*K'eim*h3reg' *Peh2u *Meg'

Recently I was at a friend’s apartment with two other friends (there were four of us). Now myself and the two are all ardent Ron Paul supporters. Naturally, the subject of politics came up, and one of my friends asked the guy with the apartment what he thought about Ron Paul. 

Now, I won’t go into details about what his response was, partly because I don’t quite recall. But lets just say that it was pretty disappointing, and full of bogus concerns and lies. And to top it off, he attempted to smear us three by saying we all probably thought he was a Neocon and that is what he found most disturbing about Ron Paul supporters: their supposed below-the-belt debating tactics.

Now, my friends, being more articulate, bold, and familiar than myself took these charges head on, but not with much depth (we were his guests after all). I myself didn’t say much other than I would no more accuse him of being a ‘Neocon’ than he would me an ‘Anarchist’ or ‘Truther’. 

Soon enough, the discussion was dropped.

But afterwards my two friends (they are brothers) were discussing our disbelief at the statements that were made, and they encouraged me to address them in the form of an email. Writing, after all, was my strong suit. Theirs was talking.

So here is what happened:

My first email was to my two friends. I told them to forward it to our other friend.

and

The Failed Drug War

My friends forwarded to him what I wrote with their own message:

[Other Friend],

I’d hate to see my one and only vote for big government, Washington insider’s masquerading as “conservatives”  (aka Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney) <3 lol.

If you want to air [me] out and rip his article to shreds by all means feel free to do so. 
Have a good day, 

-[Brother Two]

To which he, the ‘other friend’ replied:

Idk dude I don’t feel like making enemies. Politocal debates all go bad between friends. I also know that I have been in the ring with many of his supporters and needless to say its been a year and I still have a bad taste in my mouth for them. They debate worse than liberals. Many of his followers (many = majority) believe that 9/11 was our fault. When questioned on this RP did not deny that he thought it was so. His supporters also believe it to be an inside job. He does not deny he thinks so as well. RP supports legalizing illegal drugs. He says it will increase commerce. Yeah ok whatever. RP may be pro life, but his stance on issues says he wont care and will repeal laws for and against it under the guise of “you cant legislate morality”. Ron Paul’s supporters take after to kill anyone that criticizes RP more so than BHOs media attack dogs. Ron Paul’s face makes me sick, hisnl supporters for the most part are blind and short sighted and I cant stand their debate tactics and their precious leader is more left than the left is on many issues. Ron Paul is a chameleon and will say and do anything for support as long as it doesn’t require him to change his views drastically down the road. I do not, will not and never will support Ron Paul. He scares me almost as much as Obama.  

When I finally got around to replying to this drivel, I wrote:

I agree. Many of his followers do believe that 9/11 was our fault. But by ‘our’, they mean something entirely different than what is generally thought or implied. The ‘our’ is not ‘We’ the People. The ‘our’ is not ‘us’ as Americans, conservatives, or Christians. The ‘our’ is not ‘our’ troops, ‘our’ way of life, or ‘our’ civilization. The ‘our’ are ‘our’ government, i.e., the same policy-makers, politicians, and bureaucrats that conservatives are perfectly content to blame for failures in education, fiscal and monetary policy, health care, energy, environment, airport security, and a whole host of other legitimate grievances. But as soon as the subject turns to foreign policy and the unintended consequences thereof, mainstream conservatives rend their clothes and scream ‘foul’. this is the epitome of hypocrisy, and is unbecoming of conservatives, be they social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, traditional conservatives, libertarian conservatives, or moderate conservatives. Ron Paul and the majority of his supporters do NOT believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But they do believe that our foreign policy was directly related to the attacks. When you make generalizations, such that paint all of his supporters as believing something so untenable, you engage in nothing less than smear tactics. I suspect that being called out for such tactics is what you truly hate about debating Ron Paul’s supporters.

