Santorum Sweeps! WTH?!!

i like santorum - have from the beginning.

have said - i was voting for him in our primary, and ABO in the general.

and his wins were decisive tonite - in some, getting more votes than all others combined!

and of course the one - where is was said he lost, then later was discovered he actually won!

i may even buy a sweater vest!

Thanks for your input Del. I confess I have not completely trusted Santorum from the beginning, although that is based only on a few vague things I have heard, and I have not vetted him yet the way I have done to previous frontrunners.

I suspect he is not as conservative as we really need now, or rather not as reactionary as we need, because we need someone truly dedicated to reversing the accumulated Socialist detritis of the past several decades. But Santorum increasingly has impressed me with his determination and stamina and apparent support for the traditional Constitution.

Ron Paul delivered a magnificent speech last night during the caucus/primary vote counting which Fox News presented live. Although I do have reservations about him for his strictly defensive approach to interntaional relations, his dedication to the cause of reducing the size and scope of business and liberty-crushing government activity is truly inspiring.

understand eagle,
pauls speech was fantastic, no doubt.
like you i only have one or two mis-givings with him.

i think you will find santorum is every bit as conservative, if not more so than newt or mitt - but i can not say that with all certainty.

Oh I'd always figured Santorum was more conservative than either Romney or Newt. He just had appealed to me the least of the ones who were in there. Now he's the last of them. But as I said not even Santorum is likely to do as much as Ron Paul might to decisively repudiate our unprecedently rapid slide to non-Constitutional government and hopeless economic insolvency.

and you may well be dead right - cant say

This whole Republican Primary thing is very entertaining. Just when one thinks it will become boring, something like this happens.

Getting a little scary for you now Larry?

This whole Obama presidency thing has been very entertaining. Just when one thinks he might finally be satisfied that he has destroyed enough of the USA, he goes and takes away another liberty or kills more job opportunities or adds more business-crushing regulations.

eagle,

I live in NC. Jesse Helms was my senator for many years. These Republican candidates can't scare me.

I notice that things have improved under Obama. You can't stand that, can you.

What things exactly have improved Larry? Unemployment is still one percent higher than when he took office, and as we all know that figure has been doctored.

Radical Islam is on a growth curve in large measure thanks to Obama's backing of the Egyptian and Libyan Islamic Brotherhood.

We are six trillion more in debt since he took office.

We have lost several basic Constitutional liberties and are posed to lose what's left of the First and Second Amendments if Obama gets reelected. Seriously, tell me what you "notice" has improved under Obamunism.

eagle,

The economy. The occupation of Iraq. The regulation of Wall Street (a little). The balance on the Supreme Court. The funding of science research. The real estate situation. The reduction in Middle Eastern tyrants (perhaps to be soon replaced my fresh, new tyrants). The health insurance situation.

There are many other improvements. Your unemployment stats should start a year or more after Obama took office. After all, Bush was responsible (according to your implication that Presidents are solely responsible for the economy and foreign events) for the unemployment rates for at least a year after the Administration change. Your Bush should also be held responsible for the budget that Obama operated under in his first year since that budget was not vetoed by Bush.

I also seem to remember that the "Patriot Act" was a Republican production and that tortures and spying on the public were a Bush operation. I seem to remember using the office of the Attorney General for political purposes was under a Republican Administration.

Things have improved greatly in comparison.

Do I approve of what has been happening in government for the last 30 years and more? No. Do it think the current Administration (and Congress) is controlled by big money interests? Absolutely. Do I think the Constitution and the Law protect us from government abuse? It never has before and it doesn't now.

So if you think I will expect improvement under a Republican administration you should have your eyes checked because you have been reading some other person's comments.

LOL "the economy." ROFL Give me a break.

"The occupation of Iraq." - Bush scheduled it, Obama simply let it happen. Obama scaled UP troops in Afghanistan, after putting off making a decision for months until after more damage had been done to our side.

"The regulation of Wall Street." Including provision for more bailouts. Isn't that what OWS is supposedly PROTESTING?

"The balance on the Supreme Court." Only if you are a far leftist. Check out Kagan's past on supporting Obamacare and how now she refuses to recuse herself in taking part in the decision on its Constitutionality.

