« Morning Funnies | Main | The Crime In Crimea »

March 24, 2014


You contradicted yourself ....

"I firmly believe in peace through strength."

Rand Paul believes in this statement as well. And yet you strongly disagree with him on his foreign policy plank.

You recently advocated for military action against Russia, Iran, and Syria.

How is that an example of "Peace through strength"?

Rand Paul believes in "peace through strength" and has recently backed his rhetoric with his advocacy for weapons that Obama wishes to phase out. He has called for strong sanctions against Russia. "Peace through strength". His positions are exactly that.

Your positions seem to be in direct opposition to that statement. While it is clear that you believe in strength, peace appears to be far from your mind.

Thank you in advance for your response.

And the wisdom that you show in admitting where the RPK platform is shifting when it comes to foreign policy and fiscal policy is commendable.

God Bless.

[Marc's Reply: I don't see what I said as contradictory at all. Peace through strength sometimes requires that the strength be used, not just shown. I'll cite this scene as a humorous example of what I mean: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ua_TZ84hmEA]

My apologies. I didn't take you for a NeoCon "True believer". I figured you were performing a Party duty and therefore being compensated for your services.

When the RPK becomes Rand Paul, are you still going to publish loyal opposition pieces to the new foreign policy and fiscal policy planks of the RPK or are you going to jump on board? Party loyalty was at least important to you in the recent past.

God Bless

[Marc's Reply: The term "neo-con" is defined as one who ascribes to "neoconservatism", which Wikipedia describes thusly:

"Neoconservatism is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s. Many of its adherents rose to political fame during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservatives played a major role in promoting and planning the invasion of Iraq.

The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist Left to the camp of American conservatism. Neoconservatives frequently advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force. The movement had its intellectual roots in the monthly review magazine Commentary. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, claims that most influential neoconservatives refer explicitly to the theoretical ideas in the philosophy of Leo Strauss (1899–1973)."

It is true that my political philosophy was born in that era. It is also true that I am staunchly an anti-Stalinist. I celebrate the fact that I was born the day Stalin died.

It is also true that I "advocate the "assertive" promotion of democracy and promotion of "American national interest" in international affairs including by means of military force" in some instances.

But it is likewise true that the Republican Party which has earned my loyalty has been in many ways of the same mindset since I was a boy.

So, much like the new "non-interventionists" who have abandoned my party on principle, the direct answer to your question is that I will not abandon my principles even if my party does.

I firmly believe in peace through strength. I firmly believe that Communism is just a modern form of tyranny. And I firmly believe that our nation is the last hope for freedom in the world, not just for those of us who enjoy its benefits here, but also for the clamoring billions of people who look to us to save them.

Now, if you think this philosophy of mine means that I agree to abdicate our founding principles to the corporate opportunists who have taken control of our government and that of much of the world and that I also trust them to direct our foreign policy, you would be wrong.

And if you think I will abandon my beliefs for the sake of a "party" which says there can never be a justification for us to take action anywhere in the world unless our nation is under direct threat of attack and that it is never in our interest to take military action to protect other people whose human rights are being threatened, then you mistake me.

I believe that our founders were missionaries who came to this continent in order to spread Christianity, and the liberty inherent in that belief, to a savage world. And I believe that it is our duty to continue with that as our guiding principle.

Now, may God bless you.]

Totally missing the point.

Rand knows that.

But he also knows that winning a primary is a waste of time if one can not win a general.

Grow a majority coalition and sell that in the primary.

It is an easy call. A gamble, but an easy call.

No way he gets his funding from the same source that funds this site (Rove).

He might need McConnell for the funding, but he will not enthusiastically campaign for him this year, unless there are some solid hand shakes regarding money.

God Bless
[Marc's Reply: You think this site is funded? With the exception of a few ads over 8 years, it is purely a labor of love. Not a penny from anybody.]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg



Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad