The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Kudos to David Webb!
As readers of this blog know, I have had my problems with most all talk radio hosts. In my mind the only one who consistently advocates constitutional limited government and original intent is the king Dude, Mike Church. Recently I have had my differences with David Webb. After listening to a few minutes of last nights show as my SiriusXM was in “lullaby mode”, I heard him welcome a Twitter follower to the show, Libertarian Texan (@libertariantex).
That really impressed me! Here is a guy who just got his own nightly show less than two weeks prior and he has Tex and his family in his studio in NYC. If anyone would be susceptible to an inflated ego, one would think it might just be a guy who just got a nightly national talk radio show of his own. Yet Webb welcomed the guy not just to his studio, but put him on the air for a brief chat!
Mr. Webb, I still have philosophical issues with many of your positions, but kudos for being a stand up guy!! If I ever venture north of the Mason Dixon and get to NYC, I’d like to buy you a drink and share some cigars with you!
Mitt Romney: Crony Capitalist Exhibits A & B
Recently I was in a Twitter debate and David Webb himself challenged my assertion Mittens was a crony capitalist. Mr. Webb challenged me to provide facts, repayment terms, etc…knowing full well that I as a real capitalist I must use my days to run my business. Yes, I am one of the vaunted “small businessmen” the GOP claims to adore. I have no such time nor the inclination to do Mr Webb’s job for him. It is his job to bring such facts to his listeners, yet, he does not. Why? Perhaps it does not fir the context or the narrative he is trying to sell his listeners.
But after my last customer left, I took about 5 minutes on Google to find my first example: Steel Dynamics.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/12/nation/la-na-bain-subsidies-20120113
Bain Capital began looking at investing in the steel start-up in late 1993. At the time, Steel Dynamics was weighing where to locate its first plant, based in part on which region offered the best tax incentives. In June 1994, Bain put $18.2 million into Steel Dynamics, making it the largest domestic equity holder. It sold its stake five years later for $104 million, a return of more than $85 million.
As Bain made its investment, the state and county pledged $37 million in subsidies and grants for the $385-million plant project. The county also levied a new income tax to finance infrastructure improvements to benefit the steel mill over the heated objections of some county residents.
“I’m very pro-business, but I’m not pro-business-welfare,” said DeKalb County resident Suzanne Beaman, 58, who fought the incentives. Steel Dynamics “would have done fine without our tax dollars, I have no doubt.”
The other example is another steel industry noted in the same story: GS Industries.
Another steel company in which Bain invested, GS Industries, went bankrupt in 2001, causing more than 700 workers to lose their jobs, health insurance and a part of their pensions. Before going under, the company paid large dividends to Bain partners and expanded its Kansas City plant with the help of tax subsidies. It also sought a $50-million federal loan guarantee.
“This is corporate welfare,” said Tad DeHaven, a budget analyst with the Washington-based Cato Institute, which encourages free-market economic policies. DeHaven, who is familiar with corporate tax subsidies in Indiana and other states, called the incentives Steel Dynamics received “an example of the government stepping into the marketplace, picking winners and losers, providing profits to business owners and leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill.”
Mr Webb said he “can support someone with accomplishments.” Seems part of Mittens accomplishments came from the government handouts and special favors…dare I say “crony capitalism?”
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth.
Does this make you wonder what else your talk radio hosts aren’t telling you?
The Tea Party Movement: A Eulogy
I knew the Tea Party Movement was nothing to be taken seriously when the “leaders” of the movement noted its creation at the Rick Santelli rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA As anyone who is serious about free market economics knows, the Tea Party was an outgrowth of the 2008 Ron Paulfor President campaign http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/ron_pauls_tea_p.html. Thus, it was easy to deduce the so called Tea Party was simply a partisan outgrowth of anti-Obama sentiment. Hey, I am all for anti-Obama sentiment, but I also advocate liberty, freedom and anti-interventionism on the pasrt of the federal government. Not many Tea Partiers feel that way.
If any more evidence was needed, how about the countless examples of Tea Party Patriots telling pols to keep their hands off their Medicare!! We love our entitlement, just don’t pass another one!! So much for intervention into the economy!
And then came the so called patriotism and worship of militarism. We hate liberal stimulus, but you aren;t cutting that military budget nor end a war! We have to increase military spending, as we have heard on the David Webb Show in recent days. I don’t mean to pick on Webb, but it’s been very busy at work and I cant hear the neoconservative rantings of Beck, Limbaugh, or Hannity, so Webb is the only one I can listen to. Yet I must confess, I seldom make it through the “lullaby” feature of Nightstand Central on my iphone. http://thomashuntington.com/iOS/Nightstand_Central.html
The death knell, FreedomWorks. The brainchild of mega lobbyist Dick Armey, a partner at DLA Piper and former Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Armey signaled the assimilation of the Tea Party into the big tent of the GOP. Michelle Bachmann played her part by creating a Tea Party Caucus. Yet, the Tea Party could boast knocking off a few RINOs in primaries and electing a few pols in 2010. But the death was certain as evidenced by the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries as Rick Santorum, probably the most interventionist of the candidates, gained the majority of the support of the Tea Party members. Hell, have you even heard a peep form Tea Party leaders over the presumed nomination of Mittens? The guy who gave us the embryo of ObamaCare!!!
Yes, the Tea Party is dead. Dick Armey has his mailing list; David Webb has his talk radio show and the GOP has Mitt Romney. For those serious about limited government and the Liberty Movement, please give the following sites a review: http://www.campaignforliberty.org/; http://lpac.com/; http://mises.org/; and listen to Mike Church, SiriusXM Patriot 6:00 am to 9:00 am est. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/mike-church-the-most-radical-man-on-the-radi/
Mark Levin Finally Called Out!
Yes, Mark Levin is an loud mouthed idiot and if you listen to him and actually think he is an example of a “conservative intellectual”, boy does he have you fooled! Of course he can do this because so many of his listeners have never read primary sources in political philosophy for themselves; the primary sources he speaks of and fools his listeners and readers with out of context quotes and quite frankly, dishonest analysis!!
So it was refreshing to see that finally someone has called Levin on his dishonest analysis!
Ameritopia, like many polemical bad books in political philosophy, teems with misused abstractions and contains few empirical examples. In chapters devoted to theRepublic, Leviathan, Utopia, and The Communist Manifesto, Levin offers Cliff’s Notes-like capsules of the works. His formula is to offer a brief phrase like, “as Locke explains,” followed by long quotations that sometimes go on for a page. (He also adores his own prose, as when he writes, “As I wrote in Liberty and Tyranny,” then quotes himself for nearly half a page.) That’s one way to pad a book…
In explicating Plato, Levin operates as if he’s Sir Karl Popper’s campaign manager, running against an ancient guy in a toga. Levin mentions every line that supports Plato as pro-tyranny and excludes every one that doesn’t. While Popper certainly had some sharp observations about Plato, Levin’s depiction of the author of many dialogues besides the Republic as a consummate hater of individuals is just distortion. (One wonders, too, what Popper would have made of Levin’s claim that “it’s not difficult to find the germs” of “Islamicism” in the Republic.)…
He’s just as bad on constitutional history. The Constitution, he writes, “neither preserved nor promoted slavery.” Well, let’s see. Slavery operated legally before the Constitution. It remained operational and legal after the Constitution. Your conclusion? Also deeply unconvincing is Levin’s claim that “had there been no Constitution there would have been no United States.” A mere inconvenience, those 12 years between the founding of the United States and the ratification of the Constitution.
http://chronicle.com/article/Ameritopia-How-Dumb-Can/131485/
This is from the review of Levin’s Ameritopia, his latest chart topper bought up by the thousands of “conservatives” that have no idea that Levin is deceiving them due to their government endorsed educations!! Just another example of a neoconservative talk radio host trying to fool their listeners/readers that the GOP has always stood for such policies.
Republican Cannabalism
I think we are about to see 10 days of unmerciful attacks. Newt & Perry have descended to such depths they are now making the liberal left wing attack on capitalism and free market economics. Romney will be forced to respond. Santorum has not taken the “Bain bait” and defends Romney. Easy to see why, little Ricky wants the supporters of Perry and Newt to rally around him. Oh, I forgot about Huntsman…so will South Carolina!
So, I think the Ron Paul campaign should build upon its ads “Betrayal” (Santorum) and “Serial Hypocrisy” (Romney/Gingrich) and come up with a third ad calling them all out a “Big Government Conservatives”. Such an ad would hit Santorum with clips to the previous ad, and add Perry & Gingrich attacking the free market! These should play HEAVY until the last weekend, then the rotation should center heavily on the ads “Big Dog” and “Conviction”.
Why no big hit on Mitt? Simple, we have to get this to a two man race, Romney-Paul and the sooner the better!
Santorum & His Catholic Faith
The left has predictably gone after Rick Santorum for his position on contraception, even for married couples. Santorum has taken public principled stands against the landmark court cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas. Santorum thinks that the court cases have created rights under the Constitution that should not be there, i.e. the right to privacy! Santorum believes there is no right to privacy the Bill of Rights notwithstanding.
Santorum bases his position on being a Catholic and the teaching of the Catholic Chruch telling Bill O’Reilly:
Well, the states have a right to do a lot of things. That doesn’t mean they should do it. Someone asked me if the states have the right to do it? Yes. They have the right to do it, they shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t vote for it if they did. It doesn’t mean they don’t have the right to do it. As you know, Bill, you’re a Catholic, Catholic Church teaches contraceptive [sic] is something you shouldn’t do. So when I was asked the question on contraception I said I didn’t support it.
We should all applaud Santorum’s adherence to his faith.
Yet, as I was perusing Facebook last night, Jack Hunter, The Southern Avenger, posted:
Rick Santorum says his opposition to contraception is based on Vatican teaching. Reasonable enough. Now apply this thinking to foreign policy.
Jack later wrote an entire piece on this at: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorums-cafeteria-catholicism/
Jack rightly points to Santorum’s “Cafeteria Catholicsim in that he does not seem to strictly adher to the church’s teaching on “just war”. Lets look at the four prerequisites:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Lets apply these to the current situation with Iran.
1. What damage at all has Iran inflicted upon the United States, much less any “lasting, grave and certain” damage?
2. Have we even spoken to Iran and tried to negotiate as to their nuclear program or have we let the Europeans and the UN act? In fact, in the last week Iran has asked for a return to talks.
3. What overall success can there be if by bombing Iran we initiate a war, obviously increased terrorism and can you imagine what a huge spike in oil prices would do to billions of poor around the world?
4. The last ground for a just war ties into number 3. Would not the elimination of Iran’s alleged capability to create a nuclear weapon bring forth much greater evil and disorder?
There has been one previous preemptive war, the war in Iraq. Here is what the current Pope said about that war from Jack’s piece:
When Cardinal Ratzinger was asked whether a U.S. led war on Iraq would be “just war” he replied before it started: ”Certainly not… the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save.”
Ratzinger added: “All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me… the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
When Cardinal Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he said during his Easter message in 2008: “Nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees…”
Catholic leaders generally said that America’s decision to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 was a just war because the U.S. was defending itself after 9/11. Ron Paul, a devout Christian who also subscribes to Christian teaching on just war, also voted to go to war with Afghanistan after 9/11.
But both Pope Benedict and his predecessor Pope John Paul II agreed that the Iraq War did not qualify as a “just war.” Paul agreed with the Vatican.
I would hope one of the talking heads at the debates this weekend would ask Santorum about this.
Don’t Want to be an American Idiot?
I noticed an item on the net this morning regarding cable news ratings for 2011. It seems that the FoxNews Channel dominates the ratings!
Fox News Channel continued its dominance, with an average viewership that exceeded CNN and MSNBC combined in prime time and for the entire day, the Nielsen ratings company said Wednesday. Fox typically had 1.87 million viewers in prime time this year. The top 13 programs in cable news all aired on Fox.
I think it is safe to assume most FNC viewers would be described as Republicans. So, what does this say when added to this surveys findings?
If Fox News viewers want to be informed about current events, they might as well turn off the TV. A poll released by Fairleigh Dickinson University on Monday found that people who get their news from Fox News know significantly less about news both in the U.S. and the world than people who watch no news at all.
And one wonders why we have the government we have?
Iran: Deja vu All Over Again?
Deja vu is the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the prior encounter might be uncertain and or even imagined. As I watched the latest Republican debate last week, I had that feeling of deja vu. The candidates one by one, except Ron Paul, all laid out horrific scenarios should Iran be allowed to develop and build a nuclear weapon! I kept waiting for someone to bring back that golden oldie:
America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. George Bush about Iraq in 2002
We all know how that turned out as the last US troops left Iraq in the last week: nearly 4500 Americans dead, 32,000 Americans wounded, over 100,000 Iraqi dead with a cost of at least $800,000,000,000 in borrowed money from the Chinese! Will Iraq be western style democracy? If history teaches us anything, the answer to that question is no. So, as in Libya, the massive US military intervention simply knocked off a dictator that was a former ally of the United States! Now, it seems the neoconservatives in the GOP want to take that record on the road again, this time to Iran!
