Conservatives Need to Stop The Bilderberg Conspiracy Theory Nonsense

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) spoke to the 2007 Bilderberg Conference about energy security and policies which resulted in his state being responsible for 37% of all private sector job growth in America. The Governor is not a traitor, he is not controlled by the Bilderbergers, and has done nothing to jeopardize America’s sovereignty.

The three day annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group is now being held in St. Moritz, Switzerland. Today’s Alex Jones radio program denounced the gathering for attempting to destroy America’s sovereignty and plotting to create a single global currency. Similar to most accusations made by Jones, the claims have no merit and there is no evidence to support them. Since 1945 the world has had a single reserve currency, and it is the American dollar.

America's Founders Were Not Isolationists

Lafayette Square is directly across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, and contains four statues honoring foreigners who had key roles in the American Revolution.

Many isolationists use quotes from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to claim they represent the Founders’ viewpoint. This was also the tactic of the America First organization in its campaign to keep the nation neutral in World War II. At every large rally they displayed Washington’s portrait, and even though the Nazi’s controlled all of Europe, they claimed America would never be attacked by the “Axis of Steel.” They went out of business the day after Pearl Harbor.

The Inside Story: Why a Ron Paul Disciple Left His Ranks

David Bahnsen of Newport Beach, California is a Senior Vice President of Morgan Stanley, and also serves on the Board of Advisors of the California Recovery Project with Dr. Arthur Laffer. Bahnsen has abandoned his earlier support of the Ron Paul crusade, and now describes himself as an “economically literate Republican.” He wrote the recent article “The Undiscerning and Dangerous Appreciation of Ron Paul.”

Wendell Willkie Defeats The Isolationists: The Most Dramatic Moment in GOP Convention History

 

GOP nominee Wendell Willkie is shown on August 17, 1940 in Elwood, Indiana. He remains the only native Hoosier to be nominated by a major party for the presidency. Willkie captured the nomination despite receiving just 3% support from Republicans seven weeks prior to the start of their convention.

“If we want to talk about freedom, we must mean freedom for others as well as ourselves, and we must mean freedom for everyone inside our frontiers as well as outside. . . When we talk of freedom and opportunity for all nations, the mocking paradoxes in our own society become so clear they can no longer be ignored.” – Wendell Willkie, the first major political figure to address the NAACP.

Wendell Willkie was the 1940 Republican nominee for President. He was the only major-party nominee who never held elected office, a Cabinet position, or high military rank. Willkie, an attorney and utility company executive, had been a delegate to the 1924 Democratic convention, and changed his registration only a year earlier. According to the Gallup Poll, he was receiving just 3% support from Republicans seven weeks before the start of their 1940 nominating convention.

Public opinion completely changed during that time period because of the rapid German invasion of France, and the nation clearly realized WW II was no longer a “phony war.”  Many Republicans thought they would be foolish to nominate staunch isolationists such as Senators Robert Taft (OH) and Arthur Vandenberg (MI), who later changed his viewpoint.  France surrendered to Germany one day after the opening of the GOP convention.

Willkie’s nomination on the 6th ballot is still regarded as one of the most dramatic moments in convention history. Columnist Joe Alsop said Willkie’s bandwagon was a demonstration of grass roots power, while Alice Roosevelt Longworth retorted that the candidate had actually come from “the grassroots of ten thousand country clubs.”

His campaign to secure the nomination had the support of many establishment figures within the party, and they made sure the Republican Platform called for the integration of the armed forces. This never happened while President Franklin Roosevelt was in office. In the general election Willkie was defeated by Roosevelt who won an unprecedented third term. The GOP nominee received 45% of the vote and carried 10 states.

Willkie helped to break the isolationist grip on the Republican Party. He was always a civil rights champion, even though it was not politically popular. Roosevelt not only carried all 16 states of the “Solid South,” but won them by huge majorities.

