 |
| Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) |
You made a big splash recently when you cut ties with the DNC to stand in opposition to Hillary Clinton - a very admirable thing! I think it takes a great amount of courage on your part- and you are to be commended greatly for your principled opposition to an interventionist foreign policy. I would ask, are you familiar with the recently established Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity? When I hear you speak of non-interventionism- particularly because these interventions are illegal, you sound as if you are channeling Dr. Paul. As Dr. Paul is a former flight surgeon, I am sure you two would hit it off, and I think you would be an awesome guest for his daily show. Another recommendation would be The Tom Woods Show, as he co-edited a prescient book, We Who Dared to Say No to War.
You always are able to establish credibility in your interviews, when talking about war and reckless intervention, when you say, “In my deployment to Iraq, I worked in a medical unit where every single day I saw and experienced that high human cost...” It is not difficult to understand why you have the perspective that the US government should actually be careful as to where it is intervening- something that both Trump rhetorically and Clinton in actuality have sincerely rejected.
At the risk of pushing my luck, I ask that you consider drawing the same line when it comes to US government intervention domestically. You state correctly, “The…war, to over throw the Syrian government of Assad is illegal because Congress hasn’t authorized a war…to conduct that action. Secondly, it’s counterproductive…” However, even a cursory look reveals that many actions the US government takes are illegal, and most are counterproductive. If we are to apply your fine standards universally, I submit that the following domestic proposals should be nixed:
--Government Assistance to promote travel and tourism
--Government Assistance to develop the energy industry
--Government involvement in marriage
--Government subsidies for agriculture
I suggest that the above domestic policies are illegal and counterproductive, as well. Will you, in these cases follow the Constitution, or will you attempt to have your Constitutional cake and eat it too?
Sincerely,
Rick Miller
I'm thinking about sending her a letter and a book (through her congressional office) to steer her over to 'our' camp on economics. I'm thinking about 'Economics in One Lesson'. Any other suggestions?
ReplyDeleteShe's non-interventionist on marriage too. From her website: "Government and political leaders like myself should have no place in determining the most personal aspects of our lives. Government officials should not have the power to declare one relationship ‘morally’ superior to another. As long as the government administers marriages and its benefits, it must remain neutral and treat all Americans as equal."
ReplyDeletehttps://www.votetulsi.com/vision#equality
Jim,
ReplyDeleteHer view is that the government should not be allowed to discriminate as to which types of relationships qualify for State privilege; she is an equal opportunity interventionist, in other words...
The non interventionist position is elucidated here, by Justin Raimondo:
"The modern gay-rights movement is all about securing the symbols of societal acceptance. It is a defensive strategy, one that attempts to define homosexuals as an officially sanctioned victim group afflicted with an inherent disability, a disadvantage that must be compensated for legislatively. But if “gay pride” means anything, it means not wanting, needing, or seeking any sort of acceptance but self-acceptance. Marriage is a social institution designed by heterosexuals for heterosexuals: why should gay people settle for their cast-off hand-me-downs?"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-libertarian-case-against-gay-marriage/