"The funding of science research." Make that "pseudo-science research," especially on such things near and dear to far leftist hearts such as "climate change" and secondhand smoke. NASA was turned into a pro-radical Islam-promotion group. The space program was terminated so now we have to pay Russia to get into space.

"The real estate situation." You mean the push to return to forcing banks to irresponsibly give out mortgages to people who can't afford to pay for them? You mean the continuing slide of real estate values?

"The reduction of Middle Eastern tyrants." Mubarak was installed and backed by us. He was a friend who helped restrain radical Islam from trying to destroy Israel. Gaddhafi had mellowed and was courting American support. Obama's radical Socialist buddies Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan decried his fall, because they were hoping Gad and his son would model Socialism in the region. The results of both America-assisted interventions has been to assist the rise of the Islamic Brotherhood, which was Obama's goal all along, as is clear from his call last May for Israel to give away the middle of its tiny country to radical Palestinians. Bin Laden was about to die anyway of natural causes.

"The health insurance situation." Obamacare has already led to increases in insurance premiums in anticipation of the added expense to business. In fact it has also acted as a brake on business investment since bussinesspeople frequently refer to their concern about how much it will end up costing them as a main reason they are not hiring. It includes many provisions which are only gradually coming to public view, such as the recent issue about forcing the Catholic church to fund and distribute condoms. Medicare Advantage was wiped out with half a trillion taken away from Medicare, so now us older people have to spend another $1-2k a year for Medicare Advantage type coverage. Etc. Cite how Obamacare is or will improve anything. It is intended only to give government more power over the American economy and people's lives and further drain the personal resources of the middle class.

Ah the "Bush did it" approach. How novel.

I made no implication about Presidents being "solely responsible for the economy and foreign events." Where the heck did you come up with that? That's what Obama has been trying to accomplish. ACORN is the most responsible party for the economic crisis because they have been pushing for liberalization of mortgage lending since the early 1990s by using threats of discrimination lawsuits and bad publicity. Obama was an ACORN instructor. Obama has been caught on videotape identifying himself with ACORN's cause. ACORN is an executive arm of the Cloward-Piven Communist strategy to collapse the system by expanding governemnt welfare and housing programs and load the voting rolls with easily-manipulated new voters and fraudulent ballots and ballot-counting.

He never was my Bush. Bush was a puppet. The Patriot Act's privacy invasion features were an abomination. Yet next to the Obamanations of NDAA and the potential of "Net Neutrality" it was minor league intrusion. I did like Bush's open support for the Second Amendment and his personal relative innocuousness. He was like a boy in a man's job. But apparently Obama is your guy. Good luck under gangster totalitarianism.

No using the Attorny General for political purposes first became clear under Clinton. Remember Janet Reno, Ruby Ridge and Waco?

"Things have improved greatly in comparison." RU kidding? LOLOL
Holder and Fast and Furious ring a bell? Holder and no prosecution of Black Panthers intimidating voters at polls ring a bell? Holder and refusal to prosecute Blacks on the same level as Whites ring a bell? My God man where is your head at? Try watching something besides the "news" provided by the Six Sick Socialist TV Network Sisters for a change.

Do I think the Constitution and the Law protect us from government abuse? It never has before and it doesn't now.

B Freaking S! *shaking head* The only part I agree with is the last three words. I do not have time to explain. But I will note that one President actually resigned his office in mid-term because he was sure to be impeached. Would that "Senate oversight" and "investigative journalism" were anywhere near as determined now.


No I don't and never did think for a second that you thought anything good about any non-Democrat. I'm still puzzled why you even bother to comment outside your little circle of Socialists.

Mr. R. LOL I'm glad I could at least help save YOU some valuable time. *Tag*

eagle,

You reveal yourself again and again. I will note a couple of ways in passing.

1) You asked what things have improved. The death rate of U.S. soldiers in Iraq has improved as I mentioned. You seem to deny that the decline in that death rate is an improvement. I would think you would be very happy about saving the lives of American soldiers. But no, you are so determined to deny that anything associated in any way with Obama can be an improvement that you cannot accept that as an improvement.

2) The funding of science research is what has helped our economy (and our military) lead the world. But you don't thing much of science unless it generates results that fit your prejudices.

3) The real estate market has improved to the point that some building is returning. That's more jobs. But all you can see in real estate is the lies of the radical right wing which you treat as Truth. The lenders were getting rich on those NINJA loans but the only reason you can accept for such loans is that the government required them.

4) Your belief that what Bush did has had no consequences. :-)

5) Your belief that a tiny, poor organization like ACORN could have possibly controlled much of anything is as silly as your belief that the government had to force lenders to get rich.

6) What protection did the Constitution offer the Americans of Japanese ancestry when the U.S. government rounded them up an put them in concentration camps? Many died and most lost any property they owned since they were not allowed to bring more than they could carry and any businesses they owned were lost. Perhaps you think the Constitution actually does protect you.

PS: You will note that the case just above was with a Democrat in the Presidency. Democrats are no more immune to big money influence and control than are Republicans.

I will read any response you make to this comment but will not respond further in this thread. Your bias is too overwhelming to be interesting.

LOL ok works for me. You misread most of what I typed anyway so why bother?

Winning all three was definite a surprise, it looked like Romney was going to get Colorado. While this surely is a big boost for Santorum, I don't think it's a big threat to Romney's ultimate victory. Santorum would have to follow this up with more surprises.

I liked the Minnesota results the most, for obvious reasons, and am hoping that the Maine caucus will finally give a state to the only candidate with a serious plan to cut spending and reign in the government for a change.

Oh, and a reminder to the Tea Party, conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians: Santorum is not one of you.

Matthew, in attempting to find the context of your linked video, I see it's one widely distributed by Ron Paul supporters. Some of them commendably tried to validate it in context but could not, which seriously questions its credibility (why hide that unless it is relevant to what he's saying):

"I’ve been getting this video all morning that Townhall published yesterday and it’s time to set the record straight, as best as I can. I’ve been unable to find the source video, so I don’t currently have the full context."

"Though he’s talking about the libertarian movement in the video, because it’s been cut I can’t be sure that’s the movement he was referring to ... ."

Do you know its proper context and can you provide that link?

Matthew, This commentary brings out important context:

"Listen closely and you’ll hear him talking about a movement, perhaps the libertarian movement, within BOTH the Republican Party and the Tea Party Movement that is attempting to refashion conservatism. He’s not talking about the Tea Party Movement refashioning conservatism within the Republican Party: 'I’ve got some real concerns about this movement within the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement to sort of refashion conservatism. I will vocally and publicly oppose it and do my best to correct the record'."

Even just listening to Santorum talk before reading that, I tended to agree with much of what he said. And I am a Tea Partier. Just because I support the basic American Values that the TP supports does not translate to TPers not thinking for themselves. They do and that is what I like most about them. Don't forget, the TP is comprised of a wide range of political persuations, Democrats, Liberals, and Libertarians included.

That is what people tend to forget, Fren....that the TEA party is not all the same. Our local group has at least 15 Democrats in it.

Fren, you're absolutely right, we need the context, but can't find it. It seems to be video from 2010 (my guess) that's now being used in the Presidential campaign.

In the caption I linked to another video on You Tube that helps back up my claim that he is not one of us; as well as a link in the third comment to something from Red State's Erik Erikson. I think these short clips are merely useful for starting a research process; everyone should dig deeper and look at his record.

I wish I had known this Rick, and not Perry, would have been among the last four in the race, so I could have wrote up one of those Record & Rhetoric Reports on him.

Marilyn, I agree there is lots of diversity in the TP. That's fine. My growing doubts about the movement's usefulness, though, are based on the majority of self-described TP members voting for more of the same.

Matthew, I later found the same edited clips that cited it as coming from a (I think) June 2011 speech in Phildelphia?

I was curious if you'd written a report on Santorum. Honestly, Matthew, I suspect anyone's "growing doubts" about the Tea Party (whether they realize it or not) is based subliminally in all of the rebel rowsing the Left bellyached of it. What was most amusing is, in an effort to take air out of the TP balloon at Debt Ceiling time, all of the Dems first went on TV one night espousing the TP as nothing but "insignificant." Apparently deciding that dismissal wasn't going to work for them, the very next day they all came out decrying the TP as "too powerful." I'm not exaggerating. That is precisely how illegitimate the Left's claims of the TP are.

I linked you elsewhere to information about Congressional TP & Libertarians setting their differences aside in order to bring this government back to The People. Two more votes and we would've had a Libertarian in place of Boehner. They both recognize that IS the real issue and coming that close in 2010 is a major feat. Let's keep it moving forward.

Marilyn, that is very interesting! I like the Democrat from West Virginia, what little I know of him. It is about placing the right people, not the right party. Absolutely. And Tea Partiers know that.

Could be 6/11. That almost sounds familiar, I posted that video about a month ago, so I'll have to check.

Unfortunately, I wrote a report on Rick Perry (~2 months ago) instead of Santorum. Wish I had something ready for Santorum, now that he's in the spotlight. It would take several days to make something of the detail I was doing, but I may consider making a brief post.

I would agree that the TEA party is anything but insignificant. Unfortunately, I tend to agree with Matthew that it has lost its way. If it intends to be a party of fiscal conservatism, it needs to put its collective money where its mouth is and identify how it intends to cut spending to make tax cuts possible. Cutting all discretionary spending in one fell swoop (while attractive to some) is not the way. With 80% or more of the budget going to SS/M/M/ and the Military, those four programs have to get the ax in an intelligent way so as to preserve the capability while decreasing expense. So far, all I've heard from the TEA party of late is strident anti-Obamaism and support for certain forms of social conservatism that run counter to the TEA party's libertarian core.

I've liked Santorum best for a very long time (as you know :). He stayed focus on real issues while other candidates sidelined against one another, diluting their messages and turning off voters. People respect Santorum's knowledge and practical experience. The more that people heard Santorum speak, the more they could envision him as a fine candidate against B. Hussein Obama. I'm sure differences in these elections do reflect Midwest values.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement other than the insult to Midwesterners it seems to be? "Or is this just an example of how out of touch the middle of the country is with the "real values" of modern America, aka anti-Constitutional, anti-Christian global Socialism?" Speaking as a Midwesterner, we consider "modern America" to be The Problem and we don't consider them "modern." "Progressive," maybe, not modern. Keep in mind, a large portion of people living in the "modern" United States are Midwesterners. Your comment is like telling your head that it's really your butt and it needs to start doing what butts do best.

The one thing I've been waiting for before committing to Santorum, which seems likely to come now, is vetting. If there are serious (real) unknown issues, of course that will change things.

This is an excellently done post, btw, thank you for the quality you bring to yours!

That line at the end was just to include the typical Democrat in the discussion Fren, although I'm sure most of them don't even realize what they are supporting. I would never insult midwesterners, good heavens where would this country be without them?

Right now we're swirling in the toilet flushing Obama is giving the Constitution. Without the Americans who still believe personal freedom is worth saving, we might already be in the Great Septic Tank of Collapsed Governments of World History.

Eagle, phew (lol), "I would never insult midwesterners, good heavens where would this country be without them?" My thoughts exactly. Thanks for clarifying that, it did confuse me.

"Right now we're swirling in the toilet flushing Obama is giving the Constitution. Without the Americans who still believe personal freedom is worth saving, we might already be in the Great Septic Tank of Collapsed Governments of World History."

And that cesspool of Communism that's headed our way if we don't do something about that - quickly.

I started paying attention to him, when he called for Newt and Romney to act as adults and stop the figting... I also, have heard him in interviews and he seems very honest... I think he has showed his maturity and acts professional...

I think you've pinpointed the reasons for what happened yesterday vickey.

I also like Santorum and I believe he is the closest to truthful that there is but it will take a strong candidate to beat the money of soros and obama. It is a shame everything comes down to money.

Santorum is not on the ballot in all the states thus making his nomination all but impossible.

Linda, "all but" being the operative words. No one would put himself through the financial and personal rigors of running for president if there wasn't the expectation that achieving it was possible.

