A good read


Arthur Vinson has started a new discussion on your group: Americans for Ron Paul

Subject: What is Foreign Policy
This was given to my by Edna who is the leader of our Pro-Paul group in our district and all should read particularity those who doubt Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy !!
Arthur Vinson

What is Foreign Policy?

The American Heritage Dictionary defines foreign policy as “The diplomatic policy of a nation in its interactions with other nations.” This sounds pretty simple but in reality it is quite complex. Our foreign policy seems to flip back and forth between isolationism and internationalism which is the same as interventionism.

John Quincy Adams warned that a crusading, excessive U.S. involvement in world affairs dedicated to reforming the world in America’s image could lead to the prostitution of the very ideals Americans hold most dear, liberty abroad and at home. Internationalism wants American leadership in world affairs. It sprints from the motivation that America must oversee the world, to forge a “new world order” compatible with our ideals and interests.
Isolationist goals want the U.S. to sever the country from corrupting influences of international engagement and despotic foreign governments.
George Washington warned us in his farewell address to “steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world.” Detachment and withdrawal are also part of the American diplomatic tradition.

Foreign policy strategies are supposed to be done by the President and Congress, and the Secretary of State. The reality is that our foreign policy is mainly developed by councils, and think tanks, comprised by CEOs and executives from the most powerful corporations in the world. Executives from just about every major industry are represented on these councils, including defense.

CEO’s from the largest defense corporations are deeply involved in developing and molding our foreign policy. An example of this is Lockheed Martin, the largest defense corporation in the USA. It is estimated that 95% of their $35 billion dollar annual profits is attributable to government contracts. These CEOs have much too much influence in the structuring of our foreign policy that, understandably, keeps us engaged in war.

Robert Stevens, CEO and President of Lockheed Martin is also the presiding director of Monsanto, the largest manufacturer and distributor of genetically modified seeds. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a member of the Advisory Board to the Atlantic Council.

The Council on Foreign Relations (“CFR”) is a powerful council that sponsor “…independent task forces that produce policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics.” Members consist of CEOs and executives from the largest banks, oil, media, mining, food, real estate investment and politics. Some of the current members and past members are David Rockefeller, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, George Soros, Newt Gingrich, Clinton, Couric, VP Biden, Steven Spielberg, Robert Murdock, Charles Krauthammer, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Volcker, the Bush’s, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah, and others. The President of CFR is Richard Hass, who was the former Director of Policy Planning for the Department of State. CFR board member Richard Holbrooke is Obama’s Special Advisor on Afghanistan and Pakistan. (You may want to ready more about this dangerous Council:
http://citruscountycitizens.ning.com/pro… [1] )

According to a 2006 report 151 members of Congress invested close to a quarter-billion in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million dollars. These companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to fedspending.org.
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees which over sees the Iraq war had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DOD contracts. You do not have to be a brain surgeon to realize that in order for these congressional critters to make money on their investments, these companies have to first grow their revenues. So it stands to reason that congress must give them defense contracts. When congress appropriates defense spending, are they doing this to keep us safe, or are they doing this to make a handsome profit in the stock market?

These very same corporations donate heavily during elections. Lockheed Martin donated $2.6 million, 49% going to Democrats and 51% to Republicans during the last election cycle. Its yearly lobbying expenditure ranges between $7 million and $15 million. Boeing donated $2.2 million in 2008 with 58% going to Democrats. General Dynamics gave $1.7 million to both the Democrats and Republicans, Northrop Grumman spent $20 million in 2008 on lobbyists to influence Congress, and Raytheon spent $6 million on lobbyists. Just about now you must be wondering what did these corporations received in return for their extravagant investments?

The Atlantic Council states on their Website that they focus on “…drafting road maps for U.S policy towards the Balkans, Cuba, Iraq, Iran and Libya.” Executives from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing are members of this council. The Atlantic Council Chairman, Chuck Hagel, recently proposed new policy objectives for Pakistan. Senator John Kerry, who has about $30 million invested in defense companies, introduced the plan to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for review. General Jim Jones resigned as Chairman of the Atlantic Council to work as Obama’s National Security Advisor. Other members of the Council that are now working for Obama are: Susan Rice, Richard Holbrooke, General Eric Shinseki and Anne-Marie Slaughter. President Obama also nominated Raytheon’s Senior VP for Government Operations and Strategy, William Lynn, to the number two position in the Pentagon.

The Business Roundtable includes the CEOs of the top 160 corporations which provide government with “…reasoned alternatives and positive policy suggestions.” The current CEO of Boeing, James McNerney, Jr. is one of the
160 members of this group. Members of the Business Roundtable have private meetings with the President and his staff.

The 4th largest defense corporation, Northrop Grumman, went from $7.6 billion net sales in 2000 to $34 billion in 2008. They contributed $8.5 million to both parties in the last 10 years. According to Corpwatch, at least seven former officials, consultants or shareholders of Northrop Grumman held positions in the GW Bush administration.