Ron Paul does not advocate legalizing ‘illegal’ drugs. He supports decriminalizing drugs on the FEDERAL level, but supports the rights of individual STATES to make substances illegal that they deem to be sufficiently harmful. If no amendment is present to give the Federal government the prohibitive power over substances, then the Tenth Amendment grants this authority to the States. If a specific State chooses not to make certain substances illegal, then the responsibility falls to the people, as codified by the Ninth Amendment. The day individuals and their friends and families and churches and employers and teachers can no longer control themselves or their component parts is the day we deserve to have the government control us from cradle to grave. The War on Drugs in fact encourages both the use and sale of drugs.

Here I inserted a copy of my 

The Failed Drug War

Abortion, until an amendment to the United States Constitution states otherwise, is a State issue. That is why Santorum and Bachmann both advocate a Right to Life Amendment.

Here I inserted a copy of my 

Ron Paul Pro-Abortion?

Damn straight. I will take after anyone that uses proven falsities to smear a candidate, the opponents of whom acknowledge him to be the most consistent and least corrupt member of Congress as well as of the GOP candidates. The sum total of Ron Paul’s baggage is a few newsletters that he didn’t even write, and which are used to smear the man only when taken entirely out of context. So-called conservatives have chosen big government liberals for the GOP nominee for decades, so any attack made by them should automatically undergo extra scrutiny, especially if that attack is aimed at the man that even most of them acknowledge to be sincere and consistent. Phony conservatives, AKA Neocons, who pick and choose when they want to uphold the Constitution, have no credibility and I view them with little less vitriol than the Revolutionaries viewed the Loyalists.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that has to take on the media attack dogs from both sides of the aisle. To compare some anonymous guy at the other end of the internet to Obama’s media attack dogs is absurd on its face. As Ron Paul said to Santorum, perhaps ‘You’re overly sensitive’.

I bet your grandfather’s face makes you sick as well.

What is blind and short-sighted about saving money, upholding the Constitution, and correcting past wrongs? We cannot afford to do otherwise, no matter how good our intentions supposedly are.

Debate tactics are basically the same across the political spectrum. Perhaps you only notice it when someone you disagree with uses them. It is a common enough fallacy to assume one and the expounders of ones own ideas to be among the only ones capable of debating properly. And as highly as I regard my own skills, it is still a fallacy that I make great strides to put out of my mind.

Ron Paul is so precious because he does not want to be the leader (in Italian: Il Duce, in German: Der Führer, in Japanese: Mikado), he wants to serve. Our so-called leaders were never intended to be so. That does not mean they shouldn’t lead, but their chief role is that of a public servant. It is the People themselves that are sovereign. Ron Paul is the only candidate to have acknowledged it not only in some whacky libertarian theory, but as among the most important of our Founding Principles.

There is not a single important issue or subject on which Ron Paul has said anything different than or inconsistent with what he has been saying or advocating for a good thirty years and more. There is not a single thing of import from his mouth that is not demonstrably consistent with the philosophy he has held for decades, which is a philosophy of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and is firmly rooted in moral principles, each of which can be found in the Bible and the writings of Christian philosophers from Augustine to Locke and beyond.

All this should scare you even more than Obama does, because it is a radical set of ideals. Obama is really not all that scary. he is the status quo. There is not a single thing he has done that the GOP did not also do or attempt to do at certain times.

Ron Paul’s time in the private sector after graduation:

18 years. 19-20 including (paid/unpaid?) internship.

Newt Gingrich’s time in the private sector after graduation:

12 years.

Ron Paul’s time in the military:

6 years

Newt Gingrich’s time in the military:

0 years

Ron Paul’s time in the public sector, excluding military:

22 years

Newt Gingrich’s time in the public sector:

28 years

Congressional Pension for Paul:

$0

Congressional Pension for Gingrich:

Upwards of $500,000

% of Paul’s life in Public Sector, including military:

Less than 37

% of Gingrich’s life in Public Sector, including as teacher:

More than 41

% of Paul’s life in Public Sector, excluding military:

Less than 29

% of Gingrich’s life in Public Sector, excluding as teacher:

More than 29

% of Paul’s life in Private Sector

Less than 24 (25% or more than 26% including internship)

% of Gingrich’s life in Private Sector:

More than 17

% of Paul’s Post-Graduation life in Public Sector:

56+ to 58+% (including military), Less than 46% (excluding military)

% of Gingrich’s Post-Graduation life in Public Sector:

70% (including as teacher), 50% (excluding as teacher)

% of Paul’s Post-Graduation life in Private Sector:

37.5%, Less than 40% including time between internship and military

% of Gingrich’s Post-Graduation life in Private Sector:

30%

It should be noted that Gingrich’s time in the Public Sector was, at times, characterized by ethics violations and liberal compromises, whereas Paul’s time was always characterized by service, humility, and charity.

