How one Christ follower decided to vote for Ron Paul, Part 2: Foreign Policy

My last post chronicled how I changed from being a dyed-in-the-wool Republican to an Independent who supports Ron Paul for president. In this post and the next one, I’ll be writing about some of Ron Paul’s positions that seem most misunderstood or misrepresented: foreign policy

The narrative of foreign policy options during the last two decades or so has not been whether we should be engaged in multiple conflicts around the globe simultaneously, but how many can we finance at the same time? Whether Democrat or Republican in office or the majority party there seems to be full, functional agreement on the use of military force around the world. From the MAD arms race of the 60s-80s we now stand at a place where the United States spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined (see video at the end of this post). Truth be told, we are spending much less on defense then we are on offense.

Foreign policy biblically, I believe, does fall under the realm of responsibility of the national government, and in our country the president has a major role. In meeting with heads of state, appointing the secretary of state and various ambassadors the president’s goal should be, through these appointees, to put America’s best foot forward to the world. It is a justifiably important discussion and rightly belongs front and center of debates.

No single area of Ron Paul’s political stances is more misunderstood than his foreign policy. He is commonly described as an isolationist, which is factually incorrect. An isolationist chooses not to be engaged on any level, to withdraw into one’s own borders, cut off trade and refuse communication with the rest of the world. Paul’s stance is that of non-intervention which is a different animal.

Do the stories of Somalia, Yugoslavia, Lybia, Lebanon or China, Albania or Iran ring a bell? Those actions all started as interventions in problematic areas and resulted in the loss of many lives, some American some not. In some cases we overthrew one freely elected president and installed a friendly dictator only to turn around years later and support an opponent of his. (Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been involved in around six dozen military or covert operations under the auspice of interventions. For a list from 1945-1999 see here.)

Depending on the year, the United States has between 700 and 900 military installations around the world, and those are just the ones that the Pentagon will acknowledge publicly. The number of CIA shadow bases around the world is unknown. What is known is we have spent nearly a trillion dollars over the last 10 years supporting the multiple wars in which we are now engaged while running up a national debt of $15T. This is utterly unsustainable.

What is incredible about this is that Americans do not seem to put 2 and 2 together on this. We are rightfully furious about the past several years of unrestrained borrowing and spending, yet are not willing to cut back on our sprawling military adventures. There is a reason why Ron Paul receives more donations from active military personnel than all other Republican candidates combined.

Ron Paul addresses the Rally for the Republic in Minnesota in 2008

What Ron Paul sees and articulates pretty clearly is 1) we have no business policing the world, 2) we have no money to police the world, 3) the world does not appreciate our police state. It really is not appreciated when we tell people, “We want you to experience democracy so bad we are willing to kill you to give it to you.”

What Paul also understands that no other candidate will acknowledge is this: if the shoe were on the other foot we would respond both negatively and violently. If Chinese soldiers were occupying Alaska, would we stand idly by? Or, for a more historical perspective, when England’s grand king attempted to impose his will on our ancestors while they were still British subjects, did they stand idly by? On the contrary, so vehement was their complaint it became known as The American Revolution.

Exporting democracy is neither a biblical nor a constitutional imperative. Since it is not, I do not get why so many Christians feel compelled to support a war-machine.

Early in 2011 I was traveling in Russia. In one of their large, university cities I dined with an English speaking student who was born into one of the 42 ethnic minorities in China. His family remained there as he studied in Russia. We asked, “How is the United States perceived in your home town?” He answered in a way unfathomable to most Americans: “We are afraid that America might come attack China.”

Our reputation matters, and continual warmongering damages our reputation internationally. When Jesus said, “There will be wars and rumors of wars,” I do not think He intended it to be the Neo-con foreign policy handbook. It is time Christians understand something: When the government of the United States makes America look bad internationally, it affects the ability and perceptions of Americans who are on mission with God. Warmongering can create for American Christian missionaries a constant need to explain the actions of the government when they want to be fielding questions about God’s kingdom. As a Christ follower I will no longer support the actions of worldly kings who perpetuate actions designed to expand an earthly empire at the expense of the gospel. Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance on foreign policy will restore American to a place of peace and protection of our own land that the founders must have envisioned when assembling the constitution.

(I am aware that not all internationals feel this way and that many around the world still–rightfully so–see America as the land of hope and opportunity. I love America. It’s our government that frustrates me.)

