Watershed Moment for the Liberty Movement Wed 2/6/13

[radiofriendly]

UPDATE...VIDEO NOW UP.

FULL TEXT...

This Wednesday, Feb 06, 2013 at 11:00 AM EST, Senator Rand Paul is set to give a ground breaking speech to the Heritage Foundation he’s calling “The Founders’ Vision of Foreign Policy.” While the speech may not seem like anything new to the Tea Party and libertarian groups within the GOP, it represents a real watershed event within the conservative movement, second only to the election of Rand Paul to the Senate.

WATCH LIVE HERE


While the grassroots of the Republican party have become accustomed to Ron Paul’s philosophy of noninterventionism, penetrating the beltway culture with ideas that challenge the status quo on foreign policy has been an uphill battle. With so many congress members in cozy relationships with military contractors within the Democrat and the Republican parties, it’s easy to understand why you don’t hear of the Paul family attending swanky parties in D.C. This speech represents the fruit of millions of man hours put in by the grassroots of the Ron Paul campaigns of ’08 and ’12.

You can watch it live 11am EST right here: http://iroots.org/2013/02/05/rand-p...ech-on-foreign-policy-to-heritage-foundation/

 

[ghengis86]

This should be good...

(the thread, not the speech; I'll reserve judgement on that until Rand speaks)

 

[Lucille]

I really don't think Rand's a non-interventionist. He's probably more a realist. Better than the insane neoconnery that has dominated for far too long.

Rand Paul: Foreign Policy Is Congress’s Business
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-foreign-policy-is-congresss-business/

Sen. Rand Paul will deliver a major address on Wednesday morning at the Heritage Foundation to outline his views on foreign policy and specifically his vision of what a constitutional conservative foreign policy should look like. He recently spoke with The American Conservative and gave some hints of the arguments we can expect to hear in the speech.

And conservative and libertarian non-interventionists will probably continue daydreaming about the reincarnation of Robert Taft in the form of Paul Jr.—who has yet to declare his support for Hagel’s nomination.

 

[thequietkid10]

I predict tomorrow a good number of people are going to flip shit. I am unsure if I will among them.

 

[jj-]

That means Jim DeMint is becoming non-interventionist.

Of course Rand is a non-interventionist. He just wants to pick the best angle to make the country more non-interventionist, and that approach is by putting emphasis on Congress' role in declaring war.

 

[radiofriendly]

I think this speech will seem like tame stuff to the hardcore libertarians, but I maintain that this is a big moment for the conservative/paleoconservative movement.

Updated w/

WATCH LIVE HERE

 

[Brett85]

"And conservative and libertarian non-interventionists will probably continue daydreaming about the reincarnation of Robert Taft in the form of Paul Jr.—who has yet to declare his support for Hagel’s nomination."

I think Hagel just has way too much baggage for Rand to support his nomination. It doesn't have anything to do with overseas intervention.

 

[fr33]

Of course Rand is a non-interventionist.

Nope. Voting for sanctions has made that not the case. Still he's better than the rest.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Must. Keep. Bumped. For. Tomorrow.

 

[fj45lvr]

non interventionists don't volunteer to make stupid statements that the US would defend Israel if attacked.....

get real folks!! LOL

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Watershed or Water-park. You decide!

 

[Lucille]

I really don't think Rand's a non-interventionist. He's probably more a realist....

@ToryAnarchist "I'm a realist, not a neoconservative or an isolationist"--Rand Paul

@DanielLarison Given its length, Paul's speech was good synthesis of realist and constitutionalist arguments.

What'd I tell ya?! ::curtsy::

 

[radiofriendly]

Video added to post. Full text: http://iroots.org/2013/02/05/rand-p...ech-on-foreign-policy-to-heritage-foundation/

 

[dannno]

I really don't think Rand's a non-interventionist.

I think he is, he just isn't using that as his platform.

He's probably more a realist.

True, that's why he isn't using it as his platform.

 

[dannno]

@ToryAnarchist "I'm a realist, not a neoconservative or an isolationist"--Rand Paul

@DanielLarison Given its length, Paul's speech was good synthesis of realist and constitutionalist arguments.

What'd I tell ya?! ::curtsy::

So he could still be a non-interventionist philosophically because non-interventionists are not all isolationists.

I wonder if he read this thread last night and borrowed your term

 

[Lucille]

So he could still be a non-interventionist philosophically because non-interventionists are not all isolationists.

I wonder if he read this thread last night and borrowed your term

I doubt it. Rand's more AmConMag than LRC, and that's OK.

Like I said, I'll take realism over the insane neoconnery of Washington's bipartisan FP any day of the week!

 

[RabbitMan]

Perfect. If I can't have a non-interventionist, I want someone who is intelligent and brings a common-sense perspective to foreign policy with regards to historical context. Go Rand.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Like I said, I'll take realism over the insane neoconnery of Washington's bipartisan FP any day of the week!

me too

 

[KingNothing]

I doubt it. Rand's more AmConMag than LRC, and that's OK.

Like I said, I'll take realism over the insane neoconnery of Washington's bipartisan FP any day of the week!

Seriously, imagine if we just had a foreign policy that was rooted in reality and not the imaginations of neoconservatives? If we just had that, and a domestic agenda that simply stopped giving billions and billions of dollars to connected corporations and raped the middle class a bit less to provide for the elite and the segment of the lower class that refuse to work.... how much better would things be?

The sort of dramatic, sweeping, idealistic changes Ron Paul preached would be amazing, but simply shifting our foreign policy and domestic spending, even slightly, would be a monumental improvement.

 

[Lucille]

Seriously, imagine if we just had a foreign policy that was rooted in reality and not the imaginations of neoconservatives? If we just had that, and a domestic agenda that simply stopped giving billions and billions of dollars to connected corporations and raped the middle class a bit less to provide for the elite and the segment of the lower class that refuse to work.... how much better would things be?

The sort of dramatic, sweeping, idealistic changes Ron Paul preached would be amazing, but simply shifting our foreign policy and domestic spending, even slightly, would be a monumental improvement.

For the record, I am definitely in the non-intervention camp, and I would back a non-interventionist over a realist Rand. But I agree that it's a monumental improvement.