First time visitor? Learn more.

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy speech at the Heritage Foundation

by Rodan ( 10 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Republican Party, Special Report at February 6th, 2013 - 11:14 pm

At one time, the Republican Party’s foreign policy was based on caution and American interest. After 9/11 Bush and the Wilsonian Progressives made nation building and democracy spreading the central tenet of the Republican Party. Any Conservatives who challenged this view was called an isolationist or anti-Semite. But many on the Right are no longer afraid and are speaking out.

Ran Paul outlined his foreign policy vision at the Heritage Foundation. He rejects nation building, wars for humanitarian purposes and staying out of conflicts not in our national interest. He rejects the choice in foreign policy is between Neoconservatism and Isolationism. This is a speech that Coolidge, Ike and Reagan would applaud.

Republicans should adopt Rand Paul’s foreign policy views.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

10 Responses to “Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy speech at the Heritage Foundation”
( jump to bottom )

  1. coldwarrior
    1 | February 7, 2013 9:01 am

    witness the rise of gen-x.

    maybe we can make a winning brand of the gop. frankly, the boomer leadership has wrecked a perfectly good brand.


  2. 2 | February 7, 2013 3:23 pm

    Whether it is the Messiah shipping F16′s to the Muslim Brotherhood or the calling out of the Libyan gun running operation, Sen. Paul continues to expouse good sense. Is he faking it? I don’t think Sen. Paul is faking his opinions anymore than his antiwar father faked his.


  3. sk (skzion)
    3 | February 7, 2013 7:50 pm

    I saw a transcript. Paul seems to believe that Islam is just peachy; it’s only “Radical Islam” that’s the problem. This is utterly false, as most here would agree.

    Paul also thinks that we need to “contain” “Radical Islam”; in fact, though, we need to contain ISLAM EVERYWHERE, as a prelude to a rollback. Neither Ike nor Reagan were satisfied with mere containment, even though Ike (as I recall) could do no better at the time.

    Rand Paul is no Ike or Reagan. Muslims are militarily insignificant, and we do not need their oil. The idea that we are supposed to treat them as if they were the USSR (with its second strike capability) is absurd.

    I think RP totally undermined his case for president.

    I agree with my buddy Rodan that there is an alternative to neoconservative nation-building and isolationism. It’s called waging war against the ideology of Islam in ways small and large. We start by announcing that Islam, and not “Radical Islam” or “Islamism” or (etc.), is the problem. We then end immigration and visas from Muslim countries. We then expel the illegal Muslims who are here--a huge number.

    We cut all government aid to Muslim countries, including food. However, we encourage and back missionaries who will be tasked with making Christianity salient. Any attacks on missionaries should be dealt with via indiscriminate bombing of important families. The legal system of the aided country would need to abolish sharia. Then, there needs to be a church building program.

    Naturally, we decapitate any Muslim regimes that oppose us.

    The point is to roll back Islam. We need to end this infernal ideology. It’s that simple.

    You see, there *IS* an alternative.


  4. darkwords
    4 | February 7, 2013 10:02 pm

    @ 3 sk (skzion): I agree with you but the steps needed are not feasible in the current political climate. The clamp down on Islam shouldn’t be a campaign platform unless we have another 9/11. Rand Pauls approach is the savvy one. bite off a small piece of islam, then another. Take a few election cycles to do it.


  5. sk (skzion)
    5 | February 8, 2013 1:07 pm

    @ darkwords:
    Yes, but I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that Paul is simply being tactically clever. If he cannot tell the truth about Islam I assume that he doesn’t know the truth. If he knows and will not say, I consider him unreliable.

    Also, I do not understand how refusing to speak the truth can ever be a good first step. Every entry on my to-do list makes sense ONLY if Islam is first handled truthfully.

    Leftists are wrong about most things. But naming the enemy, “freezing” him, as Alinsky would say, is of primary importance.


  6. sk (skzion)
    6 | February 8, 2013 1:14 pm

    I’m not sure how many are reading this blog entry, but I note that Rand Paul has a column in the Washington Times (not Post), which he has used today to advance amnesty for illegals.

    He also wants lots more work visas, which are another avenue for illegals, as well as bringing in Muslims and Chinese who spy on us (and on Chinese Americans).

    It’s amazing! Somehow, this supposedly market-friendly fellow believes that America cannot produce its own skilled workers.

    Paul is a big fraud.


  7. Speranza
    7 | February 8, 2013 4:40 pm

    Neither Ike nor Reagan were satisfied with mere containment, even though Ike (as I recall) could do no better at the time.

    Ike was very upset with the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. Reagan believed in undermining the USSR, not fighting it.


  8. 8 | February 8, 2013 6:49 pm

    darkwords wrote:

    @ 3 sk (skzion): I agree with you but the steps needed are not feasible in the current political climate. The clamp down on Islam shouldn’t be a campaign platform unless we have another 9/11. Rand Pauls approach is the savvy one. bite off a small piece of islam, then another. Take a few election cycles to do it.

    That’s why we blog.

    sk (skzion) wrote:

    @ darkwords:
    Yes, but I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that Paul is simply being tactically clever. If he cannot tell the truth about Islam I assume that he doesn’t know the truth. If he knows and will not say, I consider him unreliable.
    Also, I do not understand how refusing to speak the truth can ever be a good first step. Every entry on my to-do list makes sense ONLY if Islam is first handled truthfully.
    Leftists are wrong about most things. But naming the enemy, “freezing” him, as Alinsky would say, is of primary importance.

    That’s why we blog.


  9. darkwords
    9 | February 8, 2013 8:02 pm

    @ 6 sk (skzion):But who would you vote for? Rand Paul or Barack Obama?


  10. darkwords
    10 | February 8, 2013 8:04 pm

    Blogging is a good way to grow a truth. Through repetition and criticism the cream should rise to the top. And people all benefit. Trolls are essentially unevolving noise or weeds that you ignore or trim as needed.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David