In his book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (available below), Ron Paul notes about former Republican Senator Robert Taft:

War, Taft perceived, was the enemy of constitution, liberty, economic security, and the cake of custom. . . . Though he was no theoretical pacifist, he insisted that every other possibility must be exhausted before resort to military action. War would make the American President a virtual dictator, diminish the constitutional powers of Congress, contract civil liberties, injure the habitual self-reliance and self-government of the American people, distort the economy, sink the federal government in debt, break in upon private and public morality. Emphasis mine.

Can any seriously suggest that this is not precisely what we see happening, and can anyone seriously suggest this is not what Ron Paul argues against with every opportunity?

No discussion of American foreign policy could be full without considering our relationship to and support of Israel.

As our closest ally in the middle east, Israel, stands alone as a democracy in an ocean of kings, princes, queens and Sharia Law. Since 1948 we have stood with them, have sold them bazillions of dollars in weaponry and given many billions more. A strain of conservative Christians remain convinced that without our support of Israel God will “remove His hand of blessing from America.” For years I was taught that the “last days” would be inaugurated when Russia (Gog and Magog of the book of Ezekiel) plowed through the countries in between to take over Israel.

The point of this is not to argue theology, but to argue that there is more than one way to “support” Israel. From the U.S. budget more money goes to Israel’s sworn enemies every year than to Israel. Honestly: What kind of support is that? That is not robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s paying Paul to leave Peter alone, while pressuring Peter not to act is his own best interests since we give him money, too. A Ron Paul presidency would mean that the U.S. government would not longer be keeping countries on the teet of the American tax dollar, and that Israel would continue to buy the arms she needs if she even needs them. I have not seen a biblical argument yet that “supporting Israel” has anything to do with foreign aid.

Below is a grassroots ad created to explain just a fraction of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. It’s about 13 minutes long, but features a bit of history, the present and some insight from recently discharged military personnel. If you’ve thought about Ron Paul, but wondered about his “unique” or “naive” foreign policy, this might help you see another side.

[If the video doesn’t load, click here.]

Marty Duren

Just a guy writing some things.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • David

    I’ve been a Ron Paul supporter since ’08. He’s not a typical politican, which makes him perfect for POTUS. But I do wonder, if he is the best person for the job as we believe, why is it that he can’t win the nomination?

    • Marty Duren

      There are numerous reasons, I expect. Age, lack of presidential “look,” lack of Republican Party support would be a few.

      The main one, though, IMO, is that his way of looking at world events is so radically different than what we have come to know from politicians that many are simply not willing to do the research necessary to see that he’s right.

  • SVMuschany

    With all due respect Bro Duren, I think you would do well to do a bit of actual study in the field of international diplomacy and/or defense and strategic studies.

    First you mention military actions such as Somalia, the Bosnian conflict (Yugoslavia, Albania), China, Iran, Beruit (this is a city BTW, not a country). Allow me to speak to these. The reason why Somalia is the danger zone it is today is largely because the United States left after events of Mogadishu in 1993. How can I say this? A simple review of history is all that is needed. Examine the difference between West Germany and East Germany after WW2. Examine the difference between North and South Korea after the armistice in 1953. Examine the state of Vietnam after the withdraw of US troops. Examine the state of Grenada after 1983. Examine the state of Kuwait after 1991. When the US Military is involved in protecting/liberating a country, the end result is overwhelmingly good. When the CIA is involved, that is not so true, and if you wish to speak on curtailing CIA operations, we might agree.

    In regards to the Bosnian conflict, consider that US involvement with the UN and NATO was in direct response to the growing news of ethnic cleansing occurring with in the former Yugoslavian countries. If we are a Christian people, I would hope that that would be one of the areas that we involve ourselves as a nation first and foremost. The United States SHOULD have gone into Rwanda, and Sudan, and any other place where one group is systematically killing off other ethnic groups.

    In regards to China, if you wish to discuss US involvement in China during the 1800’s in regards to the “Open Door” policy, which directly led to Japan’s actions leading up to WW2 we can, however I dont think that is what you had in mind. However I think you are referring to the proxy wars of Korea and Vietnam (which was more a proxy war with the USSR, who used China as a middle man in both). Again I ask you to consider the state of North Korea (supported by China) and South Korea (supported by the United States). I ask you to consider the state that Vietnam has been in, only recently seeing an improvement, since the US withdraw. In regards to China itself, it’s recent development in the past few years is mirrored in the collapse of the USSR (if only temporary in leu of recent events with Putin). Capitalism is taking hold in China, and IF the United States keeps diplomatic (and military) pressure encouraging such developments, within 10-20 years true freedom may be a very real thing. This should be especially critical in light of the growing true church movement in China, something I hope Christians can support.