Similarly, Gingrich’s time in the Private Sector is characterized by lucrative deals, indirect lobbying, and subsidies (notably Freddie Mac), whereas Paul’s time in the Private Sector was characterized by capital production services and a medical practice (often charitable).

Additionally, while in Congress, Doctor Paul continued to provide medical services for free.

Paul, though you paint him as some sort of public sector parasite, beats Gingrich in each category I laid out.

So, for whatever merits Gingrich may have that Paul supposedly does not, the old ‘time in the private sector’ ploy is not one of them.

Life expectancy of the average 75 year old male: 85.6

Life expectancy of the average doctor: 82.2

Life expectancy of doctors 75 years of age: 93.3

Life expectancy of presidents, excepting Kennedy, and not taking into account that, Bill Clinton, Bush Junior, and Barack Obama will likely out last Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bush Senior, the latter four dying or likely to die at exactly 93 years of age:

In the last 100 years: 78.9

In the last 50 years: 84.6

In the last 25 years: 86

Life expectancy of presidents assuming all 7 of the last presidents die at the same age (two have already died, and two are likely to die at that same age): 93

Life expectancy in 1789 when George Washington was elected at the age of 57: 35

George made it another ten years.

Amount of years Ron Paul will likely continue to live based on an average figure: 12 years

Amount of years Ron Paul will likely continue to live based on a median figure: 9.6 years

We know that the Presidency job is a stressful job, but on average presidents live longer than the general population, including those that were comparatively aged upon inauguration.

Do rich people have an obligation to feed the poor who are too lazy or foolish to feed themselves?

How is the philosophy of bailing out other nations any different than that of bailing out corporations, subsidizing failed business models, and giving checks to the able-bodied unemployed?

The best physical cures for the world’s ills are the same as the best physical cures for America’s and the individual’s problems: Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!

Ron Paul may be personally non-interventionist in his outlook, but this would not prevent him from doing his job as Commander-in-Chief. In fact, it would be a net advantage in terms of law, public order, expenses, diplomacy, and I dare say, national defense. We would go to war not to build a nation that would be better off, all around, building itself. We would go to war only against mortal foes, and then to win. If we were in Iraq and Afghanistan to win, the wars would have taken a year or two. We were never there to win. It was always about nation-building and pocket-lining, and was always justified, in the last resort, as a humanitarian mission. US Troops should be stone-cold, trained killers when in the field, and nothing more. They should still agree to abide by certain parameters, of course, but should NEVER sacrifice blood, men, treasure, and I dare say VICTORY for the sake of some misguided altruistic social experiment imposed upon them from on high. Let the Generals (including the top civilian-General, the President) command the troops! Not the think tanks! Not the media! Not the special interests! Not the politicians! Not the bureaucrats!

It is also worth noting that Ron Paul has stated, on numerous occasions, that he would, as President, go to war with any country that the Congress legally declares one on, and would fight to win, force our enemies to make concessions, and then leave, even if he personally objected to the purpose or justification of that war. It is the Executive’s job, on all fronts, and in all times, to enforce the law. When he ceases to do this or goes outside of this, he is no better than a criminal. That is why a Formal Declaration of War, i.e., a piece of legislation, is crucial.

That is the beauty of a Republic (Nation of Laws, not a Nation of Men). Even when a leader may be wrong about certain things, if he is a good man, a faithful man, he won’t let his opinion, no matter how high-minded, get in the way of his duties, for which he has placed his hand on the BIBLE to swear an oath to and for.

