Thanks. And to be clear, I’m not a brand new convert to the non-interventionist Founding Father’s policy (as oft-quoted by Ron Paul and others knowledgeable of the subject). I am obviously a fan of Ron Paul, and have been ever since I became aware of his good work in Congress (that was 1992, and that’s when I began my study of constitutional gov’t and probably just as important began my study of the enemies of our nation). He’s not a nut case as the MSM will lead people to believe who don’t understand what’s going on, but in fact may be the only voice of sanity in Congress. of I’m also a huge Mitt fan, because I think he is the first outsider who’s had a chance to win the white house since Reagan, or Goldwater may be the better example.

I’ve had this debate/conversation, not recently but several years ago, with a good friend of mine who is smart and a very good, religious man, and of quite high stature in the community. This is the part which really bugs me. How do sharp, intelligent, morally excellent folks justify using force to do “good” (spread democracy, for ex.)?

And Mitt often teaches, “the principles of leadership are the same in gov’t as they are in the private sector, as they are in voluntary organizations.”

So, that being said, what is the principle we’re dealing with here? It can be expressed many ways (it is our job, as accountable Americans to God for whom we put into office to judge what is right and what is wrong, to judge what is a correct principle):
1) Is it okay to force somebody to do what you want? (U.S. to force Iraq, or Vietnam, or ____ to do what we want?).
2) Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. (Would we want a foreign power to invade our country, charging us with what we believe are absolutely false charges, and destroying our system of gov’t and replacing it with what they liked?)
3) Would you mind if your next-door neighbor said, “I believe you’re a threat to my family and the rest of the neighborhood because you have guns in your home and I think you have some people living with you who say they’re out to get me. So I’m going to bomb your house, kill your father, but then I’ll be nice enough to build you a new house, better than the one you had, and give you a new father whom I can trust?”
4) It boils down to freedom vs tyranny. Freedom vs force. (Of course, all imperialist leaders will try to get their people’s support by using the words, “be patriotic, support our troops…”, “we must protect our way of life”, “we’re being threatened by so and so”, “we must act now, or else we’ll lose our freedoms…” Hitler used THIS VERY STRATEGY. All dictators do. It’s smart, and easy to get good people to buy into the lie.

That is what sincerely concerns me about not just Mitt (and I know he’s a good, righteous man), but millions of good, God-fearing Americans. My concern is that they answer “no” to my questions above (they think it’s wrong to coerce), but then turn around and don’t apply the same principle to how we interact with other nations. Aren’t principles principles? Or are things relative?

Ah, could it be possible that many of us are victims of the relativism philosophy which has been around for years? I think there may be convicting evidence, if you’re saying, “no, of course you shouldn’t force somebody to do your will,” and then saying in the next breath, but it’s okay if, “my gov’t (YOUR agent) does it.”

Marxism teaches that people have no right to any property, in fact they themselves are property of the state. That’s why the income tax was put into place in 1917. It was a huge victory for those who wish to enslave a people. Then the money is taken and redistributed to whomever the politicians say should have the money. This is clearly stealing and a direct violation of “thou shalt not steal,” and yet most Americans, after years of not being taught correct principles and under the influence of relativism and Marxism, don’t believe it when they’re taught it in its pure form: you cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. Thus a fulfillment of this great type: “[the gov't] had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils.” (Hel 6:38)

What I’m doing, is asking you (the reader) a question. Don’t let personal loyalty to any man get in your thinking. Is it right or wrong to force?

Now the water gets muddied when you mix the philosophies of men with moral principles, and lest you are firm, you can be misled. Here is the “philosophy of man” which is a deliberate attempt to confuse people (and I DO NOT THINK Mitt is doing this intentionally): If you’re being threatened by an attacker then you have a right to strike first.

The obvious reply to this is you can “define” anybody to be the enemy you desire to attack or wage war against. There’s no need to have any evidence. It’s the old, “trust us, we’re you’re government, we’re here to help you” line.