The “war propaganda” as Ron Paul calls it is eerily similar to the build up to the Iraq War. Bachmann has gone so far over the top as to allege that Iran wants to wipe the nation of Israel off the map and that Iran has said they want to attack the United States! She deliberately lies about the findings in the latest IAEA report saying last week that Iran could have a nuclear bomb in a matter of months! Many of the fact checking truth squads have called Bachmann and others, Santorum primarily for that doomsday proclamations!
Here are the three major findings in the latest IAEA report on Iran:
- The latest IAEA report on Iran’s nuclear program is consistent with the conclusions of the 2007 NIE.
- Although Iran halted its comprehensive clandestine nuclear weaponization program in late 2003, it continues to pursue activities highly relevant to a nuclear weapons program.
- There is no evidence Iran has yet decided to actually build nuclear weapons.
I daresay anyone that is building a nuclear power plant could meet the second criteria, but the bottom line is there is NO evidence Iran has decided to even build a nuclear weapon and any known plans were halted, 8 years ago!
Want more? Lets look at our own Pentagon’s latest assessment:
This unclassified assessment of Iran’s military capability by the US Department of Defense clearly states that “To ensure regime survival, Iran’s security strategy is based first on deterring an attack.”
The document goes on to make this key statement, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”
But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, “At present Iran’s forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran’s weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran’s boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel.”
Stated simply Iran wants to obtain the necessary weapons to defend itself in a bad neighborhood where it finds itself surrounded by a global superpower.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30277432/DoD-Unclassified-Report-on-Military-Power-of-Iran
Sounds to me the Pentagon agrees with Ron Paul?
One neoconservative thinker at the American Enterprise Institute, Danielle Pletka, states that if Iran had a nuclear bomb and did’n't use it, well that would be the absolutely worse outcome of them all, because it would show the Iranians as “reasonable”:
The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don’t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, “See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn’t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately.” … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
http://politicalcorrection.org/fpmatters/201112020008
Even Secretary of Defense Panetta, even though his Pentagon states that Iran is acting in a defensive manner, said in the last few days:
The Pentagon chief said if Iran really ramps up its nuclear weapons program, it could have such a weapon in a year. “If they proceed and we get intelligence that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it,” Panetta said in an interview posted online.
Notice all the “ifs” in Panetta’s statement and the fact that he would rely on an intelligence apparatus that said WMDs in Iraq was a “slam dunk”, had no idea Kim Jong Il was near death and totally missed the fall of communism and the disintegration of the Soviet Union! Feel reassured?
But in the final analysis, I think the real reason for all this nuclear hype against Iran is to support a policy of “regime change” in Iran:
So the real reason the Pentagon sees a nuclear program in Iran as a threat is not because it would be used as a first strike weapon against Israel, but because it would make it more difficult for the US and its allies to take out the regime in Tehran.
Regime change…where have I heard that before? It’s deja vu all over again!
The GOP: Anybody but Obama? No, Anybody but Ron Paul!
As even an casual observer knows by now, arch conservative Ann Coulter has penned an article wherein she endorses, wait for it, MITT ROMNEY, for President because in her opinion, he is the only on who can beat Obama. Lets look at the choices, shall we?
Little Rickie Santorum: unless Americans are willing to return to the day of the Spanish Inquisition, I’m guessing little Rickie’s run is all about trying to get the Veep spot.
Gov John Huntsman: a Republican intellectual running in an era where the GOP intelligentsia is Rush, Hannity and Levin!!
Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann: is learning that not even all religious voters want to trigger Armageddon
Governor Rick Perry: perhaps the Aggie Yell Team Fly Boy isn’t quite prepared for the rigors of explaining his own plan! Get back to Texas crony capitalism, someone you can do well!
Herman Cain: a man who has run for office twice before, lost, and then claims not being an office holder is a virtue! Cain is a liar, simple as that and cannot be trusted; plus, he seems to have a problem with decisions or answers, seems he can;t do anything without consultation or advisors!
NewT Gingrich: the mere name brings up a vision of slime…serial adulterer, lobbyist, I mean “strategic adviser”, high maintenance current wife…really, Clinton has lowered our standard for the office this much?