    In regards to Iran, I ask you to consider that the the result of the Ayatollah taking over was due to the mismanagement of the CIA, not general US military policy. Again if you wish to speak to the need to reign in the CIA, we will agree, but please do not link this to US military policy.

    If you are speaking to Iran in the context of it’s current nuclear ambitions, again I ask you to consider that the strategy of MAD, as used against the USSR, will not likely work with Iran. The reason is despite their corrupt and sometimes fanatical nature, the leaders of the USSR were not driven by religious ideology. They were not willing to risk killing themselves in the name of their cause. However, regular statements by leaders in Iran (and other Islamic majority nations for that matter), routinely show that they are willing to become martyrs, if needed, for their religious ideology. If Tehran has to be sacrificed to rid the world of Israel, that is a trade that Iran would likely be willing to make. This is highlighted in the whole concept of suicide bombers. The chance to be a martyr by killing as many enemies as possible. Iran, unlike the USSR, does not think about the consequences of MAD, because even if they are destroyed, if their cause is just, they are heroes. This makes Iran a very dangerous nation if they are allowed possession of nuclear weapons. Furthermore, even IF Iran does not use such weapons themselves, and even IF they submit to a position of MAD posturing, due to their strong links to several terrorist organizations including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, they are just as dangerous. While the USSR did have puppet states, they were very open, if not proud of those connections. The USSR was forthcoming on its efforts to put Nuclear weapons in Cuba and dared the US from trying to stop it. However in contrast, Iran officially disavows its connections to terrorist groups. IF such a group were to be given a nuclear devise, Iran likely would claim denial, and thus resist any attempts to hold them responsible for any damage inflicted by such a device. Again, either with direct involvement, or through proxies, the position of MAD will not work with Iran.

    In regards to Beirut, again I point to the issue of genocide. The reason for US involvement in Beirut was due to the efforts by the PLO and Syria to take over the country, which would include the disenfranchisement and/or murder of the Christian majority within the country. Christians and Muslims in Lebanon have been struggling with one another since it gained its independence from France in 1943. It was the Christian leadership in Lebanon that limited the countries involvement against Israel in the 1949 war (what little troops it did send were largely a face saving effort due to its involvement in the Arab League, and were mostly comprised of Muslim fights sympathetic to the Arab Leagues goal of preventing an Israeli state). It was the Christians in Lebanon that kept the country out of the Six Day War in 1967. And it was these same Christians who were in danger of being whipped out by Muslims during the Lebanese Civil war that started in 1975. US involvement was largely to prevent the creation of yet another Muslim state in the region. And let us not forget, it was the Muslims terrorist group Islamic Jihad that blew up our troops.

    As to military support for Ron Paul consider these two facts. First, the only sources I can find supporting these facts come from, or attribute their findings to, groups that are supportive of Ron Paul themselves. I hardly call that unbiased reporting. Second, what few reports that don’t reek of such bias, are only as recent as 2008, which show that Obama received more donations than Paul did. And I hardly call that prototypical of the true demographic of the military. Secondly, if such reports are true, what that signals is not that the military is supportive of Ron Paul’s policies in general, but rather simply signifies a desire to come home which is a honest and understandable desire. However, most surveys also show that most military service members who have/are serv(ed/ing) overseas believe that the they should not come home until the job is done. The common position in the military is simplistically “I don’t want to fight, but if we have to, lets do it right!” Yes over 3000 lives lost in Iraq is tragic, but perspective is also needed. More troops died in one day, in dozens if not hundreds of instances/battles, during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, than did during the entire Iraq war.

    In regards to non-interventionism. Consider this. The US tried policies of non-intervention prior to both World War 1 and 2. The result was that until the United States started to get involved, our allies were on the verge of loosing. In both cases it was not until the United States started to supply our allies, and then eventually get involved ourselves, that Germany (in both) and Japan (in WW2) started to be pushed back. Most honest scholarly examinations of both wars show that if the United States continued our non-interventionist policies, our would-be allies would have failed. In the case of WW2, Japan did indeed have plans to even invade the West coast had we not responded to the events of Pearl Harbor.

    Finally one last thing. I wish to hear Ron Paul’s supporters respond to this. While Ron Paul has rejected the notion that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation, he has indicated on several cases that the United States government either wanted, or directly allowed it to happen. Particularly in regards to the Bush Administration, in regards to allowing them to invade Iraq. Do you, Ron Paul supporters, honestly believe that the United States government, intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen? Or that the Bush administration was “filled with Glee” as Ron Paul himself suggests? Because such suggestions are tantamount to out right slander towards former President Bush. You Bro Duren, and other Ron Paul supporters talk about true Christianity, and its related support to Ron Paul, but if that is true, how can you support such accusations against our Christian Brother, former President Bush? Or again, do you actually believe that President Bush was “gleeful” because of 9/11?

    • Marty Duren

      First, thanks for the correction on Beirut. I have made the change in the text. Second, I do not mean to assign all action to the military proper, but to the various tools at the g’ment’s disposal. The CIA–as you note–is one of those. Third, thank you for affirming my basic narrative by showing in detail just how involved our g’ment has been in such things.

      • SVMuschany

        You give examples in which the United States was involved in foreign affairs. I responded with giving you reasons WHY we were involved. Are you saying we should NOT have gone in to stop the genocide in the former Yugoslavia? Are you saying we should NOT have stopped the potential genocide of CHRISTIAN Lebanese citizens at the hands of Muslim terrorist supported groups? Are you saying the United States should have NOT helped stop communists from invading and trying to conquer all of the Korean peninsula? You see this is where so called “non-interventionist” policies fall flat. There are many reasons why the United States gets involved in conflicts or does not get involved in conflicts. More often than not, it is to simply protect human life. No the United States should not go into, say Saudi Arabia to establish democracy. BUT if SA started to kill of millions of its citizens, we SHOULD get involved.

    • Marty Duren

      Very quickly. This idea that non-interventionism is the same as not responding to Pearl Harbor shows you have a basic misunderstanding of the concept.

      Last, I don’t know how the Bush administration felt about 9/11, nor do you. Ron Paul is entitled to interpret those events as he sees fit.

      Finally, and with all due respect, I don’t need a degree in international studies or diplomacy to see what a decades long pursuit of the philosophies you espouse is costing us, and will cost our children and our grandchildren. Enough is indeed enough.

      • SVMuschany

        Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion. Yet if you are strongly implying that Ron Paul is the only real choice for Christians, what does it say when such a choice is doing something that is clearly unchristian. Either Ron Paul is right, and the Bush Administration was “filled with glee” because then they could attack Iraq, OR Ron Paul is directly and undeniably guilty of slander.

        If then you argue that no one is perfect, that we all are flawed, and that if Ron Paul is indeed wrong with what he said, he still can be voted for; I ask, why then not someone else who has a legitimate shot at stopping a second Obama turn? The largest grassroots movement in recent memory was the Tea Party movement. They stayed within the Republican Party frame work, but stayed in with the intention on changing it. Why cannnot Ron Paul supporters (and Ron Paul himself) not take a similar attitude. If the Republican party is broke, why not fight to fix it? The Tea party was able to elect a large amount of people to Congress with such intentions. Why can not Ron Paul supporters?

      • SVMuschany

        Secondly in response to your assertions regarding Pearl Harbor, with respect, it is you who have a misunderstanding. The hard core isolationists/non-interventionists during the period were still opposed to US involvement even after the attack. Most said, that while it was okay to respond against Japan, the US had no business going into Europe. Many others argued that US policies directly led to Pearl Harbor, that the US in many ways deserved what happened, and said we should seek peace with Japan, and let them have free reign of the Western Pacific, as it was not our business what they do. Furthermore, in recent years, there have been assertions by isolationist/non-interventionist ideologues that FDR either knew about and allowed, or in a few nutbat scholar opinions, actually helped Japan plan the attack so the US could have reason to get involved in Europe. As a historian, it is quite remarkable how the conspiracy theories after Pearl Harbor are mirroring what is coming out in regard to 9/11. Again, your hero, Ron Paul, has directly said that the Bush Administration was “filled with glee” that 9/11 happened so they could have reason to attack Iraq. How is that different from saying FDR was “filled with glee” that the attack happened so he could get involved in Europe? It is not any different, and history will and has show(n) the ignorance of both positions.

