An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

NACBA

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
784
For immediate release
November 25, 2014

An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

Dear Sen. Paul,


We agree with you that Congress should obey the Constitution. We should never engage in foreign wars without a congressional declaration of war, a restraint on military action put in place by our Founding Fathers to ensure lawmakers never send our troops to war without deliberation.

But a constitutional war in the Middle East is just as bloody, destructive, and likely to incite terrorism as an unconstitutional war.

Our half-century of interventions in the Middle East have been a colossal failure. We have provided arms, military training, and subsidies to virtually every country in the region, inciting continual war and unrest. This has created a breeding ground for international terrorists that pose a real danger to our country and the world — one that would not have existed had we kept our noses out of the affairs of other countries.

U.S. military interventions have put our troops in harms way, separated them needlessly from their families, and led to tens of thousands of American deaths and casualties — plus many more losses for innocent citizens of foreign countries.

We agree with your father, Ron Paul, who for decades was a lonely yet brave voice in Congress for peace. He was right when he called for getting the U.S. military out of the Middle East.

Everyone knows that you're posturing to get the Republican nomination for president in 2016. But for this long-shot hope of winning the nomination, you have endorsed a roster of hawkish Big Government Republicans — from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell. And now you're calling for sending our troops back to Iraq, which will be a death sentence for many of them.

Just how much can your long-shot presidential bid be worth? Is it worth the lives of these young men and women? The Libertarian Party says, "Absolutely not!"

While we agree with your view that no funds should be allocated to an illegal war, a policy of non-intervention remains the only just and reasonable approach to dealing with the Middle East — a land halfway around the world where the United States does not belong.

Your bid for a declaration of war against ISIS is unjustifiable and dangerous. Please withdraw it immediately.

Respectfully yours,

Nicholas Sarwark

Nicholas J. Sarwark
Chair, Libertarian National Committee
 
For immediate release
November 25, 2014

An open letter from Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark to Sen. Rand Paul

Dear Sen. Paul,


We agree with you that Congress should obey the Constitution. We should never engage in foreign wars without a congressional declaration of war, a restraint on military action put in place by our Founding Fathers to ensure lawmakers never send our troops to war without deliberation.

But a constitutional war in the Middle East is just as bloody, destructive, and likely to incite terrorism as an unconstitutional war.

Our half-century of interventions in the Middle East have been a colossal failure. We have provided arms, military training, and subsidies to virtually every country in the region, inciting continual war and unrest. This has created a breeding ground for international terrorists that pose a real danger to our country and the world — one that would not have existed had we kept our noses out of the affairs of other countries.

U.S. military interventions have put our troops in harms way, separated them needlessly from their families, and led to tens of thousands of American deaths and casualties — plus many more losses for innocent citizens of foreign countries.

We agree with your father, Ron Paul, who for decades was a lonely yet brave voice in Congress for peace. He was right when he called for getting the U.S. military out of the Middle East.

Everyone knows that you're posturing to get the Republican nomination for president in 2016. But for this long-shot hope of winning the nomination, you have endorsed a roster of hawkish Big Government Republicans — from Mitt Romney to Mitch McConnell. And now you're calling for sending our troops back to Iraq, which will be a death sentence for many of them.

Just how much can your long-shot presidential bid be worth? Is it worth the lives of these young men and women? The Libertarian Party says, "Absolutely not!"

While we agree with your view that no funds should be allocated to an illegal war, a policy of non-intervention remains the only just and reasonable approach to dealing with the Middle East — a land halfway around the world where the United States does not belong.

Your bid for a declaration of war against ISIS is unjustifiable and dangerous. Please withdraw it immediately.

Respectfully yours,

Nicholas Sarwark

Nicholas J. Sarwark
Chair, Libertarian National Committee

This letter is dumb. Besides missing the entire point on political strategy and following the Constitution, Rand's proposal would limit ground troops to protect the US embassy and require reauthorization in one year.

Another this is that the congress as it now stands will never declare war against anyone or anything. Rand's proposal is educational in nature, supposedly what they liked in Ron Paul.
 
LP trying to stay relevant.... trying to tow him back to the policy of non-interventism lest he side with the hawks and neocons. A bit juvenile, but point taken.
 
LP trying to stay relevant.... trying to tow him back to the policy of non-interventism lest he side with the hawks and neocons. A bit juvenile, but point taken.
That's sooooo 2012.

islamophobia-11.jpg
 
So the Libertarian Party supports a pure "non interventionist foreign policy," but yet they nominated Bob Barr and Gary Johnson?
 
So the Libertarian Party supports a pure "non interventionist foreign policy," but yet they nominated Bob Barr and Gary Johnson?

Beat me to it. I vote Libertarian, but the party and the people they nominate really are annoying. It is especially amusing when weak tea libertarians like Robert Sarvis and Gary Johnson criticize others for not being libertarian enough. It really is the Losertarian Party.
 
So the Libertarian Party supports a pure "non interventionist foreign policy," but yet they nominated Bob Barr and Gary Johnson?

Don't forget about the Libertarian Party 2008 VP candidate who called Ron Paul a pacifist and wrote this.

"One action by voters can go a long way to preventing future wars under any circumstances. Electing a Libertarian as President can certainly promote policies that will dramatically reduce, though not eliminate, our risk of being attacked by other nations. That will only happen however if a tough-talking, patriotic Libertarian like myself is the Presidential candidate. No weak-sounding pacifist Libertarian will ever break the 1% of the electorate barrier, let alone wage a credible, realistic campaign to actually win the White House."

Where was the Libertarian Party purists at when there flag bearers were neo-cons. The Libertarian Party cares about PR and votes not philosophy or policy.

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/oldblog/index.php?m=04&y=08&entry=entry080428-194148
 
Don't forget about the Libertarian Party 2008 VP candidate who called Ron Paul a pacifist and wrote this.

"One action by voters can go a long way to preventing future wars under any circumstances. Electing a Libertarian as President can certainly promote policies that will dramatically reduce, though not eliminate, our risk of being attacked by other nations. That will only happen however if a tough-talking, patriotic Libertarian like myself is the Presidential candidate. No weak-sounding pacifist Libertarian will ever break the 1% of the electorate barrier, let alone wage a credible, realistic campaign to actually win the White House."

Where was the Libertarian Party purists at when there flag bearers were neo-cons. The Libertarian Party cares about PR and votes not philosophy or policy.

http://www.rootforamerica.com/webroot/oldblog/index.php?m=04&y=08&entry=entry080428-194148

They were supporting Ron Paul or Mary Ruwart.
 
How much authority does this guy have in the LP?

I still support Rand but I like the letter. Hold his feet to the fire.

It only holds your feet to the fire if it has clout. Rand could have his platform be "The complete dissolution of the Federal Government of the United States" and the LP would still run against him.

Where is the upside? What will the LP deliver if Rand panders to them?
 
can there be a limited declaration of war? and doesn't a declaration of war equal a defacto recognition of ISIS as a nation state? I understand Rand's motive but this is risky. wouldn't it be better if Mile Lee introduced this?

and Rand is considered to be the number 1 Republican, with Chris Christie as number 2. so its not a long shot.
 
Back
Top