Romney: the man who would change his position on salvation if Atheists became a bigger voting block! The guy who created ObamaCare? Really?
So who is left? An honest man, a man who has the courage to be the sole ‘No’ vote in 434-1 roll call votes if he feels the Constitution does not authorize the action; a man who has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget; a man who never takes junkets and returns money from his Congressional office budget every year; a man who has refused to participate in the Congressional pension or benefits; a man who simply wants nothing more than peace and prosperity for his country. Why aren’t Republicans flocking to his cause?
The only answer is his stance against Militarism and his wanting to treat Israel as a nation, not a subservient state. If Ron Paul wanted to continue the empire, the interventionist militarist foreign policy and pledged allegiance to Israel, I dare say his numbers would be unbeatable!
Pat Buchanan said it this week, the GOP is the current party of War.
Foreign Policy: The Neoconservative 8 versus Ron Paul
Tomorrow night CBS and National Journal will host a debate at Wofford College in South Carolina. The theme for the evening is foreign policy. In many ways, it will be eight candidates jockeying over who can kill more Muslims and just itching to help Israel bomb Iran and throw the world into chaos against one lone statesman who advocates a return to the vision of The Founders.
Just as other outspoken neoconservatives such as Mark Levin and Jeffrey Lord, at The Corner at National Review Online, Jamie Fly and Evan Moore advocate not just for no cuts to defense in these austere times, but for more funds! Fly and Moore, from the Foreign Policy Initiative join Levin and Lord and attempting to rewrite history and have you believe The Founders were for spreading freedom around the world and then securing the peace. As Progressives and Neoconservatives have both taken advantage of the awful education system in this country as no one is taught about western civilization or know the history of this country’s founding!
The FPI’s mission statement says:
The Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) is a non-profit, non-partisan tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that promotes:
- continued U.S. engagement–diplomatic, economic, and military—in the world and rejection of policies that would lead us down the path to isolationism;
- robust support for America’s democratic allies and opposition to rogue regimes that threaten American interests;
- the human rights of those oppressed by their governments, and U.S. leadership in working to spread political and economic freedom;
- a strong military with the defense budget needed to ensure that America is ready to confront the threats of the 21st century;
- international economic engagement as a key element of U.S. foreign policy in this time of great economic dislocation.
FPI looks forward to working with all who share these objectives, irrespective of political party, so that the United States successfully confronts its challenges and make progress toward a freer and more secure future.
Along those lines, Fly and Moore write today:
America’s defense budget is based not only on the minimal necessity to defend the homeland, but also on the economic and moral interests of the United States. The U.S. maintains a global presence to keep “the global commons” — the air, oceans, and outer space — open.But America’s activity abroad is also deeply rooted in our national ideals and values. As a country founded by men who believed that “all men are created equal,” and that they are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” the United States has an intrinsic interest in the promotion and advancement of democracy worldwide.By shaping a world order that is free and prosperous, the United States secures its own peace and prosperity. Our activities abroad are not the product of an uncontrollable, imperialistic Leviathan, but a reflection of who we are as Americans. Our defense spending is tied to our belief in human liberty, and our dogged “pursuit of happiness.
Wow, according to Fly and Moore, we are truly Team America, Global Police! What makes matters even worse, no writer at NRO has taken the The Corner to find any fault with this revisionist history of our founding and The Founders view of America.
My response? I’ll let the Founders speak for themselves:
George Washington from his Farewell Address:
John Adams fought against both Federalist and the Democratic Republicans to maintain the neutral stance Washington had advocated. Jefferson wanted Adams to side with our Revolutionary ally, France; Hamilton and the Federalists wanted Adams to side with England. Yet, aside form battles of defense in The Quasi War, Adams maintained neutrality and made peace with the French!
I desire no other inscription over my gravestone than, “Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France in the year 1800.:
Thomas Jefferson:
“Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations–entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801. ME 3:321“I sincerely join… in abjuring all political connection with every foreign power; and though I cordially wish well to the progress of liberty in all nations, and would forever give it the weight of our countenance, yet they are not to be touched without contamination from their other bad principles. Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Lomax, 1799. ME 10:124
James Madison:
It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.
The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
James Monroe
The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense.Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
There you have it, read the words of The Founders, then compare it to Fly and Moore’s piece. And tomorrow night, when that one lone statesman stands up for the foreign policy of the founders, remember which side is lying to you!