Yeah, the audio ain’t so good.

Dear Mr. Will,

I believe it would be fair to consider most paleo-conservatives and Green Party pro-labor factions to be "isolationist," in that they are opposed not only to foreign military intervention but open trade as well. They are happy to "look inward" at the United States alone and let the rest of the world get on as it may.

However, Dr. Paul always distinguishes the libertarian policy of non-interventionism from isolationism by emphasizing low tariffs for revenue, but never for punitive or protective reasons, and encouraging trade, travel and cultural exchange. He has also said he would be happy to play host to peace negotiations among other states as long as the U.S. would not be expected to promise any new American policy to either side.

He also seems to share, in some ways, the neoconservatives’ vision of America as a revolutionary influence (in a more American and less French way). He has stated many times that he believes by setting an example of what a real limited constitutional republic, with its unparalleled Bill of Rights and a sound market economy looks like, we could do a much better job of exporting our Enlightenment legacy around the world which sorely needs it.

In this article, Paul explains what he believes is the difference.

I understand that you may not agree with his definitions of these differing viewpoints, but it is relevant that they are his, that he discriminates between the two and chooses one - is it not?

A short side note in favor of his view:

1: We never hear complaints that China, Russia, Switzerland, Brazil or Mexico are "isolationist" states. They aren’t, are they? Even to the degree that they have statist trade policies, we don’t see them as isolationist, just normal countries with normal bad trade policies.

2: The oceans never protected us. When Washington, Jefferson, Madison, John Quincy Adams et. al. advised for friendship with all, alliance with none, our country was much less safe. The British were in Canada, the French in Louisiana, the Spanish in Mexico, and the U.S. had the weakest navy of all Atlantic powers.

3: The Blowback argument matters. If it is true that America was a sleeping giant on 9/11, targeted by religious fanatics’ due to their hatred of liberty, then we must keep fighting this purely defensive war of civilizations for the indefinite future. And if they were trying to scare us off, we had better steel ourselves and never back down.

If, on the other hand, we were attacked for political reasons, specifically the decade-long blockade of Iraq enforced from bases in Saudi Arabia, then more wars and occupations in the name of "draining the swamp" of dictatorships (unfriendly countries only, even though every single 9/11 hijacker was from a friendly one) could very well be a counter-productive way of securing the United States.

And if the enemy’s strategy is not to scare us off, but to trick us into over-reacting and spreading ourselves too thin until we are forced by bankruptcy to withdraw from the region completely (while radicalizing it in the process), then wouldn’t the prudent thing be to hold our horses and think very carefully about how we respond?

Thank you very much for your time.

Best,
Scott Horton

I guess I’d forgotten to post this one. It’s from September 27th.

Oops. I called Obama "Netanyahu."

Too bad ol' Doc Prather is retired now. If he wasn't, I guarantee to you that he would point out that buried in all the scaremongering about what Iran "may" be up to, the new IAEA report [.pdf] says:

"[T]he Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs [locations outside facilities where nuclear material is customarily used] declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement."

He might also point out that all the implosion systems in the world are worthless without some actual fissile material to implode, and that nothing else in the IAEA report is any of the IAEA's "beeswax" (That's a funny way of saying "business" for those readers who didn't grow up on American playgrounds.) He'd be right.

See also John Glaser here and Sy Hersh from May here [.pdf].

Chris writes:

"I’ve been meaning to write to you for a while, but I just now got around to it.

"I grew up in Texas as a typical "Conservative Christian." As recently as a year or so ago, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh on a regular basis. I started listening to him back in the early 1990s. I agreed with Rush on almost everything and equated his brand of conservatism to liberty.

"Fortunately, because of resources such as Mises.org and people such as Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell, I have found true liberty. (btw, I first heard of you from an interview of Tom Woods)

"These days I spend my 11am-2pm hours listening to Antiwar Radio. I really appreciate what you do. I have learned so much from you over the past year. Now I am a fellow Anarcho-Capitalist.

"I wanted to keep this short, but I thought you would like to know that you are influencing people."

I would. Thanks Chris.

Elliot Abrams' wife (and as Glenn Greenwald points out, central figure in the neocon family) Rachel Abrams on the release of Gilad Shalit:

"Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

"Then round up [Shalit's] captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use womenathose who aren't strapping bombs to their own devils' spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Othersaand their offspringathose who haven't already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder godaas shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they're traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose."

Shalit was a bit more forgiving:

"I hope this deal helps achieve peace between both sides, Israel and the Palestinians. …

"I would be very happy if the [Palestinian prisoners] were all released so that they can go back to their families and their lands. I would be very happy if this happened."

Perfect.

Hey look, even I disagree with the man on like 3 things. Or 4. But no matter what your problem is, you have to admit that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president we’ve had in a long, long time - and in the foreseeable future too.

First of all, he ain’t really a politician. Everyone knows that. Even TV says here’s a candidate who’s always been about using his office as a platform to teach people about liberty, not enhance his own power and prestige. Way back in the 90s the Washington Post did a story about how lobbyists don’t bother coming by his office because he thinks everything they want is unconstitutional, and so he can never be bought.

Paul is a doctor. Not a lawyer.

He gives back much of his office budget every year, never takes taxpayer-paid junkets around and refuses the plush congressional health care and retirement plans. The man’s even been with the same woman since they were 16.

Okay, so he could be a decent man, not the typical DC snake, but could still be horrible on all the issues.

But he’s good on everything that counts at all:
War
Empire
Torture
Assassinations
Trials
Spying
Speech
Religious freedom and tolerance
Whole Bill of Rights
Secrecy
Executive Power
Bailouts
Corporate Welfare
Monetary and Fiscal policy
Taxes - the best ever in the world on taxes
Business Regulations
Guns
Drug War
Federalism

Look at his voting record. There’s no hypocrisy in it. He’s been consistently for good shit, and against bad for 40 years.

Read A Foreign Policy of Freedom, for example.

And the man deserves his honorary doctorate in economics, having written more than a couple great books, including the Minority Report of the Gold Commission from 1981.

Paul’s been right about the terror war all along.

He’s been right about the federalization and militarization of the police all along.

He’s been right about the financial bubbles all along. And he’s right about the budget being blown and the danger that the government will have to destroy the dollar - and all savings denominated in dollars - in order to pay off the debt.

Limited constitutional republic, or imperial collapse and devastation.

It’s more than just a simple choice. It’s an actual no-joke real opportunity.

A few hundred bucks to the Revolution SuperPac and/or one vote in a Republican primary wouldn’t kill ya. Am I right? Paint a sign. Talk to your neighbors. Run a table at a thing or something. Do something!

Okay, thanks.

Y’all been keepin your eye on Lew Rockwell’s Political Theater blog? That’s where I found this.

(Is it just me, or is it just a little bit strange, even in 2011, that Ron Paul stands virtually alone in Washington against the presidential murder of an American citizen? Shit’s ugly out there.)

Also, Matt Barganier, Jason Ditz, John Glaser and Bryan Beyer have been tearing it up over at the Antiwar Blog lately. Go check ‘em out.

Bob Dreyfuss has an interesting piece running at The Diplomat today about a possible opening by the Iranians toward more nuclear talks. I think I’ll try to get him on the show…

See also this hilarity.

I spoke a little thingamajig at the L.A. Book Fair thing back at the end of April.