I'm going to have to learn a lot more about Santorum. I've never even considered him.

Me too, Col. I've liked what I've seen and heard, but I haven't done any digging.

Marilyn, that vetting is what I've been waiting and hoping for. I suspect we will see it now. We are getting down to the wire.

I thought about half of the people on this thread were Newt supporters. What happened?

They've come to the conclusion that Newt isn't palatable to the majority of the American electorate.

Or, jumping on the bandwagon, maybe!?!

Matthew, clearly what everyone has been doing is trying on which fits best over the longer haul. Like a new pair of shoes, no one knows which wears the best over time by just trying them on in the store; nor is that a wise thing to do. That is what this process is all about, that is the purpose of the process and that is the benefit of the process.

Those who imply it is anything less do that because it comforts them to think in lesser terms. That doesn't change what it really is. The Left would be doing themsevles a huge favor to watch and learn :). Throughout this I've tried to be relatively supportive of all of our candidates, knowing full well that any one of ours is better than what we have now. That doesn't mean I supported that particular candidate over another, it simply means I know any one of ours is considerable improvement over B. Hussein Obama. I see many here who have vacillated in that very same way.

LOL, I don't see them fighting for spots on that wagon anytime soon, either.

Thanks Fren. That makes sense. I'm just surprised at the wild vacillations in the polling. I'm not sure that's a good thing, but if one believes all the candidates are about the same- all of them significantly better than the choices to be faced in the general election, I guess the general lack of committed support doesn't matter.

Matthew, thanks and I hope you didn't misread me? I wasn't saying we considered R-ticket candidates "all about the same." Not at all. I think Conservatives have been a lot like "The Wave" at a ball game, coming to similar realizations and swinging in similar directions because of them. There's a quote I adore, "we do the best we can with what we know and when we know more we do better."

In this election, I think the worst mistake we can make is to stay committed to a candidate we've learned isn't the best fit, purely out of loyalty. More Americans today are more involved than ever before and they're taking their time; they're getting to know their candidates like they never have before. A good percentage of "Independents" today are those like me, who haven't made up their minds yet, very unlike years past.

What do I think? I think Santorum has been given a pass so far. He has viciously misrepresented things about both Newt and Romney, while they battled each other. As the Romney machine goes to work on him, he will be another flash in the pan. He couldn't hold his support in his own state, and he will lose this little spotlight quickly, if only because the Party proper supports Romney, and the media is already "sold" to the highest birders for their market. He is a place holder, that's all, IMHO. he can't pull the independents because of his constant hammering to push Christian principles down the throats of those who value liberty above all, and see encroachment from either direction as the enemy. This is not an endorsement though of the liberty of Ron Paul, because they world is a very dangerous place. The country does not trust Paul's methods as protecting them enough. Even the protection of Israel is not so much a Christian thing, as the "right" of being true to a friendship. Abandoning long held friendships by Obama has been a large part of the perceived failure in toto of Obama on foreign affairs.

Exactly, Santorum has escaped significant scrutiny; this is his first big win. Romney will put a stop to that, most likely, in the coming week(s). But it is a set back for him either way.

Absolutely a setback for Romney. it should put a lot of emphasis on him in the run-up to Super Tuesday. That is of course a good thing for Newt. I think however it is still clear Romney will be the nominee. If Santorum gets the nom it is even less likely the Repub. can win the general. AS I said, he will lose the middle and a lot of indep to Obama, a recipe for loss.

BTW, Matthew, I forgot Paul in the list he viciously mis characterized. Sorry, he is non discriminatory. Mis quotes and misstates equally for All. He's a punk, but still a better punk than Obama.

I agree. Romney still has a very strong advantage. Santorum trails in the polls, worse than Paul and Romney.

For Newt's campaign, last night was not good news, but they are probably happy someone is giving Romney road bumps, even though it wasn't them.

So Char is Newt still the better choice?

We need a Christian advocate since the Constitution's legitimacy is based on "endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with inalienable rights." You know, the phrase Obama leaves out when he quotes that sentence.