        • SJForrester


          Your history is off by about 70 years in every instance. The single biggest blunder the US has made in regards of foreign policy was the decision to reject the policy of non-interventionism and rush headstrong into WW1, the epitome of the faults of an interventionist policy. The US was illegally funneling Arms to Great Britain. Germany had every right to seek the Lusitania. If we had minded our own business, the 3rd armistice of the war would have been signed between Great Britain, France, and the Central Powers. Following yet another stalemate, Russia had already bowed out, and Germany had already agreed to an armistice with G.B. and France which was rejected due to G.B’s hubris and fear. It was only a matter of time until the loss of life outweighed the fear of a unified Germany. A stalemate was assured.
          However, as it worked out. We rushed into one of the bloodiest conflicts of human history. And for what?! To put down the Kaiser? Was it worth that? What was the outcome? The Treaty of Versailles. Which was, without a doubt, the greatest blunder of the past 200 years. Saddling Germany with the guilt and financial responsibility of the 1st WW, undoubtedly led to the rise of the socialists in Germany. During this entire time of supposed “peace” we continued measures of war with Germany. We sanctioned them, causing a famine and economic collapse the world hasnt seen since. We funneled food, arms, and medicine into the young USSR, guaranteeing that the movement would not die young.
          Because of this treaty, the entire middle east was rearranged. Including Iran. Why does Iran hate us? How about starting in 1941. The US essentially took over Iran because the Shah refused to illegally imprison his own people be they Germans or not. The US then set up the Persian Highway, with the support of the new Iranian govt. Which was installed by, you guessed it, the US. So what did Iran do in 1951? They got tired of this oppressive, US backed dictator, and elected their own king. One who would not funnel money into his own Govt. and into G.B. by selling oil at a fraction of the market price. But the US wasn’t happy with this, so what did Eisenhower do? Do you know?

          He labelled the Iranian President a communist, and allowed the CIA to overthrow him and install the previous ruler back into his position. Except this time, he was even more ruthless and oppressive.

          Now, what did this lead to?

          Well, it led to the rise of the Islamic Iranian State. It also led to our hostages being taken. It led our Govt. to install Saddam in Iraq. It led to the Iraq-Iran war. It led to us funnelling money and Arms to both Iran, and Iraq, and giving Iraq chemical weapons. Which were used. Now where are we? We have essentially taken over every single country that surrounds Iran with the exception of Turkey, but, alas, I don’t have time to show you how the fall of the Ottoman Empire, as a result of WW1 and that infamous treaty, is now a current puppet of ours as well.

          I’ll put this as nicely as I know how. The Govt. whatever govt. they may be, never does anything because it is the right thing to do. This is true especially in the case of the Use of Arms. Further, it is not the govt. job to intervene in the affairs of other nations with force. There is no justice in taxing the American’s to provide feminism in Iraq. Seeking to bring awareness and change to oppressive nations is the role of the individual, not the govt.

          I’ll end with this, I heard Ron Paul once say that the litmus test for whether we go to war or not should be this: “Am I willing to get my legs blown off to accomplish X objective?”

          In this instance, it would be “Are you willing to get your legs blown off to keep Iran from acquiring a Nuclear Weapon?”
          I’m dead serious. Are you? Seriously, no joke. Do not even think for a moment that such sacrifices should bypass you. Is Iran a great enough threat that you are willing to lose your life, or limbs. How about your sons or daughters? Do you actually trust the govt. enough to make such a decision for you? If you do, they will.

          Anyone willing to send our sons and daughters, husbands and brothers into a foreign land to secure “American Interests” at the cost of their life, limbs, or sanity, should themselves be willing to go and lose the same.

          I am not willing to lose my legs over a Nuclear Iran. They have shown no aggression against the continental US and could not even if they wanted too. I am not willing to kill another human being, though he may be trying to kill me, while on a foreign battlefield where my “country” is the cause of the conflict. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice my life or limbs in defense of the homeland and to deter invasion.
          War must be thought of in terms of lives. War is a taxation of Life. Is this tax really necessary?

        • SVMuschany


          While I admit that progressive era American policy is not one of my particularly strong areas of historical study, I do know enough to point out several flaws in your argument.

          First, the peace treaties of 1916-17 failed largely because while Germany “offered” peace, they were unwilling to give up any of the territory they had seized by force. The United States under Wilson, tried to play mediator, and was in favor of a peace treaty, but when Germany was looking for peace with out concessions, that and that alone sank any hope of peace.

          Secondly, the Lusitania sinking happened in 1915. The United States did not start sending troops until 1918. Once again, during that time, Wilson was a proponent of peace. The event that primarily got the United States into the war was the Zimmerman Telegram which was part of an ongoing effort by the Germans to get Mexico to join the Central Powers and attack the United States. In return for keeping the United States busy long enough for Germany to secure victory in Europe, Germany then would aid Mexico in the recovery of its “lost territory” in the form of the American South West. The revelation of this letter, added with the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare on the part of Germany (who had after the Lusitania incident promised to restrict targets to military targets), the United States only then Got involved.

          Third, for any Christian to say that the people of the Lusitania, which included INNOCENT CIVILIANS, deserved what happened, is repugnant. You Foster should be ashamed of yourself if you call yourself a child of God. You sound exactly like how Ron Paul followers sound however in regards to 9/11. We “deserved” it. Sick repugnant ungodly filth is what I say. And you say Ron Paul, and Ron Paul supporters are the most “Christian” choice? Yea…hardly.