Willkie temporarily put partisanship on the back burner after his defeat. He campaigned for passage of the Lend-Lease bill to help Britain, even though it significantly increased FDR’s power. Willkie said Lend-Lease was needed to help the war effort:

I am greatly concerned about the Republican party. . . Whether we like it or not America cannot remove itself from the world.  Much as we would like to withdraw within ourselves and much as we would like to disregard the rest of the world—we cannot. We cannot be indifferent to what happens in Europe. We cannot forget the fighting men of Britain. They are defending our liberty as well as theirs.

If they are permitted to fail I say to you quite deliberately that I do not believe liberty can survive here. I take issue with all who say we can survive with freedom in a totalitarian world.  I want to say to you even though some of you may disagree with me, and I say it to you with all the emphasis of my being, that if Britain falls before the onslaught of Hitlerism, it will be impossible over a period of time to preserve the free way of life in America.

There has been a bill introduced in Congress to give the President quite extraordinary power to deal with the present crisis. . . . If Republicans are presented as the isolationist party, they will never again gain control of the American government. I beg of you—I plead with you—please do not act in blind opposition.  Do not act because of the hate of an individual.

Of all persons in the United States I have least cause to hold a brief for him. Republicans of 1941, you who gave to me the rarest privilege that could come to any man, the privilege of leading the greatest cause of this century —I call upon you now to rise to the opportunity of preserving the blessed principles of freedom . . . If during this critical period we play a wise and proper part, America in the near future will call us into power. Let us not fail.

Willkie died in 1944 at age 52 after suffering 20 heart attacks. His running mate, Senate Republican Leader Charles McNary (OR), had died six months earlier at 69. This was the only occasion where both members of a major party Presidential ticket died during the term for which they sought election.  During his 2004 keynote address to the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) said:

“Shortly before Willkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between ‘here lies a president’ or ‘here lies one who contributed to saving freedom,’ he would prefer the latter.”

Answering The Isolationists: Why Has Congress Never Officially Declared War Since 1941?

 

This was the last time America officially declared war.

What is not conservative about saying, ‘Don’t go to war unless we go to war properly with a full declaration of war, and no other way?’ Unconstitutional wars cost a lot of money, they undermine our constitutional principles.” – Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Address to the Conservative Political Action Conference, February 19, 2010

“Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. . . A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict.  – Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), debate on the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” in Afghanistan, October 3, 2002 

As usual, the truth is the exact opposite of what is being claimed by Ron Paul, Libertarians and the Constitution Party. The U.S. Constitution explicitly does grant Congress the power to declare war, and the last time this occurred was in December of 1941. America responded the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and three days later the U.S. Congress reacted again when Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.

No other nation has adopted a war resolution specifically against America since that time. The Korean War (1950 – 1953) and 1991’s Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait were military actions pursued under a United Nations mandate. If President George H.W. Bush had insisted on a declaration of war, he would have received it. He did not feel it was necessary, and the fighting lasted for only 100 hours. Republicans wanted a formal declaration but the Democratic majority did not want to give Bush any additional power.

Why Doesn’t Congress Declare War?

A declaration of war only requires a 51% majority vote in Congress. The “Declare War” clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) does not spell out any exact powers, and Presidents have taken a broad mandate after the passage of a war resolution. The presidents war powers have been recognized numerous times, and most recently by the Supreme Court in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision of 2004.

Since World War II, the Congress has preferred to use an Authorization for the Use of Military Force [AUMF]. This serves a very different role from a formal declaration of war. By passing an AUMF instead of a declaration, Congress is limiting the scope of power given to a president.

Past legislative history under a declaration of war gives the president broad inherent constitutional powers to deploy U.S. armed forces into combat abroad without specific authorization from Congress. The AUMFs passed by Congress signal support for the military actions but they do not go so far as to cede lawmaking power to the president. A declaration of war has been viewed by the Supreme Court as ceding legislative power by Congress.

What Has Happened in the Past?

Only two Senators voted against the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, and it passed the House unanimously. Only one lawmaker in the entire Congress opposed George W. Bush’s 2002 “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists” in Afghanistan.

Of the more than 220 situations in which the U.S. armed forces have been used (half of them involving fighting for less than 30 days), only five have involved declarations of war: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II.

