Paramount is looking to make a GI Joe movie, but instead of being a U.S. Marine, GI Joe will be part of an international military force.
This is just part of a liberal trend to undermine America's sovereignty and make the USA just another country.
"Sovereignty" is defined as "having political independence", and there are people and organizations here and worldwide that would like America to give up it's independence and submit to the will of international organizations, like the U.N.
This would weaken our country and help end the freedoms and liberties we enjoy today.
We need to elect conservative leaders who will stand up to this pressure and put America first. Mike Huckabee is just such a leader.
If you want to read the story of Mitchell Paige, the real Marine who inspired the GI Joe doll, click here. His story will make you proud of our armed forces and remind you of why we need to preserve our American sovereignty.
10 comments:
Justin says...
What are your views regarding Ron Paul? Since you endorse Huckabee, I take it you have a few reservations with Ron. Why do you disagree with him on the issues that you do?
I like Ron Paul's strict constitutional originalism, however his isolationist philosophy has been proven over and over again to bring nothing but trouble.
Ever since WWI, the world has been too small for us to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problems in other countries.
The U.S. tried to play the isolationist role in both world wars, and it cost us and other nations dearly.
Ron Paul is correct that Congress has to have the courage to declare war, as it is their constitutional obligation.
But in the absence of such a declaration, the President has to do whatever is necessary to defeat those who threaten our country. The Islamic fascists are such a threat.
Reagan, Carter, and Clinton all had a role in giving the Islamic radicals the courage to further their terrorism, and we are paying a heavy price today. Turning a blind eye like they did, and as Ron Paul would do, is just not an option I can support.
Justin says...
Maybe it's just because I'm politically ignorant and at least partially trustful of others, but I read on Ron Paul's election site (www.ronpaul2008) under the "Issues: War and Foreign Policy" that he is against isolationism. So what makes you think he is an isolationist?
Ron Paul may say he's not an isolationist, but his own words counter his claim.
In his opposition to the Iraq war, Paul says that "Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations."
Yet Jefferson, the force behind the Constitution, as president fought and won the Tripolin War, without the declaration of war from Congress! (read my new post at http://www.politicalnewsblog.blogspot.com)
Also, Ron Paul wrote a damning article promoting isolationism at antiwar.com (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712) There he blames American foreign policy as the cause of terrorism, and calls for "a strategic reassessment of our policy of foreign interventionism, occupation, and nation-building", clearly promoting a less vigorous foreign policy.
The truth is that not responding to terrorism creates more terrorism, and we have to fight them overseas so that we don't have to fight them here. If Ron Paul were president, we'd be up to our eyeballs in terrorists and dead bodies here at home.
Justin says...
Burt, I'm just not feeling a pro-isolationism from the article you linked me to. Right, he is asking that we remove soldiers from Iraq. But he is nowhere saying that America should bury it's head in the ground. At least that's the impression that I'm getting.
Now, maybe he is promoting isolationism in this article. But that was written in 2005. Could it be possible that he has since then changed his views regarding foreign policy?
I respect your opinion, Burt, but right now I just don't think your argument adds up. Then again, that's just me, the uneducated high school student. :)
Have a great day!
Justin, that's what makes politics what it is. Two people can read or observe the same thing; but in the end, it's their background, culture, values and experience that render their final opinion, which means that no two people will agree on everything.
And that's a good thing!
Justin says...
Aw, what a way to leave me hanging. No defending your position or nothing. Just, "Well, it is what it is." :( :) I was hoping for a better discussion than that. Come on, explain to me why you think he is an isolationist. Please?
Well Justin, I already explained Ron Paul's isolationism using quotes from his own writings and his stance on foreign policy has not changed in the last two years.
The fact that you asked if maybe his views had changed in the last two years means you realize that his antiwar.com article promotes a isolationist foreign policy.
Actually, on his website he tells us a little of what he won't do on foreign policy, but he doesn't say what his foreign policy will be.
I think the burden is on you to prove that he's not an isolationist since that seems to be your view.
Justin says...
Burt,
1. The quote you provided me nowhere says he is isolationist. He said that a reassessment is in order in regards to foreign policy, but he has repeatedly denounced any form of isolationism.
2. If you would go back to my original statement, I never said he is promoting isolationism. What I did say is, "Maybe he is promoting isolationism." That means, Let's assume that what you are saying is true. If what you say is true, is it possible that within two years of the article you linked me to that he could have changed his position? So far, you have not provided me with an answer.
3. It is interesting that you should refer to his website, when on the bottom of the page of his "Issues: War and Foreign Policy" he says, "At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves."
His argument is, "Hey, the war in Iraq isn't working. We are making little progress and we need to change our ideas. However, I do not believe we should isolate ourselves."
4. Okay, so the burden is on me to prove he is not isolationist. Well, like I just pointed out, his own website says it.
The other night he was on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno, and Leno directly asked if Ron Paul was an isolationist, to which Ron Paul gave a direct answer: No.
Since he directly answered our question only two nights ago, I think it is safe to believe that his views are consistent with his 2005 statement: We need to do something different with the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean isolationism.
You quoted Jefferson, who went to war with the Barbary Pirate states. Consider his own words in the matter, "No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."
Now just because a president is opposed to war does not mean they are automatically isolationist.
I think the fact that you have given me the burden of proof shows an inability on your part to prove that Ron Paul is isolationist. But let's play a little game of "My Turn, Your Turn." Here's how you play: One person goes first, then the second person goes, then the first person goes again, and so on and so forth. Since you went first, I just took "my turn" so now it is "your turn" to prove Paul is isolationist. Please, if you could, find for me a quote that is recent and as directly as possible to saying, "I support isolationism." Or, please give me an instance where Paul's actions indicate an isolationist stance. Until then, I remain unconvinced.
:)
Have another good day!
Hey Justin,
Ron Paul saying he is not an "isolationist" reminds me of white racists who say that some of "their best friends are black people", or the re-labeling of liberals lately to "progressives".
Ron Paul and his supporters prefer "non-interventionist" to describe him because "isolationist" has become a dirty word in politics.
Ron Paul's philosophy of trying to understand our enemies like bin Laden instead of defeating them is not only isolationism, it's also self-loathing at it's peak. Ron Paul would be an enabler of terrorism if he had total control of our foreign policy.
In the 1930's the USA was "non-interventionist" while millions of Jews went to the gas chamber. In 1994, the USA was "non-interventionist" while almost a million Rwandans were slaughtered. In the 70's, we were "non-interventionists" while upwards of 2 million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge. I could go on about millions killed Stalin (ever hear of the Ukrainian genocide? 10 million killed) and Chairman Mao.
The seductive reasoning behind this "isolationism/non-interventionism" is the belief that we have no moral superiority, and therefore can't use our super-power status for the greater good of mankind.
I agree with Ron Paul that we should pull out of the UN, but not for the same reason. We should pull out because the UN has become a haven for dictator thugs and is rampant with anti-US and anti-Semitic propagandists.
All that said, I would support a Ron Paul presidency over any of those in the democrat field. His isolationism is not as destructive as the domestic policies of the liberals, oops, I mean "progressives". Also, his domestic policies would straighten out a lot of what's wrong with America.
We could go on forever on this topic, but I have better things to do. But I will give you the last word on the subject, so make it good:)
Post a Comment