If Iran truly is a threat, why do we need a President to aggressively say so when it is the Congress’s job to make a Declaration, and the President’s job only to direct the logistics of the operation? Especially when the man has stated he would obey Congress in such a situation?

Even if Ron Paul’s foreign policy is wrong, to say that it is dangerous is to admit that you think that the President’s decisions are independent of the constraints and restraints imposed by the Constitution. You have given in to, accepted, or embraced the theory that the Executive does, can, and/or should have supreme, arbitrary authority, limited only by his whims and not the by Congress or the People, let alone a piece of parchment signed by property-owning dead white men twenty-two decades ago!

Hegemony ain’t in my Constitution.

Washington said ‘Avoid foreign entanglements.’

Quincy Adams said ‘Do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.’

Jefferson said ‘Millions for defense, not one dime for tribute!’

Eisenhower said ‘Beware the military-industrial complex.’

We have ignored all this advice and have become an empire in all but name.

The term Hegemony is some neoconservative hyperbolic justification for nation building, unfair trade practices, war profiteering, military Keynesianism, and shoving ‘democracy’ down the throats of throwbacks who are suited only to violence and tyranny and make a mockery of our efforts to civilize them with the fruits of liberty and self determination, which have become tainted by our insincere zeal to engage every nation in one big social experiment loosely entitled the brotherhood of nations, but whose basic purpose is the further entrenchment of power by those who don’t want to loose it, as they most certainly would in a free, fair system where individuals were more informed and empowered than is desired by the likes of the author of this piece.

Strength need not be achieved through the barrel of a gun, as the Marxists in both parties (the Republicans follow Trotsky, the Democrats follow Stalin), but through the wise use of just military powers in accordance to the will of the People and in pursuance to the Law of the Land.

I don’t know who wrote this drivel about hegemony, but I’ll bet you he is highly paid to propagate the status quo by any means necessary without alerting the average man to his true motivations, those of greed, those of power, those of misplaced idealism.

We have the Bread and Circuses, we have the Emperor Worship, we have the imperial hubris, we have the Moral Decadence, we have the Structural and Fiscal Decline, we have the oligarchical senators and judiciaries, we have the wage slaves rioting in the streets, we have the well connected enriching themselves on the backs of the laborers and merchant with full approval of those in power, we have the we have the military spread to thin, and yet it is maintained that we are not an empire by those who doubtless gain by making that case.

It is a known fact that Republics are good while they last, but like all democracies, they degenerate into some lesser form as a result of interest groups voting themselves redistributed wealth via the very mechanism set up to protect the rights of all.

Rome made it some 300 years before real dictatorship set in, and another 200 years before an Empire was officially declared. Even before an Empire was declared, Rome had been functioning as one for more than a Century. It seems that we are in that stage. Some choose to see it as some benign welfare/warfare state, but others wisely proclaim what is coming: the Rubicon has not yet been crossed, but Caesar’s legions are amassing on the horizon.

Of course, there will not be an exact parallel. As someone once said, ‘History doesn’t repeat itself. It Rhymes.’

In our democratized society, it is likely no man will ever claim dictatorship for life, as Caesar did, and his successors continued in; thereby instigating our official entry into the empire club. Nevertheless, the results will be the same. Even if we remain ‘democratic’, electing someone new every four to eight years, the fact remains we live in a form of despotism. Compared to what might be, ours is as yet fairly benign. Do not be lulled into a sense of security by this. Do not fiddle while we burn. Make sure your guard dogs don’t sleep through the coming troubles. The geese won’t be able to do the job for them this time. The enemy is already inside the citadel, masking himself as the trusted citizen-statesman-patriot.

As attributed to Cicero,

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

If he were alive today, that last great defender of Republican tradition, would he agree that we are no more than a hegemony?

There are two kinds of foreign aid, both of which should be cut, and as much of which should be gotten back from those who received those funds.