          BTW…in terms of military service. I was told as I was literally about to get on the bus to take me to MEPS, that my NF1 was a disqualifying disorder, and I would not be allowed to serve. My plan was to go DEP in the Navy while I earned my college degree, serve 4-8 years and earn an appointment to OCS. My entire future was destroyed and I was aimless for 2-3 years after this event. I know now it was apart of God’s plan, and as a result I ended up going to seminary. I currently plan on either joining as a Chaplain, or, as my future educational endeavors will likely be taking me to the Virginia area, lead and serve a Military ministry. But to answer your question, unfortunately I, despite my will, am unable to put on the uniform, allowing me to go over seas and have my legs blown off to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But if I could, I would.

        • Beth L.


          You couldn’t possibly be more wrong about Ron Paul supporters. We do NOT say that the US “deserved” 9/11, but we do realize that we had it coming. You have a real difficulty making distinctions.

          It’s unfortunate that you’d give up your legs over even the remotest of chances that Iran might obtain nuclear weapons. There’s no way in this world that it’s worth any body part of anyone I love. We’re not talking about a nuclear power that could blow us off the map and has announced the date it will do so, we’re talking about nothing more than fear tactics from our worthless politicians who will tell the gullible American people anything to scare public opinion into its favor. Giving one’s legs or life for this isn’t a true defense of one’s country, it’s making oneself a pawn of our evil, manipulative government. You are our government’s favorite type of citizen.

        • SJForrester

          I’m still failing to understand exactly what your argument is. Usually when people induce such a stream of strawmen, ad hominems, and non-sequitors, it is in defense of a point. What exactly is your point? More interventionism is the answer to the problems caused by interventionism?

          Wait, there’s a saying that goes with this… something about a shovel and a hole…

        • SVMuschany

          Forrester do you like the sound of your own voice? Because you attacked my argument with out responding. You called my knowledge of history “off by 70 years in every instance”. And I responded by giving you concrete examples. You brought up WW1 and the so called peace process that the US interrupted. I proved you wrong by showing that the United States was SUPPORTIVE of the peace even AFTER Germany put out the notion of peace. You may call this an ad hominem if you wish, but something tells me it is you who is off with YOUR history. If that were not so, you would be able to give examples on how I am wrong. But tell the truth…Before my post, did you even hear about the Zimmerman Telegram before? Or did you think the Lusitania was the only reason we went to war? How about the SS Ypiranga? How about Lothar Witzke and the Mare Island (San Francisco Bay area) bombing incident? Oh yes the United States should not have gotten involved.

    • Beth L.

      The key word here is “unsustainable.” Our government certainly can choose to maintain or expand our current level of irresponsible, unconstitutional involvement in the affairs of other nations, but they will not be able to do it for much longer.

      We have two choices. We can bring our troops home and close our bases soon and begin putting those trillions toward paying down the national debt and hopefully begin to see some economic stability return to us. OR we can continue our level of involvement until we’re in such horrific economic shape that we are forced to bring our troops home and will likely be past the point of any repair. This will be an immense disaster. Make no mistake, those are the only choices. Regardless of how you want to defend our current actions, we absolutely cannot afford them and if we continue down this current path, it will destroy us. I choose Ron Paul so that we might avoid this eventual destruction. Why don’t you?

      • SVMuschany

        The United States constitution provides Congress with the ability and authority to provide funding for the establishment, raising, and keeping of a military. The United States constitution does not provide Congress with the ability or authority to provide anything in regards to these social welfare programs. As such, if we are intent on reigning in costs, why do we focus on cutting the military first? Ron Paul, and his supporters, talk about “Constitutional fundamentals” yet are not willing to be as upfront opposed to these programs, as they are the military and our so called “current level of irresponsible, unconstitutional involvement in the affairs of other nations.”

        • Beth L.

          Ron Paul IS opposed to these programs. He realizes that we have to slowly wean ourselves off of them. If we abolish them outright we’re going to have major problems. When he was practicing medicine, Paul didn’t even accept Medicare payments. He worked with individual patients to charge them what they could afford or he provided services for the poor at no cost. If you think Paul isn’t opposed to social welfare programs, you haven’t been paying attention. I’m not a huge fan of social welfare programs, but at least they aren’t killing innocent citizens of other countries. Maybe that’s one reason why Paul puts so much emphasis on it.