The only solid evidence is real evidence, and this is what our Founding Fathers and even the Lord himself gave as real justification to go to war: you must be attacked (and please don’t say Iraq or any particular nation was responsible for 9/11; not even the US gov’t has openly used that lie). Read it for yourselves. This quote is from the Book of Mormon, which Mitt Romney is no doubt a fairly good scholar of:

Alma 43:45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

So the war is immoral from a Judeo-Christian perspective, and from a commonsense perspective, and in light of the strategy used by dictators for ages, it should be very disturbing for good, educated Americans to favor killing others when our lives have not been taken or even threatened for that matter. The “threat” is a poor excuse, because every nation on earth could say, with unmistakable evidence that we, the U.S., are the biggest threat to peace because of our active war machine attacking and killing people in foreign lands.

Last points:
1) Pre-emptive war didn’t start with 9/11 (that’s the propaganda you’re hearing). How many times have Americans gone into war without being attacked, since WWII? Too many to count. Vietnam along cost us over 60,000 dead.
2) You say the enemy is defined. Then who and where are they? I’ve never seen anything in print about this. And the most important question is, once we know who and where, we would then ask if the nation they are in is harboring them.
3) Most importantly, maybe I missed something, but did we (did our gov’t even say this?) invade Iraq to kill a global jihadist group? Since we didn’t (you’ll recall it was the lies about WMD, which is a poor excuse because many countries have WMD), this point is completely irrelevant, isn’t it?

Sincerely, and in the honest pursuit of understanding,

Joe

PS: GO Mitt. I do trust him, but must, as a good citizen who feels accountable, question this major deception and gross error he is unknowingly perpetuating. In my humble opinion of course. If I’m in error, then please enlighten me.

War is never righteous and this is an unrighteous world in which we live today. At times you must fight fire with fire. Unfortunately, diplomacy with governments who may harbor terrorist organizations is not always successful because naturally countries have the right to say screw you mighty USA, leave us alone. Therefore, it is in our best interest (our safety) to take measures that are perceived by many as bullying.

So, the take away is that we must do what it takes to protect our people. BTW, your example of white supremist is invalid namely because these fringe groups have not waged an all out holy war in the name of Christianity to wipe out some other nation. If that were the case they would of course be dealt with. Your right, you can’t win a war against an undefined enemy, however, in this case the enemy is defined — global jihadists who intend, plan, plot, to destroy us. As long as they exist the war will continue. I’m afraid there will be no more peace dividends in our lifetime because sadly, that is the world we live in — a world grossly lacking benevolence.

I like Ron Paul, he has many good qualities and calls it like he sees it, however, to say that we pull out our defense systems from all over the world and come home demonstrates clearly a disconnect with the world political climate. Theory is one thing, reality is often completely different.

Ann Marie, are you a “MITTen?”

(Rush’s new nickname for women who like Romney)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011608/content/01125113.guest.html

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=285977006234498

Go Mitt!

Fellow bloggers, please take a moment and consider what I’m saying, and rebut if you have some logic to rebut it with. Not in the spirit of contention, but in the spirit of intellectual discussion on basic principles, which are, “thou shalt not kill”, or “turn the other cheek,” or “thou shall not infringe on other’s rights to life, liberty, and property.”

I just don’t see how Mitt can be so wrong about an imperialist foreign policy (pre-emptive war) that is not only immoral, but patently unChristian, and the policy of communists and despots around the world. It’s the policy of the CFR globalists and the folks who own the banks — they want war — you

He is apparently terribly deceived on this issue, constantly hitting the Bush admin’s talking point of “our war on terror”. You cannot win a war against an undefined enemy. That’s like saying militant Jews, or white supremists must be destroyed, and we will wage war against any nation we believe they are in. What if Nation X decided to do the same thing against the US. “You all are breeding white supremists, so we’re going to bomb you and take over your country and institute a form of gov’t which we like.”

That’s nuts. It’s completely immoral and illogical. Mitt is identical to Rudy, Huckabee, and McCain on this. They’re indistinguishable. Ron Paul is the only one who sees the light and/or has the courage to speak out on this topic.

And I’m a big Mitt supporter. But this is the single biggest flaw I see in his policies. Again, maybe he’s giving lip service, so the media doesn’t turn on him even more. But I sure heck if he’s elected and flip flops on this issue, so to speak, and brings our troops home, and ends an unrighteous war.

As far as CNN goes I also find it disgusting that all of a sudden they drop the MI Delegate numbers. I mean they had them up all last week and then poof (right before Florida) they just disappear. CNN just report and stop playing games (same goes for Fox - who is not any better) … ;(