Both parties have hired members from the same genetic pool. We have members of the CFR in charge of the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation whose monetary leaders include Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse Group, and dozens of other national and international banks. These bankers also donate heavily during elections. Two banker members are now controlling the monetary situation in Spain and Italy.
The IMF also employs top members from the CFR.

Clearly, the foreign policy of the U.S. is being decided by corporations. It is important to note that these corporations are producers deciding policy that our congressional folks are more than eager to implement because many stand to benefit monetarily. So, whose interest are they really looking out for? Our hard earned taxpayer dollars are being spent to enrich defense corporations and congressional legislators. The only way that this can be justified is by committing to war. And, of course, when one conflict ends, another one begins. Many believe that this is acceptable and should be overlooked because we are living in dangerous times. And then there are many more that are finally waking up to the reality that in many instances, wars and conflicts are being created because monetary gains seem to be at the core of the decision making process.

These councils are non-partisan, and there are other groups that share membership. Their members include all political parties. Money, control and power are the foundations that bind them together, and not political ideology. Fortunately, we can take proactive steps to stop these corporations from furthering their destructive agendas. During this election cycle, it is extremely important to vote for a candidate that will defend the Constitution and take their oath of office seriously. Our national debt is the biggest threat to our national security. We need to take back our country’s monetary worth away from the FED, or severely reduce their powers. We need to get out of the United Nations or institute limits on how much we are going to support them. We need to stop foreign aid and take care of our countrymen first. We need to bring our troops home to secure our own borders where they will be safe and appreciated. We need to get rid of some of these unconstitutional agencies, policies and Executive Orders. We need to stop unsustainable spending or we will surely go the way of the Europeans. We need to go back to a constitutionally limited government. And, most importantly, we need to remember that both parties are destroying our Republic and shredding our most precious document, the U.S. Constitution.

National security advisers to the Republican presidential candidates have ties to Defense, Homeland Security and energy companies that have received at least $40 billion in federal contracts since 2008.

Five of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s 41 national security and foreign policy advisers have links to companies that last year alone received at least $7.9 billion in federal contracts, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government analyst Christopher Flavelle. Of that, $7.3 billion came from the Department of Defense.

Romney and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who are leading in the polls, have advisers who sit on the board of directors of BAE Systems Inc., which has received at least $37 billion in U.S. government contracts since 2008, the most of any of the companies with ties to Republican national security advisers.

William Schneider, an adviser to Gingrich, and Michael Chertoff, who counsels Romney, serve on the board of the U.S. subsidiary of BAE Systems Plc, Europe’s largest defense contractor. The American company makes the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle and provides information technology systems to American intelligence agencies and repair services to the U.S. Navy.

Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate that really understands the distinction between military and defense spending and appropriations. He is also the only candidate that cares and understands who, how, why, and where foreign policy decisions emanate from. He wants to stop this. It’s important to stress that Dr. Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist.

Non-interventionism is probably the middle ground between isolationism and internationalism or interventionism, which seems to be the current flavor of the season. This is the position that Dr. Ron Paul advocates. He does not want isolationism, nor internationalism/interventionism to be the prevailing foreign policy for our country, because he sees the corruption and the manipulation that is occurring by both parties. The U.S. could maintain diplomatic relations with all governments and nations, including trade. If asked, and with the consent of our Congress, we can provide military support, to any country in need of such support. This would be done without mandates and other government interferences. Dr. Ron Paul believes in a strong national defense and he will protect our national sovereignty at all cost, especially because he takes the enumerated powers and his constitutional oath of office seriously. The simple truth is that we need to try something different. We need to eliminate the money-making opportunities and strip the powers that these council members, the military industrial complex and the elitists have over the decision making process pertaining to our foreign policy. Too much is at stake. Many conflicts and wars are legitimate, but many more are not. Americans need to fully understand what is at stake here, and how we are being manipulated to accept as inevitable many situations that can be avoided, or completely eliminated. At the very least, if tried even for a short period of time, it would slow down this destructive pattern. This is an explanation by Dr. Ron Paul of the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism recorded in 2007, even then there were talks about invading Iran. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM [2]

America is at a crossroads. One path promises more of the same – more wars, more police-statism and government intrusion, more economic woes and debt that will eventually give us higher taxation and price inflation. The other road is a slow and difficult climb back to liberty and constitutionally limited government. Both will take its toll on the American people, but in order to remain a free society there is only one road that we should take.

During this GOP presidential contest season those that are satisfied with the status quo will vote for one of the establishment selected-for-you candidates, and those of us that are not, will vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

Happy voting.

For Liberty,

[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kf6CjcJBeM


To view and reply to this discussion visit the following page:


If you would like to stop recieving email updates for group activity, please visit the notifications page in your account settings:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: