As a Ron Paul supporter, one concern I occasionally hear from potential voters is that they “like Ron Paul’s stances, except on foreign policy”. It’s a concern that is understandable and also one that I personally held until recently.
Ron Paul usually scores high marks with both republican and independent voters on taxes and spending. For decades, Dr. Paul has warned the American people of the dangers of the Federal Reserve system and of periodic government intervention in the economy. His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution while in elected office is also something to be praised.
In fact, Dr. Paul has been praised by many of his colleagues who are currently running for President. Mitt Romney punted a question regarding the U.S. Constitution to Paul during a New Hampshire debate, bestowing the title of ‘Constitutionalist’ upon Dr. Paul. Newt Gingrich frequently compliments Paul on his fight against the Federal Reserve. Gingrich even went so far as to mention Paul’s Fed stance during his South Carolina victory speech. Ron Paul’s economic platform has slowly entered the mainstream of the GOP political discourse, and has finally broken through with great reception from conservative voters.
Without Ron Paul, the gold standard, the federal reserve, the dangers of a fiat currency, and a nation continually saddled with debt would have gone by un-raised. At least until it was too late.
What drives a big chunk of conservatives up a wall is the mention of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Many syndicated ‘conservative’ pundits label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘isolationist’. With this context in mind, it’s easy to see why many establishment republican voters would turn their backs on Dr. Paul. The position of bringing the troops home along with talking heads like Hannity and Beck, jumping and screaming about Paul’s apparent ‘isolationism’ would strongly encourage many conservatives to not take a second look at Ron Paul and dismiss him entirely.
First and foremost, Ron Paul is many things. However, an isolationist isn’t one of them. An excellent example of an isolationist country would be North Korea. The ironically named ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ has closed itself off from the rest of the world. There is no trade. There is no diplomacy. There is no immigration or emigration. Being isolated from the rest of the world is the antithesis of what Ron Paul believes, and the notion that he is anything close to an ‘isolationist’ should be expelled from any informed voter’s mind.
Non-interventionism, the foreign policy of Ron Paul, put’s America’s needs and concerns first, instead of the needs of other nations. It is important to know that at present the United States has over 900 military installations in over 130 foreign countries.
The overreach and spreading thin of our troops throughout the world leaves our home front vulnerable. One has to look no further than the United States’ own borders, which are seriously undermanned and without any protection whatsoever for many miles. Another example closer to home is the recent shut down of the Fort Monmouth Facility in Monmouth County. The federal government shut down the base late last year as a means of cost savings.
The simple fact that we’re closing bases in New Jersey to open new bases abroad does not make me feel safer as a United States citizen.
The United States military currently has:
◦52,440 military personnel in Germany.
◦35,688military personnel in Japan
◦28,500military personnel in Korea
◦9,015military personnel in the United Kingdom
◦9,660military personnel in Italy
America’s fighting men and women should only be sent overseas when our nation is at war. Our nation should only be at war when the Congress, representing the American people, passes a Declaration of War, as mandated by our Constitution. These used to be conservative principles that our nation held dear up until recently in our history. Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home. This has been due to our government picking its battles carefully, and only entering conflicts with clear, concise objectives, and naturally, voting on the war in the congress.
As President, Ron Paul has made it clear that he would not hesitate to go to war if necessary, but only as a last resort. The war would obviously have to be legitimized by a vote in the congress, as stated in the constitution.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is approved by the most important pundits of all, the troops. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the rest of the candidates, including President Obama, combined.
If you listen to the troops (particularly those who support Ron Paul), they’ll tell you that the United States Military is creating enemies faster than they can kill them overseas. The troops would tell you, that bringing them home and building our defense here would be more profitable than sending our money and young men and women to the sands of some foreign land.
Military veterans like Adam Kokesh and active duty Cpl Jesse Thorsen have been speaking out about the dangerous foreign policy that the U.S. Government currently engages in, and they offer Ron Paul’s foreign policy as a clear alternative to the lunacy that exists today.
The extreme fiscal expense that the United States incurs by stationing troops around the world will leave our treasury bare and we’ll have nothing to show for it. It is a fiscally conservative position, as well as a constitutional position to support a strong national defense and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the position Paul holds. We can either elect to withdraw from our international installations now, or we’ll be forced to leave in a few years when our government can no longer afford anything and we’ve run out of creditors.