At this point that is far more important in restoring America than quibbling about RELATIVELY minor social issues. And haven't the atheists now in power been "hammering to push (atheist) principles down the throats of those who value liberty above all?" Like forcing Catholics to fund and distribute condoms? Like Nancy Pelosi suggesting Catholic priests and bishops should be promoting Obamunism from their pulpits like Jeremiah Wright used to do?

The same could be said about discounting Ron Paul just because of fears he might leave the US more vulnerable to attack by a still nukeless Iran, which Israel is arguably fully capable of at least delaying from getting them. When the house is burning down, you shouldn't be worrying about whether you left the water running in the bathtub.

Paul is not a repudiator of friendships. Just not willing to commit the resources of the USA in preemptive actions. Rare if not unique situations like perhaps Hitler aside, the actual value of preemptivity always rests on the real and usually indeterminable liklihood that doing nothing will be disastrous.

As Coolidge once said, when you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that before they reach you, nine of them will go off course and end up in a ditch, and you will only have to deal with one of them. Conservatism in a Vermont frontporch armchair.

But it's worse than that according to Paul. When it comes to foreign policy, if you see ten troubles coming down the road, and try to preemptively drive them all into a dtich, you risk actually end up diverting one or more from the ditch to you, and at the end of all that you will have wasted a helluva lotta time and effort.

The beehive analogy is still worthwhile. You take a walk in the country. You see a beehive hanging from the tree you want to sit under to rest. So you poke a stick into it to try to remove this potential threat to your peaceful rest. Instead of removing the threat, the stick breaks, the beehive breaks open on the ground, and all the bees come out and sting the heck out of you. That's what Paul suggests the West has been doing to the Muslims since the end of World War One in 1918. True these bees are actually dedicated to stinging us, have been since 632 AD. But we could have stayed in our own yard far away from them and have Raid handy whenever any of them should find us.

Have you seen the video of the former Israeli minister where he claims we have seldom actually helped Israel in a crisis? In fact he blames our actions for encouraging the Muslim attack on Israel in one war. One of our mutual friend here posted it very recently. Pretty thought-provoking.

But we could have stayed in our own yard far away from them and have Raid handy whenever any of them should find us. Amen Eagle! Some things are just none of our business! We can't and shouldn't police the whole world! But we should stand behind our allies!
At lease now, due to Iran's saber rattling, Obama is supporting Israel. Before that, it looked like Obama abandoned Israel in favor of those who want to wipe the Jews from the face of the earth!

Only because it is an election year, Thomas. Sadly, his true feelings are against Israel in every respect. He has made that very clear. This token nod now means nothing, while Iran buys time saying they will talk. What a joke! He will let them have their time. They were discussing on Fox about how the US UN Ambassador has neglected to obtain a proper resolution against Syria, should she be replaced. Someone there pointed out, and I concur, she is doing what she is being told to do by the White House.

Thomas that remains my one drift from Paulian Libertarianism. As a former history teacher I understand the unique and still ultimately implacable threat radical Islam poses to the West.

However I think Obama's current posturing against Iran is not really a pro-Israel position, but rather a "war with Iran will help me stay in power" position. Also, since he is Commander in Chief, there is no guarantee whatever that it will turn out well for us - after November 2012 - no matter how militarily superior we are to them. It may very well be that sanctions will provoke a new domestic terrorist incident from which Obama can "save" us and golly gee, you can't not reelect your savior now can you?

It's sure hard to swallow that this Islamic sympathizer is really interested in crushing Iran after allowing Bush's schedule for Iraq to go through thereby virtually guaranteeing increasing the radical Islamic grip on that country, and after spending months of valuable time before agreeing to Petraeus' request for more troops in Afghanistan. And we know he is no friend of Israel. Looking tough on Iran might win him back some lost Jewish votes however.

Well since he is not a fan of either the US or its allies, what other possible motivational conclusion can one draw but the pursuit of Obaman self-interest?

Paul's foreign policy it right on the money. No foreign entanglements and a strong military. Friendly relations with what ever nation wants to be friendly but no treaties tha would entnagle us in their domestic or international squables. Trade yes but only if it is Fair Trade and not Free Trade.