Any of our post war presidents could have easily obtained a declaration of war. There was very little Congressional opposition at the outset of the post WW II conflicts. Instead, the Congress used a process called authorization of forces rather than war declarations.

The presidents would have preferred war declarations which once again significantly expand their power. Ron Paul’s claims that a war declaration limits the president is totally false. As I indicated, the Congress prefers AUMF’s because they increase the stature of the legislative branch.

Why Does Congress Insist on an AUMF Rather Than a War Declaration?

By using an AUMF, if Congress wishes to oppose military actions pursued by the Commander-in-Chief, it can do so in several ways. It can revoke any resolutions supporting the President. The Congress did that in 1970 when it revoked the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Congress can also cut off appropriations for Presidential war making. During the Vietnam War, it barred troops from engaging in operations in Thailand and Laos (1969) and from using ground forces in Cambodia (1970) and bombing Cambodia (1973).

America Was Not Tricked Into The Vietnam War

Another false claim made by the isolationists concern the Vietnam War. They say America was tricked into this conflict. The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed after the attack on the U.S. destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy. Everyone could see the visible damage on the USS Maddox. It was later discovered that a radar mistake was responsible for the USS C. Turner Joy’s response. Nevertheless, the attack on the Mattox took place.

The Ron Paul Brigade: Dr. Frank Palmer Purcell Believes Israel Was Behind the 9/11 Attack

They are teaching your children. This is Dr. Frank Purcell of the City University of New York who describes himself as a “pacifistic paleoconservative with libertarian leanings.” He has a graduate degree from Columbia University but believes Israel was behind the 9/11 attack.

Debate: Should Conservatives Support Libertarian or Third Party Candidates – Antone Blansett v. Gregg Hilton

Antone Blansett of Springdale, Arkansas is a libertarian supporter of Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), and is an active member of his Campaign for Liberty. He refused to support the 2008 McCain/Palin ticket because “A vote for McCain is just another vote for Obama with about 8 years of delay. I want a real change!” He served as a Staff Sergeant in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Return of the Conservative Isolationists: Right Wing Pundits Denounce "Obama's War"

Several high profile conservative pundits have recently turned against the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. The group includes columnists Ann Coulter, George Will, Tony Blankley and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. These pundits support RNC Chairman Michael Steele and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) who now refer to Afghanistan as “Obama’s war.”

The Constitutional Conservatives: Is This the Right Direction for the Republican Party?

This has been a great year for self described “Constitutional conservatives.” They defeated establishment GOP Senate candidates in Kentucky, Nevada and Utah, and now have their sights set on Washington state, Colorado and Alaska. The Republicans they defeated were also conservative, and there was no major issue dividing them.

An Open Letter to Senate Candidates Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sharron Angle (R-NV): The US Should Not Leave The UN

