In part one, I wanted to lay the foundation and offer some clarity for my worldview for those that don't understand it and also wade through some confusion to better understand my position before reading part 2.
The other reason for the part 1 and 2 is to address the question regarding "Isolationism" and "Interventionism" which I hope to make clear in this post as well.
When one makes statements it is important for us to adequately address them and part of that process although, in part, included in part 1, will be detailed here in part 2.
The first part of the process is to try to better understand the claimant's perspective before two people debate on two different things. I think they call this defining the terms before debating them.
The most recent example I can offer was in a dialogue with a local Senator. I had made the assumption that all legislators understood we were a republic but there it was, on the radio, they repeatedly stated we were a representative Democracy. There it was, the glaring admission that, for some reason, shocked me enough to address it when it seemed like no one else was going to. Here we have two people debating the power of govenrment without first realizing they and I disagreed on our form of govenrment. To me, it would have been like debating apples as oranges and vice-versa. If one person thinks something is an orange and you think you are debating apples, the debate it useless and un "fruitful" pardon the pun. We must clearly understand what we are talking about and the first part is understanding ones worldview.
Understanding ones worldview: The first thing to consider is understanding the frame of reference from the claimant. In the case of the assumption I was an isolationist, I would have asked what their knowldge of the constitution is and how our republican form of govenrment differs from other forms or what he believes.
Another thing I may consider is one's knowledge of the conspiratorial elements relating to wars. What might they know about the Military Industrial complex, do they understand the history or nations that have become imperialistic and what happens to them and how do they become that way? What did our Founding fathers have to say about "isolation" or "interventionism?" If after asking these questions, the answers to these questions are not known, we have a chance to educate others as well as ourselves if we do it correctly.
Declaration of War: I would like to say that since America still has a constitution that was created to limit what the government can do, the first hurdle relating to war is a congressional declaration of war. If there wasn't one, America has no business being anywhere no matter what excuse they use. This is simply unconstitutional. If "liberty folk" want to make excuses, they are not liberty folk, or they are not original intent constitutionalists, which may be a greater problem than Marxists in our midst or may even mean they are Marxists cloaked as Patriots defined as Neoconservatives and what's worse, they may not even know it. I know, I was there once myself.
War Powers: If there were a proper Declaration of war, the Constitution goes on to more specifically state the conditions of going to war as I cite the following below. I could go into further detail here but refrained because I already see this final post as being too long anyway. So for the sake of brevity:
Common Excuses for unlimited “Boundless” power:
General Welfare- Article I, Section 8, Cl. 1
Necessary and Proper Clause- Article 1, Section 8, Cl. 18
Interstate commerce: Article 1, Section 8, Cl. 3
Treaty Law- Article VI
General Welfare Power:
Borrow Money
Regulate Commerce
Rules on Naturalization
Coin Money
Punish counterfeiting
Establish post offices and roads
Science and Arts (Patents)
Tribunals inferior to Supreme Court
Control land for limited purposes
Common Defense Power:
Define and punish piracies
Declare war
Raise and Support Armies
Provide and maintain a Navy
Make rules for land and naval forces
Call forth militia
Organize, arm and discipline Militia
Enumerated War powers
Declare War
Raise and Support armies (temporary)
Maintain a Navy (Permanent)
Call forth Militia
Militia controlled by states until called forth
Just War
Defensive war is legitimate
Formally declared by proper authority
Just cause and right intention
Last resort after all else has failed
Limited and unchanging objectives
Proportionate means ( NO unlimited war-Specific not to destroy entire nation)
Non Combatants must have immunity
The best and only way to limit the abuse of power:
Supremacy Clause- Article VI
What our Founders believed: As you can see from the list and as you get to understand each provision, you will learn, if you don't know already know, how abusive the federal govenrment has become. Also realize the fact that they are abusive isn't as much their fault as it is ours. The citizens should be holding govenrment accountable and the states should be holding the federal government accoutable and if they aren't, there isn't accountability like there should be. As you can see that there is no provision for foriegn entanglements or "interventionism" and like the word nullification that isn't in the constitution, the premise and legitimacy of minding our own business and operating within our limitations is. Therefore, Isolationism isn't isolating ourselves from one another, it is properly acknowledging the proper role of our government with respect to ourselves as well as for other countries to exercise their national sovereignty because the result of interventionism works two ways.
