romney was the winner in the first GOP presidential debate. I also read that Mr. Romney is the Republican presidential front-runner. I find both statements perplexing. There is a book written by one of the on-stage candidates that lays out exactly where we are in America and what needs to done. I advise all American’s to read Liberty Defined. I of course am referring to Ron Paul. Mr. Paul correctly writes, “Today, the United States beats the war drums against a host of countries that we are antagonizing and provoking… Invading other countries is a bad idea, especially if the goal is to stop terrorism; quite the opposite will be the result.” Once again dead-on the money, Ron Paul tells us, “Countries such as Sweden and Switzerland spend miniscule amounts on military preparation. Costa Rica has no military at all. These countries are not threatened, because they are regarded as nonaggressive. They naturally are far less threatened—though they are free and prosperous—by outsiders wanting to terrorize their citizens.”
Paul gets tooled by the media, RINOs, and the neocon crowd (see the former Project For A New American Century and today’s Foreign Policy Initiative for a rather complete roster of the folk I am referring to here). The inside game has been, since I was born, 100% about the military-industrial complex. It has been about oil and weapons. You no doubt are aware of the recent fence-mending foray Secretary of Defense Gates made to Saudi Arabia to meet with King Abdullah. U.S./Saudi relations haven’t been so hot recently even though the U.S. government has agreed to sell the Saudis 60 billion dollars worth of military hardware. That’s billions, not millions.
Why do I not see Mitt Romney doing anything about disrupting the industrial/military complex? Dr. Paul gets most of the applause at these lame debates because he is usually the only sincere individual on the stage, as well as the guy who for decades has done the legwork and has come up with the best solutions for America. Sorry, but that is not what the interventionists or the income re-distribution crowd wants to hear. It is, however, what I want to hear and what I think the Tea Party wants to hear. And it would appear that Michelle Bachmann has emerged as a sincere constitutional supporter and a candidate offering a positive message for America. I like her.
Latest posts by Richard C. Young (see all)
- Oxford Grabs Top Spot in Latest World University Ratings - September 23, 2016
- Rasmussen: Isolationism Will Not Make the United States Safer and More Prosperous - September 22, 2016
- The Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell Delivers a Dire Warning! - September 22, 2016