          The Constitution does provide Congress with the ability to fund the military, but Congress is so utterly devoid of common sense that it’s hurling us into bankruptcy with its refusal to shut down these bases and bring our troops home. There is NO good reason why we should have 900 bases worldwide. NONE. It’s bleeding us dry and absolutely will be our downfall if we don’t stop and soon. We have much innocent blood on our hands, and it positively disgusts me that Christians in America aren’t outraged over this. They mostly don’t seem to care one iota that our “Christian brother Bush” pushed for a war that has killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and has not ever shown any signs of regret or remorse. They’ll complain for hours upon hours that people in government housing collect a paycheck for not working, but they’re sinfully quiet when it comes to innocent Iraqis being killed as a result of our unjust, unconstitutional, unchristian war.

        • Matt Svoboda


          Ron Paul is pretty upfront about being opposed to those programs… Have you been listening to Ron Paul or merely what people are saying about him?

          I have only known much about him for 6 months and he has been very clear on things he does and does not support.

        • SVMuschany

          Great…slowly wean ourselves off of those programs…But we need to quickly withdraw our military from around the world, quickly cut funding to military programs/resources, quikcly do THAT….Yet it is slowly wean ourselves off of the social programs. Why the double standard. Yes I fully well know what Ron Paul’s issue is in regards to social programs. My point is exactly what I am stressing here, especially in light that again, the United States Constitution CLEARLY provides for the funding and establishment of a military force. Yet that is the first place Paul wants to go in regards to cutting the budget. THAT is what I call hypocritical for someone who claims to be the protector of the Constitution.

        • Marty Duren

          I had a lengthy comment prepared that went into the ether. The gist was this:

          You appear to approve of unconstitutionally, undeclared wars. This, to me, gives far too much power to the Executive Branch and creates a functional monarchy where war is concerned. I would rather see war only when the American people support is as expressed through our elected representatives, viz a viz, a declaration of war.

          As to your question about cutting defense though authorized by the constitution: “I don’t think we should spend one cent more on defense than we have to.” D. D. Eisenhower

          And I don’t think we have to borrow our future away to keep expanding the empire.

        • SVMuschany

          In 1801, the United States Congress gave Thomas Jefferson the authority to use military force to target the Barbary Corsairs (aka pirates) that were targeting American merchant ships in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. There was no declaration of war. Now Thomas Jefferson was one of the architects of this Republic and the Constitution. Members of Congress included many men who were also active in the formation of the Constitution. And yet they authorized military action without declaring war. Now like it or not, Congress DID authorize the military to go into Afghanistan. Like it or not, Congress DID authorize the military to go into Iraq. President Bush did not perform any action that could be considered an act of a monarch.

          As for your Eisenhower quote, I am a little surprised you as a Ron Paul supporter would quote from him. After all Eisenhower DID send the military into Lebanon in ’58. Eisenhower DID send the first troops into Vietnam as “advisers”. You sure you really want to quote him? But as for his quote, and others like his Chance for Peace, speech consider this. In the 50’s and 60’s there largely was two major powers, and allies to those powers. There were not any independent rogue states. One way or another, each state was kept in line by the super power it was allied to. Thus, if the United States and USSR could agree to peace, the world would be at peace. That as a worthy goal to strive towards. However, we live in a world today where there ARE rogue countries. Who have leaders who answer to no one but themselves. Countries like Iran, and terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and others. Some of these terrorist groups are even given aid by these rogue states. Now what incentive to these countries have to strive for peace? The real answer is absolutely nothing. Tell me, what did the United States do to deserve the 93 WTC bombing? OR the African Embassy bombings? OR the USS Cole Bombings? Or yes, even the 9/11 attacks? Because do not think I have not noticed how no one here who is a supporter of Ron Paul has dared answer my points regarding how Ron Paul has suggested that we deserved it. That it was our own fault.

          You Ron Paul fools like to believe that the world will simply be at peace if the United States withdraws into its shell. Tell me, what happens in a city when people know that the police will not respond to crimes? Do not more crimes occur? When people discover there is no consequences for their actions they become more and more reckless, caring nothing for anyone other than themselves. And nations, especially rogue nations, are exactly the same. If they are kept in check by another nation, they are less likely to take action themselves. But if they have no such oversight, they will continue to see what they can get away with. That is exactly what happened with Al Qaeda under President Clinton. Clinton continued to pull back, to not interfere. And AQ got bolder and bolder and bolder until one day, we woke up and found that over 3000 of our brothers and sisters were murdered. And as far as I can tell, from the words of Ron Paul, and by the words of his supporters. It is you, not President Bush, who were the most gleeful. Because it gave you the chance to express your views, and tell us we were wrong. That we deserved it. Don’t agree? Then why do you Ron Paul supporters not speak up and out against his assertions that 9/11 was our fault?

        • Marty Duren

          “You Ron Paul fools” huh?

          You were engaged, debated, questioned, and evoked multiple responses on this thread. Apparently we are fools because you haven’t successfully convinced us of your narrative. That’s fine. But your infantile name calling is out of bounds, which is where you now find yourself.

          Good bye.

  • Bintang Kejora

    Where do you get this false premise that all these countries of the world Hate America. It is false! Ask the Filipinos, ask the Indonesians, ask the Vietnamese, ask the Malaysians, ask the Australians, ask the Germans, ask the Thais.
    Freedom is a Christian idea…no country on earth today is a better standard bearer for freedom than the U.S.
    God Bless America and protect us from the freedom snatcher Ron Paul.

    • Marty Duren

      Thanks for your comment. Where do you get the idea I have set up a false premise? I can’t find where I named a country that hates us.

      • Bintang Kejora

        You did not say it directly but Your man did both indirectly
        in the video

        “It is time Christians understand something: When the government of the United States makes America look bad internationally, it affects the ability and perceptions of Americans who are on mission with God. Warmongering can create for American Christian missionaries a constant need to explain the actions of the government when they want to be fielding questions about God’s kingdom. As a Christ follower I will no longer support the actions of worldly kings who perpetuate actions designed to expand an earthly empire at the expense of the gospel. Ron Paul’s non-interventionist stance on foreign policy will restore American to a place of peace and protection of our own land that the founders must have envisioned when assembling the constitution.”

        Also the video implies that in the discussion concerning Blowback and Ron Paul himself has said “no wonder these countries hate us when we go and attack their land…..”.

        Have you seen the accusations that Ron Paul has made against Michelle Bachmann. That she Hates muslims!
        He clearly hates freedom himself.

        • Marty Duren

          And you would clearly fail Logic 101, as well as Interpretation 102.

          You have projected upon what I said what you want me to be saying (therefore misrepresenting what I said) so you can argue against it.

          This is pointless. You are basically arguing with yourself.

    • Beth L.

      To say that Ron Paul, the ONLY presidential candidate that consistently and fervently fights for our Constitutional rights is a “freedom snatcher” might be the most ignorant statement posted on the internet today. God bless America and God bless my hyperbole.

      • SVMuschany

        Correction, implying that Ron Paul is “the Only presidential candidate that consistently and fervently fights for our Constitutional rights” might be the most ignorant statement posted on the internet today.

        • Marty Duren

          I’m sorry. Who is the other one?

        • Matt Svoboda


          Yeah, I would really like to see another one named. Ron Paul is the only one consistent defender of our constitution.

  • Bintang Kejora

    Does justice only include domestic crimes like the one at Penn State or also International crimes like the ones perpetuated by the worlds only colonial power…Indonesia.

    West Papua……400,000 killed in the 50 year reign of terror by Indonesia
    Genocide of tribal people
    Not to mention environmental damage of the country.

    A Gospel that encourages you to dwell on only yourself and not the human rights of freedom loving people is not Biblical Gospel.

    I noticed you were promoting the Plush campaign at Lifeway but maybe Lifeway should join hands with the Lush campaign for west Papua.

  • Matt Svoboda


    I am not sure if you will address this, but I am hoping you write about his drug policies because it is still the one major area I am in disagreement with Ron Paul. I wont comment anymore on that in case you write about it.

    • Marty Duren

      As soon as I come down I’ll write something. lol

      I do plan to make that one of the articles in this series.

      • Matt Svoboda

        Good. I hope that is one issue that you disagree with Paul. :)

        Looking forward to the discussion.

  • Beth L.

    I already told you that Ron Paul doesn’t believe the U.S. “deserved” the 9/11 attacks, but for reasons already shown to you, he believes we had it coming. He has gone out of his way to warn about the dangers of blowback, but he’s consistently ignored. A person who smokes 2 packs a day for 30 years doesn’t “deserve” lung cancer, but they shouldn’t be surprised if they get it.

    By the way, you may be willing to have your legs blown off for the sake of your country, but there are 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians that were never asked if our war in Iraq is worth their lives or limbs. Many people would sacrifice their legs to save the lives of 100,000 innocent people. Here in America, the only lives we really care about saving are the lives of fellow Americans. Patriotism at the expense of foreign citizens in an unjust war is sickening.

  • Pingback: Charting tax rates and economic growth in the U.S. | Kingdom In The Midst()

  • Pingback: How one Christ follower decided to vote for Ron Paul, Part 3: Abortion | Kingdom In The Midst()