Many of you just had images of Rand Paul and Ron Paul pop into your heads after reading that word “Isolationist”. Why is that? Are they really “isolationsists”? What brought you to that conclusion? Most of us reading Caffeinated Thoughts get our news from the same sources so it really isn’t that hard to figure out. The opinion pundits have labeled these men isolationists for years. In Ron’s case they are probably right. But what about Rand?
Rand has many stark differences from his father and this area is one of them. Rand isn’t opposed to offensive or preemptive war; he just believes we should follow the constitution and declare the wars we fight. He recently proposed a declaration of war against ISIS. This is very important in a couple of ways. First and foremost it proves without a doubt he is NOT AN ISOLATIONIST. (So stop labeling him as such! You’re wrong and it is getting annoying.) For those of us that want to see a return to a constitutionally limited government it is paramount he uses the formal jargon of a “declared war” vs an “authorization of force”.
Legally both have meant virtually the same thing and we can nit pick details on scope of the actions authorized and powers but I believe most importantly that using the words “declare war” insinuates a more original constitutional intent on congressional power over war. The most important effect it has on anything is the subconscious of the electorate. It gets people thinking about the constitution and which branch has what power.
The left would like nothing more than for the masses to believe there is nothing government can’t do but that pesky constitution tends to say otherwise. The more WE ignore it, and allow them to, the less meaning it will hold. Just recently conservatives were applauding Benjamin Netanyahu for his address to Congress, including myself. While it was a great speech from an extremely accomplished leader it was technically unconstitutional. According to the constitution the President holds the power to address foreign dignitaries, not Congress.
Why isn’t the left up in arms about how unconstitutional Boehner’s actions were? They are but they aren’t using the word unconstitutional to describe their outrage and for good reason. It would be detrimental to their ultimate goal of complete dismantling of the constitution. They wouldn’t be able to reduce it to meaningless babble on paper if they thought it carried any water in the first place. Besides, why fight conservatives when they are unwittingly pushing the left’s ultimate goal? Did Boehner just stoop to Obama’s lawless level?
We need to lead by example and not allow our own to continue to undermine the constitution. We need to stop allowing the political correctness machine to undermine our constitutional correctness. Especially if we are going to use that constitution as leverage for our own limited government goals. The despotism of the democratic mob will subconsciously consume us all if we don’t fight now to save the republic. We all need to think, speak, and act in a constitutionally correct manner.
Latest posts by Rich Hilgemann (see all)
- Stop Taking In Syrian Refugees Immediately - November 19, 2015
- Giving Syrians Asylum Is Not Worth the Risk - September 15, 2015
- The Illogical, Immoral and Illegal Attack on Rand Paul - June 1, 2015