Dear Rand and Sharron:
I disagree with both of you on several issues and supported your primary opponents, but I now hope you will be victorious in your U.S. Senate campaigns. Your opponents are liberal Democrats and they must not win. You have both changed several positions since the primary, but I do not consider this a flip/flop. Your decisions were wise.
All Republicans should enthusiastically support civil rights, voting rights, fair housing and America’s special relationship with Israel. Thank you for clarifying those positions.
Both of you are now leading in the polls and 2010 will be an excellent year for the GOP. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has high negatives ratings, and voters should be reminded of his claim that the war in Iraq could not be won. The Senate Democratic primary in Kentucky has been over for a month, but Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo has still not endorsed the victor, Attorney General Jack Conway. This infighting will help Rand Paul.
We already know the strategy of your Democratic opponents. They will try to win support from moderate and independent voters by driving up your negative ratings. Both of you will be portrayed as extremists, and some of your controversial past statements will be repeated this Fall. One of the most effective issues for the Democrats is your desire to have America pull out of the United Nations, and to abandon our veto power in the UN Security Council.
There is Nothing Wrong in Advocating UN Reform
I hope both of you will reexamine your position, and there is nothing wrong in criticizing the UN or in asking for significant reforms. Major reforms were enacted when America refused to pay its dues for 22 months, but more needs to be done.
You should emphasize that the UN has passed many unwise resolutions and it has not been fair to Israel. Nevertheless, Israel is not withdrawing its ambassador from the UN. The worst thing that could happen to Israel would be for America to give up its veto power.
Iraq’s oil for food program was authorized by the UN, and it was a tremendous scandal. It is appalling that nations such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran were allowed to serve on the Human Rights Council.
Working with democratic nations on peacekeeping rather than the UN General Assembly is a fine idea. It is already being done. The UN mission in the former Yugoslavia failed, and it was necessary for NATO to replace the UN.
America Can Not Expect The U.N. To Handle Peacekeeping
You are wrong to advocate U.S. withdrawal because of the UN’s inability to handle peacekeeping missions. We have known that for over half a century, and the world body should not be entirely blamed because America always opposed the creation of a UN army. The poorly equipped UN member states are not good at peacekeeping when two sides are shooting at each other.
Belgium and Canada failed in their 1994 peacekeeping role in Rwanda where over 800,000 people died in a four month period. The Dutch were not successful in guarding the UN “safe haven” at Srebrenica in 1995 where over 7000 civilians died.
The Dutch soldiers threw down their weapons and ran away when the Serbian troops approached. When Germany agreed to send peacekeepers to Afghanistan in 2001, they had to lease transport aircraft from the Ukraine, and their equipment was outdated.
This does not mean the world should abandon peacekeeping, or that America should abandon its allies. America is the world’s only military super power and we are the sole nation which has power projection capabilities. No nation comes close to having our technical ability, and we are the only country with five global command centers and carrier battle groups in every ocean.
The UN Serves America’s Security Interests
The term was first used by President Franklin Roosevelt in the “Declaration by United Nations” on January 1, 1942. This was during WW II when representatives of 26 nations pledged their Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers. The UN was formed in the US in 1945 and Americans wrote the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
The UN supported the United States during the Korean War and the liberation of Kuwait, but that does not always happen. The most glaring example is Operation Iraqi Freedom.
There was unanimous approval for UN Resolution 1441 which authorized the use of force to get rid of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. There had been 17 similar resolutions which had been enacted since the end of the Gulf War in 1991.
The United States sought approval of an 18th resolution before the intervention, but this was stopped by a threatened French veto. While the United States has had to bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, our coalition partners also have a crucial role. Over 1000 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan, and over 600 soldiers from our allies have also died. America is not alone.
We regret the “road map” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians has not been successful, but the problem is Hamas, not the UN. When North Korea threatened to deploy nuclear weapons, the UN fostered multilateral talks involving America, China, Japan, North Korea and South Korea.
What Has The United Nations Accomplished?

• The cost of 1991’s Operation Desert Storm was $54 billion, but America did not pay any of this. The UN member states (primarily Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) paid for everything.
• The UN was the forum in which over 80 nations achieved their independence. Most of these countries had previously been colonies.
• The UN was used to establish and maintain democratic elections in 85 nations.
• This year the UN is providing relief and protection to 23.3 million refugees. The largest UN operations are in the former battle zones of Darfur and the Congo.
• During the past six decades at the UN, more efforts have been made to protect and promote human rights than in the entire previous history of humankind. The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted by the United States.
• The UN has responded to practically every natural disaster with generous contributions from its member states. The largest food aid organization in the world is run by the U.N., and is now assisting 113 million people, primarily in Africa.
• UNICEF, the UN Children’s Fund, saves millions of lives every year through immunization. They deserve tremendous credit for the eradication of smallpox and polio.
• It would be wrong of the United States to leave the UN and to retreat into isolationism. America has made progress through the UN, but as Iraq demonstrated, there will be times when the U.S. will act alone. The U.N. did not stop us, and they eventually assisted our efforts.
• Americans should be proud our nation has not ignored evil in the world. America has had a strong voice at the UN in stopping genocide, ethnic cleansing and other human rights abuses. Even the liberal National Conference of Catholic Bishops acknowledged the importance of America’s role when they quoted Pope John Paul II: ”The principles of sovereignty of states and noninterference in their internal affairs . . . cannot constitute a screen behind which torture and murder may be carried out.”