The Debate on Entanglements

America's Foreign Policy, although not on the fore front in the minds of American's this election season. Is a splitting point on getting things accomplished this year, and has been for a long time.

Liberty minded people believe as do I, that war must be declared by Congress. But the debate goes on as to whether America's Foreign Policy since World War II has been Constitutional or not.

In the strictest sense of the form it isn't. But if we look at the non interventionist policies that led to World War II. It is understandable a change in that policy was necessary. Lives could have been saved if America had been concerned with developments in Germany before the war broke out.

History has proved many people were aware of the Anti-semitic policies of the Third Reich around the World yet the World, and specifically America did not intervene.

The break down of the American system of Government currently in process. Took a turn towards restoration this week. Liberty minded people can take heart that they prevailed this week, and are in the process of putting our government back to it's founding heritage.

This has been delayed by the divide among Liberty minded people, over Foreign Policy, and is sure to raise it's head again after Nov 3rd. Something the current coalition that is Taking Back Our Country cannot afford.

Both sides of the issue have compromised, in order to get candidates elected that will respect the rule of law this nation was founded on. This is sure to go away on Nov 3rd.

In advance let me state my position to my fellow Liberty minded friends, who think differently than I do. The founding fathers really had no problem in America getting involved in foreign affairs.

Many people who do not agree with me, say George Washington said to not get involved in Foreign entanglements. I have done some research on this, and believe that is not correct.

Lets look at Washington's profile in the National Archives. Towards the end of the profile this passage reveals Washington's Foreign Policy agenda. It also reveals that he has been taken out of context on the entanglements statement

( In foreign affairs, despite opposition from the Senate, Washington exerted dominance. He fostered United States interests on the North American continent by treaties with Britain and Spain. Yet, until the nation was stronger, he insisted on the maintenance of neutrality. For example, when the French Revolution created war between France and Britain, he ignored the remonstrances of pro-French Jefferson and pro-English Hamilton.

Although many people encouraged Washington to seek a third term, he was weary of politics and refused to do so. In his "Farewell Address" (1796), he urged his countrymen to forswear party spirit and sectional differences and to avoid entanglement in the wars and domestic policies of other nations.)

In this passage we see that Washington did not want involvement in Foreign Affairs. Because he felt America was not strong enough to be involved on the World Stage. America was too young and under developed Militarily to get involved. Notice he also warned against party loyalty, and fighting between states. His foreign policy warning was in the context of America not being strong enough. It had nothing to do with the morality or immorality of Foreign involvement.

I truly believe since Washington presided over the Constitutional Convention that wrote our Constitution. He would have said at that time, that America did have a right to intervene in foreign countries for moral purposes. But was not strong enough to do so.

How is it America can intervene for the morality of it? It is that passage in the Constitution that all men are created equal, and are born with unalienable rights. It didn't say anything about Americans only, or countries with a King or Queen. Even in an aristocracy God is involved. We happen to believe that the power comes to us from God. Aristocracies believe the power comes from God to a King or Queen, or potentate.

The thought crosses my mind. Was there such a thing as Communism back then? I don't believe there was. Either that or the Founding Fathers were not aware of it. Communism of course has no God involved at all. So I believe the founding fathers would have said it is alright, to ensure that all of the people of the Earth, have the unalienable rights handed down to us from God,and communicated to us through the Bible. I believe they would have taken the moral authority to liberate those who are oppressed by a system where God is not involved. Notice Hamilton, and Jefferson wanted to do just that. But Washington knew America was not strong enough to carry out that mission.

For the Liberty agenda to continue past Nov 2, those in the Liberty movement will need to reject the rhetoric of Ron Paul, and accept the rhetoric of Rand Paul on Foreign Policy. Let's face it. You can't prove to me that our Foreign Policy is evil and an attempt at War Profiteering. I also cannot prove to you that it isn't.

One thing is for sure. I have history on my side. The intent of the founding fathers is clear in the passage shown. You need to come up with something more concrete than taking Washington out of context.

Until you do. All you are doing is driving potential allies out of our movement who think like I do. I haven't lost a child from the execution of America's Foreign Policy. They have, and they do not need to compromise. They have earned the right not to.