Foreign Aid from Congress 2007-2010: Less than $200 Billion

Foreign Aid from the Federal Reserve System 2007-2010: About $16 Trillion to Europe alone

There is no fiscal point (though there are certainly other reasons) in ending foreign aid if we do not also reign in the Fed. The Fed’s ‘loans’, in fact, are tied up in the European crisis. When the Euro crashes, it will take many central banks with it that are owed money by other central banks. We are owed money by other central banks, to the tune of more than $16 Trillion (which is just the 2007-2010figure), so we are the Fed is not immune to it.

The best way to avoid (more likely we will not avoid it, but we can make things less painful and make a recovery more forthcoming) the crisis is to sever ties between the Fed and European central banks, between the Fed and private US firms, and between the Fed and the Dollar, and between money the US owes the Fed (1.8 Trillion Dollars) and the Public Debt* (10.4 Trillion Dollars), which is made up of money the US owes the Fed, the money the US owes foreign nations (4.8 Trillion Dollars), and the money owed to the US Public (3.8 Trillion Dollars).

The best way to sever those ties is to cut them all at once by ENDING THE FED!

*The National Debt (15.1 Trillion Dollars) is comprised of the Public Debt (10.4 Trillion Dollars) and Intergovernmental Holdings (4.7 Trillion Dollars).

Whether the Congress bails out Europe or not, we are screwed. The Federal Reserve already GAVE European Central banks $16 Trillion, that will never be returned. That is 16 Trillion Dollars worth of purchasing power stolen from the US money supply! That is 16 Trillion Dollars that adds to the future inflation we already face.

When the Euro collapses, the US Dollar is not far behind. Which candidates are prepared for this?

The crisis we face is just as bad. We happen to be more powerful because the Dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and our manufacturing base and real GDP still beats that of Europe. But when the Euro collapses, will it not take a huge part of our customer base with it? This could be the trigger that signals the loss of confidence in the Dollar (which is propped up by GDP and military might, neither of which are sustainable). When that happens, the 15 Trillion Dollars in National Debt and the $120 Trillion Dollars in unfunded liabilities will come home to roost, because the dollar’s purchasing power will decrease faster than we can pay those things off.

Cut artificial ties of the Dollar to GDP, the Fed to Foreign Central Banks, and debt owed to the Fed, and the Dollar could survive, or at least be restored after a time of hardship. But leave this Keynesian distortions in place, and they will be entrenched until the next crisis, and credit themselves with a sham recovery. Just as FDR was credited with ending the Great Depression, though he prolonged it. Just as Obama would like to take credit for the supposed recovery that has yet to arrive and might never arrive. They took advantage of those crises by passing (FDR) the New Deal and associated entitlements still here today, that are now bankrupt, and by pushing through (Obama) phony stimulus and socialized medicine.

So long as the Fed is with us, or is permitted to act on its own, it will take advantage of the Euro Crisis just as FDR and Obama took advantage of the recessions.

Do you want a President that will keep the Fed, maybe slap it on the wrist a few times for political reasons, but allow monetary policy to continue to get worse, just as every president since FDR has done, or do want a President that will reign in the Fed, not just by auditing it, but by repealing executive orders and legislations, by appointing like minded individuals to phase out the Fed, and ultimately by ending it?

Islamo-Fascism and Obama-Socialism are puny threats compared to the Fed’s immoral and unsustainable behavior, and the coming entitlement and/or Dollar collapse.

Ron Paul is the only one that incorporates the following considerations into his ‘big picture’:

Our current mess (which can only get worse, regardless of who is President) is a result of:

a) The Federal Reserve’s reckless policy of manipulating our currency and the ability of businesses and individuals to take out responsible loans, and granting favors to international and large private banks. This has been going on for almost 98 years. The first major crash resulting therefrom was the Great Depression, which only lead us into WWII, Social Security, and Medicare.

b) The regulatory apparatus, which keeps market incentives from being recognized by investors and punishes investors for participating in the Free Market.

c) WWII, which served as a distraction from FDR’s poor economic policies and lead to the Marshall Plan to restore Europe to prosperity. Unfortunately, it did no such thing and cost us billions and leads directly to our current subsidization of the coming European fiscal collapse and the worlds lack of military might. We are policing the world not just for rogue nations but for our perfectly capable allies: Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Sweden, and Spain.

d) The National Debt at $15 Trillion. A result of borrowing money from our enemies in order to pay for our past extravagances and the failures of past Congresses to balance the budget. Deficit spending not only spends money that we don’t have, it distorts the Free Market and serves as a proxy regulatory apparatus.

e) Social Security and Medicare at $120 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. With our demographic shifts, this can never be paid off without making the enrollees voluntarily forgive these debts.

f) The coming vote of no confidence in the US Dollar by those to whom we owe money and those whom owe us money. This extends to a loss of confidence in American GDP, which gives the money its value (since it is not backed by gold), and which is artificially inflated by deficit spending, ‘stimulus’, and the Federal Reserve’s regime of credit expansionism. We will be unable to pay off our debts, but morally and legally obligated to still do so. We won’t even be able to afford the interest payments, let alone the principle. We will not be able to purchase oil or other foreign goods for a reasonable price, because the price of oil will no longer be based on the dollar, and the dollar will be transferrable into other currencies at a ratio not conducive to such purchases.

All of these problems are outside the scope of the next few administrations, regardless of whom oversees them. A collapse can be thwarted, but hard times will still be with us for a good, long time. What needs to be done is reign in the Fed, repeal economic and bureaucratic regulations, end foreign aid (which is much bigger than the official numbers), limiting most military interventions to defense and the prescriptions found in the Constitution, balancing budgets (by cutting whole departments, ending many benefits, and adding NO new programs), paying off debts with surpluses, phasing out and/or privatizing entitlements, and getting back to sound currency through a commodity-backed standard or competing currencies.

Simply cutting taxes (especially without corresponding budgetary cuts), allowing drilling, and confronting China or whatever other half-assed proposals the likes of Gingrich may have for little more than effect and sensation, will not fix much. They are all good proposals and might have worked if these things had never been broken or mishandled in the first place over the past several decades.

Obama and Gingrich are in the same boat, but neither of them propose any of what I have said that would be necessary to fix things. Sure Gingrich wants to cut departments…and…replace them with other ones! (He wants to get rid of the Environmental Protection Agency and replace it with an Environmental Solutions Agency. What???). Sure Gingrich wants to slap the Fed on the wrist…by repealing two recent Acts of Congress that had little other effect on the economy than to help trigger the crisis, which could have been triggered by any number of unforeseen other things. other than that, his main plan is to defeat Obama. It sounds good until you realize how similar he is to him if not in what their proposals ARE, then in what their proposals AREN’T.

Secret meetings occur regularly.

Obviously the board meetings at the Fed are secret. They are known about, but what is discussed is not disclosed.

But in addition, the FOMC and the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets have secret meetings.

The Federal Reserve TELLS the PRESIDENT what’s what, basically.

If people knew half of what goes on, the Fed would be gone YESTERDAY!

The Fed is privately owned by private banks. The legislation creating the Fed was written by a half dozen billionaire bankers with allegiance to no nation.

It is not enough to make the Fed have ‘good’ policies. Its very existence distorts the markets and operates under the assumption that the assets of the American people, YOUR assets, belong to it.

What is holding up the value of the Dollar?

GDP and military might.

What is GDP?

The total number of real wealth, i.e., your assets, and government spending.

The government’s spending is a net loss because not only is it wasted on goods and services no one needs, but because it has no cost accountability and distorts the very market that creates the real wealth component of GDP.

GDP is at 15 Trillion Dollars. The government portion of that is 7 Trillion, so real wealth is at only 8 Trillion, which is more than wiped out by our unsustainable National Debt.

What remains? Military might is all that is really propping up the Dollar.

Where does our military might come from?

Government spending.

And what is government spending?

A net loss.

So after we sweep away the confusion, what is propping up the Dollar?

NOTHING.

All it takes for a Dollar collapse is for the rest of the world to realize this.

With the coming Euro collapse, the recession/depression-perpetuating stimulus programs, and our government’s refusal to balance the budget and pay of the debt, this is all the more likely.

Say goodbye to the Dollar.

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.