Common sense and logic: Sometimes things can make the most sense if we look at it logically for those that can. If one nation can intervene, no matter what the excuse why can't another? If one decides that it has a particular interest in another country and are willing to war over that interest against the will of the other, then what? If China did that to us, we would be furious but if we do it, Americans don't say a word? Hypocrites! If China owns all of our debt, is not the the borrower the slave to the lender? Well, what if another country comes to collect? So, I guess you could say that there is a lawful form of intervention if a contract is violated so if we couldn't pay our debt the lender has the lawful authority to intervene and collect. But does the borrowing nation have the authority to push the lender around demanding they adhere to our interests? Ridiculous! At the most basic level the actions of our government are laughable and what's worse those Americans that feel interventionism is the "right" thing to do, shows the hubris and ignorance of a country and its people.
Conspiratorial elements: This country has been in deep trouble for decades and still today as the nation is almost in complete ruin, People still refuse to acknowledge the conspiratorial elements are far greater than just war between nations or abuse of authority relating to war, Americans are so narrow minded that they only see the single issue for what it is without connecting the dots. Even when the Insiders openly admit their plans, Americans ignore the warnings because they still are either looking for a king to save them or they believe that it can't happen here or that the statements the Insiders make are somehow a joke while not only the last four presidents openly speak about the New World Order, Insiders talk about it and so do its front groups. In other words, it would literally take no effort to believe conspiracy exists if people could define it. Thanks to the CIA propaganda campaign calling people conspiracy theorists, the gullibility of not only Americans in general but those that claim to be constitutionalists and libertarians believe it too. So much for a solid consistent worldview. They are as wavering as those they condemn.
Consider this quote by General Weslery Clark that said he would take out 7 nations in 5 years? Why would a sitting General (CFR Insider) openly speak about such things unless he was advancing the conspiracy for world Government and even if he wasn't, which provision above would a statement like that fall upon as being constitutional? None of them! It is premeditated, a planned strategy to fulfill an agenda!
Imperialism: The act of intervention to gain absolute control: There are many instances of nations rising to the imperial status, most notably Japan. Other include England, France, The Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Russia, The U.S., Germany, Italy, Belgium and Turkey. As VI Lenin believed those five characteristics of imperialism to be the emergence of monopolies, of finance capital (from the merger of bank and industrial capital), the export of capital, the rise of international as well as national monopolies, and the territorial..."
Google defines Imperialism as: "the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing not only hard power (military and economic power) but also soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism).
So, as we revisit the two words isolationism and Interventionism, not only which would you prefer but accoridng to what I have written so far, what is the proper role of government- for a nation to exceed its authority imposing it on other nations or to respect its constitution and limits placed upon them exercising its sovereignty or exceed its and impose on the sovereignty of others? I think the choice is clear. Remember, it is not a matter of isolationism, it is a matter of respect for sovereignty and respect for other nations as they respect us no matter what they do. Additionally, it is NOT America's job nor is it the job of the taxpayer to force other nations to not make war, or do what we say or if it is used to reset the economy as is commonly used or advance the global agenda of world government.
Consequences of exceeding ones authority: Understanding human nature helps us make intelligent decisions as people or a nation. If people know that human nature is to control others, this knowledge should be considered when decisions are made that pertain to people and the authority they may obtain. Our Founder's knew human nature which is why we have checks and balances and three branches of govenrment. They knew that entrusting one man with all of the power would lead to a dictatorship or an oligarchy.
Today, Americans increasingly support Socialism or any system that isn't what we have. Rather than them taking time to understand what we were supposed to have, they see our failed system for what it is blaming our Founders for what they think they gave us not realizing it isn't what they gave us that is the problem, it is what we have done with what they have given us. The result of this misunderstanding is leading people to believe rather than restoring what the Founders created, we want to follow the path of the dictatorships of old using the excuse that they just didn't do it right. Since these people have been brainwashed to believe this, they are also the same people that have inconsistent worldviews and have been brainwashed to believe that we can somehow do tyranny better than anyone else. If there was any truth, they would be right in one instance, that America will be the envy of the totalitarian world because they will do tyranny better than anyone else because it seems that our people have fallen for the lies far better than anoyone else. They fall for it because we have not seen the attrocities around the world or we are still under the illusion that it can't happen here when it isn't a question of can't, it is now a question of degree of how they can and will. Not only do we have a problem with people alseep and ignorant, those that are awake are falling short because there seems to be little effort or any successful effort to sound the alarm, they just keep that alarm amongst themselves, with little concerted effort to effectively reach beyond the choir that will enslave us all.
Our Founding Fathers and other prominent figures were right regardless of thier political affiliation, we can't be ignorant and free, they were right when the foundations were destroyed what can the righteous do and others were right when they said that the philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of govenrment in the next and that power comes from the barrel of a gun. I think if Americans studied a bit more and spoke more about what they knew rather than what they think to be true, we would be a lot better off. So will the reader call me a hypocrite for stating what I think rather than what I know? My response would be to ask "What if I am right?"