Pretty much the foreign policy of the US in the early 1800s Col. Harder to maintain but laudable, especially now that the combination of overreach and Obamunism has so weakened us that once again, like back then, "no foreign entanglements" is a wise course of action.

Exactly Eagle. Back then we were the richest nation in the world and there were a lot fewer taxes. We got our income from Duties on imports mostly. No tax on the fruits of your labor.

We were still a new nation then and vulnerable to attack. The "no foreign entanglements policy" advocated by Washington was intended to preserve our resources at a time when we needed everything we had to build our own strength, and avoid being pulled into a war which would be more in the interest of an ally than our own.

Some considered this a repudiation of the alliance with France which helped us win the Revolution, but in our condition then it was important not to become overextended or risk having our hard-won independence reversed by giving the British, mainly. an excuse to fight us again.

Of course by 1812 we WERE involved in another war with Britain. But fortunately by then the British were already overextended themselves in the Napoleonic Wars against France.

The "no foreign entanglements policy" advocated by Washington was intended to preserve our resources at a time when we needed everything we had to build our own strength, and avoid being pulled into a war which would be more in the interest of an ally than our own.

Eagle, Don't you think this is where we are now?

Yes Char if I understand what your question references, that was my point. We've come significantly full circle in two hundred years. We have much more, but we owe ever so much more than that. In that sense we have never been more vulnerable, and vulnerables should not be committing themselves to extranational aid or adventurism.

Or UN adventures, or world bank commitments. They are committing billions and billions on the President's promise without authorization. Then late at night they just do these calendar approvals by unanimous consent and everybody just quietly doesn't object. I watch them and see it.

The war of 1812 was totally within the Constitution. The British were capturing and conscripting our sailors into their navy. The wars of the last 60+ years were not, especially the ones in the last 15.
That is what makes Ron Paul's foreign policy valid.

I think the Viet Nam war and the Iraq war were wrong. I think we had to go into Afghanistan. We stayed too long though.

Char, think of this - We have not been involved in a Legally Declared War since 1947. How many American lives have been lost in political wars since then? Politicians have been running our wars and doing thier usual bang-up job or killing our troops. Korea, Viet Nam, Kosovo, Bosnia, Iraq 1 & 2, Afghanistan, and others involved the UN or NATO both of which are Foreign Entanglements.

The longer I think about it the better I like Ron Paul's foreign policys.

"I think we had to go into Afghanistan" Why Char?

9-11 was a dire t result of the training camps. We had to drive them out. The thing is, we should have done that, then left. I am extremely upset how Obama has let everyone be in charge of our troops. has anybody ever told our troops to do what a few token French commanders said before?

We should know about those training camps. We set them up back when Al Q was started as a resistance movement against the Soviet invasion of that country. The reasons published were not the reasons to invade and made no sense at all. Destroy an entire country because one man is hiding there and some of his followers are training there? Would you want the US destroyed because the American Nazi party has survival camps in various parts of the country?

IF it happened that there was a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan why didn't Congress declare war? Congress has not declared war since WW2. A declaration of war is manditory before committing our forces for a long period of time. The War Powers Act does no give the president power to invade a country unless that countrys government has attacked us and only very temporarily. It is an emergency measure until Congress can act and that is all.

What about putting our troops under UN control?? I thought that was always a no no.

Sorry I missed this exchange when it occurred. I enjoyed it and agree with you both.

The lack of a war declaration has been a sign of the rise of the power of the President in an era of decreased personal responsibility. This is a product of our educational system failing to teach either a positive American history nor anything other than a Socialist view of the Constitution, which is to say a Constitution which justifies inified rather than separate powerf of government, especially by allowing the President to take over powers formerly strictly given to Congress.

One key casualty has been the Congressional power to declare war. Those favoring war for whatever reason know that it is very difficult to get Congress to cooperate with a war declaration: only the horrific surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was able to accomplish that for World War II.

American troops under UN control, or using NATO to take down Gaddafi, are clearly part of the OWG push. The sovereignty of the USA has to be reduced as much as the strength of the USA for the USA to be brought into a OWG successfully.