I can’t imagine how someone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative can possibly support the fiscally liberal position of excessive spending to subsidize other nations’ defense. Not only do the troops like Ron Paul, but defense employees from companies like Lockheed Martin contribute to Ron Paul as well because they know Dr. Paul would build up our national defense, not engage in careless militarism abroad. Under Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, we’d still spend four times more than China on Defense and reduce all other budgetary obligations to 2006 levels. The total savings from rethinking our defense and other careful cuts would result in $1 Trillion of savings in the first year. This would effectively save social security and medicare, without touching promised benefits to seniors or the less privileged. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative to me.
The Marriage Equality and Religious Exceptions Act passed the New Jersey Senate Judiciary committee this afternoon on a partisan 8-4 vote. Democrats Nicholas Scutari, Nia Gill, Nellie Pou, Paul Sarlo, Brain Stack, Loretta Weinberg, and Joe Vitale voted for the bill. Republicans Kip Bateman, Michael Doherty, Joe Kyrillos and Kevin O’Toole voted no.
While at a Town Hall meeting in Bridgewater, Governor Chris Christie called for putting the question on the ballot in November. Back in Trenton, Senate President Stephen Sweeney quickly rejected Christie’s call for a referendum, calling it a civil rights issue that should be decided by the legislature, not the people.
Former Governor Jon Corzine’s Public Advocate, Richard Chen, said that Women’s Suffrage was on the New Jersey ballot in 1915 and was defeated, passing only in Ocean County.
We’ve been trained by the media to believe that same-sex attraction is biologically determined, that it is unchangeable and damaging to attempt to change it, that it has no correlation whatsoever with decreasing mental health, and that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in every significant way, including stability. Therefore, homosexuality must be treated like other non-prejudicial differences, such as skin color. Science says so, or so we are told.
But does it really? In a word, no.
In a major article in the February 2012 issue of First Things, Stanton L. Jones—a professor of psychology at Wheaton College—provides a thorough review of the relevant scientific studies. While Jones acknowledges that there is a great deal science does not know about homosexuality, he concludes that sufficient studies have now been done to give the lie to all of the common assumptions listed in my opening paragraph.
To repeat the scientific literature would be to duplicate Jones’ efforts, so I’ll content myself with summarizing his findings. These are:
The best and most comprehensive studies available suggest that depression and substance abuse are 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexuals. This is typically dismissed by the claim that it results from social stigma, but (in Jones’ words), “the possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised.” Tellingly, the percentages do not appear to drop in cultures which are deliberately gay-friendly.
Early claims that homosexuality is biologically determined were based on a theory of pregnancy which posited that the mother’s body increasingly reacted against male hormones with successive male children, thereby causing a higher percentage of younger brothers to be incompletely masculinized, and so to be homosexual. This thesis that homosexuals have a disproportionate number of older brothers has now been disproven.
Genetics is, of course, another area of research into homosexual biological determinism. But the latest and most comprehensive studies of twins and siblings show that heritability for homosexuality is relatively weak (no stronger than for other behavioral tendencies); further, there is no evidence to support the notion that these tendencies are not as modifiable as other tendencies (such as a tendency to watch a great deal of television, which appears also to be heritable).
In addition, there are many studies which correlate homosexuality with environmental factors such as broken families, absent fathers, older mothers, childhood sexual abuse, and even being born and living in urban settings.
Despite the uniform proclamation of the psychiatric establishment that homosexual orientation cannot change, no body of properly-conducted studies proves this contention. Jones himself has led studies of groups of persons who are trying to change their orientation, resulting in either a completely successful change in orientation (23%), or the ability to live chastely (30%), or at least a continuing effort with limited success (27%). Only 20% abandoned the effort and affirmed their homosexuality more strongly. Jones concludes that “homosexual orientation is…sometimes mutable.”
Conclusive evidence exists that committed relationships between homosexual men are 50% more likely to break up than heterosexual relationships. Between homosexual women, the dissolution rate is 167% higher than the heterosexual rate.
Professor Jones also raises in passing two issues which involve value judgments unprovable by science, and to which CatholicCulture.org has called attention on a number of previous occasions. The first is the issue of sexual identity. To claim that the fundamental sense of identity of the human person is based on their sexual attractions is not a scientific statement, but an overall personal judgment of a an incredibly complex and varied question which no scientific study could ever fully explore. Many people, probably most, have in fact reached a different conclusion, understanding themselves not as having identities determined by their feelings but rather “telic” identities, that is, identities determined by teleology—our natural understanding of the design, purposes and ends of the human person.
This brings us back to a fundamental point. For even if all the claims in the opening paragraph could be proved by science, they would tell us nothing about whether or not homosexuality is a disorder. Even if same-sex attraction were biologically determined and unchangeable, and even if the psychological health of homosexuals equaled that of heterosexuals in the ways measured, and even if homosexual relationships had the same durability as heterosexual relationships, we still would have no grounds to argue that same-sex attraction is a well-ordered human affectivity.
This is because we already know from teleology, from our perception of the very nature and purposes of things, that same-sex attraction is incapable of carrying the full range of goods appropriate to sexuality in the natural order. Thus same-sex attraction is identifiable as a disordered condition in and of itself, whether its cause lies in biology or elsewhere, or in a combination of things. Ultimately, one can claim homosexuality is well-ordered only by ruling out of court the most obvious and widely-accessible factors in the case, the ordinary factors of judgment about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, the factors that are available to all of us.
This is rather like claiming it is not a disorder to be born with only one leg because we do not know that the human person was designed or intended by God or nature to have two. Or, perhaps more to the point, it is like claiming a person suffering from bilumia is not suffering a disorder because we have no way of knowing whether eating constantly with no proportion to our need for food is a normal condition in human nature or not. In all such cases, to define the person down to a set of his own peculiar characteristics is to rob him of his full identity as a person, which is essential to his self-understanding, development, growth and maturity. A man with one leg has been prevented by a disorder from having two, but he will live as much as possible as if he had two legs. A woman with bulimia will know that the full measure of her personal identity is inhibited by a disorder, and she will strive to overcome it in order to be fully what she is called by God and/or nature to be.
It is essential to understand that such faulty judgments cannot be proved (or disproved) “scientifically” because they arise from a fundamentally human and personal way of knowing which science cannot (and does not seek to) utilize in its own tightly restricted purposes and methodologies. This manner of seeing things whole is natural to the human person (among formal mental disciplines, philosophy comes closest to it).
But it remains very important to know whether specific claims which can be addressed scientifically are true or false. Without ignoring the larger issues, Stanton Jones has done an exemplary job of answering this question, based on the full range of scientific studies available to us now.
Yes, there was a GOP presidential debate last night. Mitt Romney tried to go after Newt Gingrich. Gingrich brushed off the shots, calling them lies, and referred the national audience to his website for his rebuttals.
The entertainment value has been on the under-card; the battle among the front runners’ surrogates. Chris Christie called Newt Gingrich an “embarrassment to the party” and an “influence peddler.” Sarah Palin responded by calling Christie a “rookie” with his “panties in a wad.”
Palin went on during her appearance on Fox Business to call Christie an embarrassment, citing his use of a State Police helicopter to attend his son’s baseball game last June.
Christie doesn’t think much of Palin. He kept her out of his 2009 gubernatorial campaign and let it be known to 2010 Republican congressional candidates that she was not welcome in New Jersey if the GOP candidates wanted his help on the trail.
But Christie can’t restrict Palin on the national stage and he can’t respond to her in-kind. Gender sensibilities prohibit Christie from commenting on Palin’s underwear or taking another personal shot at her. A woman can get away with taking a shot like that against a man, but not the other way around. Palin, and Gingrich, know that.
For his own political future, and for his present role as a Romney surrogate, Christie needs to come up with a way to neutralise counter-punches coming from Palin. He needs to do so in a way that increases his standing with both women and men, while diminishing Palin’s.
Fair Haven Mayor Mike Halfacre was nominated by Governor Christie today to become the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
The nomination requires the advice and consent of the State Senate.
Halfacre, who is expected to resign as Fair Haven’s mayor and from his prosecutor jobs in Rumson and Little Silver, is replacing Jerry Fischer who has held the ABC job since 2000.
Halfacre will be leading the 50 person division which regulates nearly 10,000 liquor licensees throughout New Jersey. The division is charged with implementing the new law that allows New Jersey wineries to ship their products to out of state customers on a limited basis and that allows out of state wineries to ship into New Jersey.
When reached for comment, Halfacre said to pull his ad. He referred all other questions to the Governor’s office.
A telephone survey conducted Sunday of likely voters in the Florida GOP primary has Newton Gingrich leading Mitt Romney, 41%-32%, according to Rasmussen Reports.
Two weeks ago Romney lead by 22%.
Romney is leading among those who have already cast their votes by 11 points. Gingrich leads by 12% among those who have not yet voted. 14% of likely voters have already cast their ballot.
Nominees Bring Experience, Distinctive Career Paths and the Highest Integrity to New Jersey’s State Supreme Court
Trenton, NJ – GovernorChris Christie today made two historic nominations to the New Jersey State Supreme Court with Bruce A. Harris, Mayor of Chatham, a lawyer with over 20 years of legal experience, and Phillip H. Kwon, First Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Law and Public Safety and former Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division. Both Harris and Kwon will not only bring accomplished and respected legal careers and records of service to the state’s highest court, but also a historic level of diversity to the membership of the Court.
“I am extraordinarily proud to announce these two historic nominations to the New Jersey State Supreme Court. Bruce and Phil are each accomplished and talented individuals with skilled legal minds who are highly respected in the legal community. Just as importantly, each of them has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to serving their state and communities,” said Governor Chris Christie.
“Additionally, not only do their different backgrounds and career paths bring distinctive and important perspectives to the Supreme Court, Bruce and Phil also capture our state’s diversity in a way never before seen in the history of the Court,” continued Governor Christie.
Today’s nominations build upon Governor Christie’s commitment to diversity on the courts in four historic ways. Bruce Harris will become the third African-American to serve on the State Supreme Court and the first openly gay member of the Court. Phil Kwon will become the first Asian-American to serve on the Supreme Court and the first immigrant to serve since the 1947 Constitution created the Court. Furthermore, Justice Anne Paterson, nominated by Governor Christie and confirmed, created the first female majority in the history of the Supreme Court, one of only five in the nation.
“Today is an important and historic symbol for New Jersey and our country. I am proud to be nominating two legal professionals who not only have a passion for this state and a dedication to the legal system, but also capture New Jersey’s great diversity,” concluded Governor Christie.
Bruce Harris is a lawyer with over 20 years of legal experience, most recently working at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti. His work has focused primarily on issues of public finance and commercial lending. Harris graduated magna cum lade from Amherst College and graduated with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management and Yale Law School.
Harris has a long record of service to his town and community, including his recent election as Mayor of Chatham Borough and previously service as a member of the Chatham Borough Council. He has served on the Chatham Environmental Commission, the Chatham Historic Preservation Commission, and on the boards of the UMDNJ Foundation and the New Jersey Health Foundation.
Phillip Kwon currently serves as First Assistant Attorney General where he has been the principal legal and strategic adviser to the Attorney General. Previously, he served New Jersey as part of the United States Attorney’s Office as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, the Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit and the Assistant US Attorney of both the Special Prosecutions Division and the Criminal Division. In that capacity, he was the lead prosecutor on a diverse range of federal crimes and public corruption matters, in addition to taking on cases against some of New Jersey’s most notorious and violent groups, such as the Bloods, Crips, and Latin Kings.
Kwon graduated from Georgetown University and from Rutgers Law School where he was an editor of the Law Review.
Both nominations are subject to Senate confirmation. In an agreement reached last May to end the impasse over the nomination of Justice Anne Patterson, Senate President Sweeney promised an expedited confirmation process for these nominations, with an appropriate review process and up-or-down vote taking place in time for each to be seated by March of this year.
·Senator Sweeney: “The Governor has a couple of nominations come March of next year and one of the things I hope the Governor keeps in mind is racial diversity of the courts. We need to make sure we have a racially diverse court that looks like the state of New Jersey but there’s a commitment from me to move the nominations come March also.” (Senator Steven Sweeney, Press Availability, 5/2011)
United States Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has been detained by TSA at Nashville Airport, according to posts of the senator’s facebook page and on his father’s, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, facebook page.
According to the elder Paul’s post, there was an anomaly in Paul’s initial electronic body scan. He asked for a second scan. TSA demanded a full body pat down. The senator refused.
Fair Haven Mayor Mike Halfacre was nominated by Governor Christie today to become the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.