‘A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy': Ron Paul at Johns Hopkins

Eric Garris, September 08, 2007

The prestigious Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., has invited Ron Paul to make a keynote policy address on September 11.

This is a very significant event, showing that Paul’s views are being taken seriously by elements of the political and educational establishment.

The event is open to the public, but you must RSVP (see below).

“A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy”
11 a.m. to Noon – Kenney Auditorium, Nitze Building
Ron Paul, Republican congressman and 2008 presidential candidate, will discuss this topic.
For more information and to RSVP, contact cpfr@jhu.edu or 202.587.3237.
Media who want to cover this event should register with Felisa Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or fklubes@jhu.edu.




26 Responses to “‘A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy': Ron Paul at Johns Hopkins”

  1. This is a wonderful opportunity for Dr. Paul to explain, without being under fire from the opposition, his foreign policies: where has the U.S. gone wrong, and how can it be remedied?

    I suspect it will be a memorable, uplifting and ultimately hopeful address.

    I am hopeful that someone at Hopkins will record it and make the address available on YouTube or Google.

  2. The architects of government interventionism – foreign and domestic – are Lincoln, Wilson & FDR.

    Lincoln gace us Civil War, a million US citizens dead and destroyed much of the Constitution

    Wilson – WWI, 20 million dead, The (unconstitutional) Fed, Russian Revolution, League of Nations and the Palestine mandate

    FDR – WWII, 65 million dead, New (unconstitutional) Deal aka Corporate Socialism (Fascism), the Soviet Empire, the UN and Israel

    All of them were disasters for the Consitution, the country, and the world.

    And now we have Jorge Boosh dancing on the grave of the Constitution his political forebears destroyed. Well, I guess Bush’s forebears would actually be the advocates of violence as the only possible solution to the world’s problems – Marx, Lenin and Trotsky – the NeoCons idol.

    Let’s elect a Peacemonger, not a warmonger. Their BS is not selling anymore.

  3. The most important thing about this speech is that it is happening at all. But in the long run Dr. Paul’s text will be what is remembered. I hope we can get copies of his text, him speaking (mp3 file) and the video (via YouTube or something).

    His words already spoken on the floor of the USA House of Representatives stand as a testament against the globalist, corporatist world domination goals of the neo-conservatives and the so-called ‘liberal mainstream’.

  4. This sounds like something C-Span should cover. Anyone know if it is on their radar?

  5. Everyone should send a big thank you to fox news, wallace and hume in particular, for the big boost their yellow jounalism is giving the good Doctor.

    The campaign is deluged with media invites. Everywhere you look people are talking about Ron Paul. Since the old media bobbleheads can’t seem to grasp the concept of blow back, perhaps this will serve as an excellent example for them to learn from…..nah, I doubt it. LOL Anyone hearing much out of the “three stooges” lately? Oh, that’s right, they’re over there on the sidelines. You just gotta love this don’t ya.

  6. zenpiper wrote:

    “I am hopeful that someone at Hopkins will record it and make the address available on YouTube or Google.”

    StewartW responds:

    “Media who want to cover this event should register with Felisa Neuringer Klubes in the SAIS Communications Office at 202.663.5626 or fklubes@jhu.edu.”

    May I submit for someone’s consideration that they register with SAIS as a freelance journalist writing for one of the major blog sites, make a press pass, grab a video camera, sound recording equipment and go get a front row seat. I am an expat living in Panama or I would.

    This is probably one of the most important talks Dr. Paul will give. The whole world needs to see and hear it!!!! The future of this world as we know it depends on Dr. Paul and his message.

    Someone go for it,
    StewartW

  7. They could invite any candidate from any party, and they chose Ron Paul.

  8. Ever notice how the educated are sometimes more susceptible to propaganda? Ever wonder why? It's because they over-estimate their own understanding..Another weakness is how they love it when the Emperor flatters them. ( They hate you because you're free and good and better-looking, etc..not because we topple their govts and prop-up the ones that do the bidding of our leaders )…They just can't see through it and at least a third never will…Which is why Cheney knows he can count on approx 35% support ( "plenty" ) for whatever they do..including Phase III of this neo-con mini-series..

  9. Dr. Paul has rekindled the fire of liberty that will soon become a raging inferno. A new age of freedom is upon us and the Gollum of emperial darkness is about to be politically rent asunder with the sword of truth. George Bush sacrificed life, liberty, and the Constitution for power, glory, and a legacy that he shall never have. Nothing would reestablish liberty and the character of these United States, than to see George Bush tried for treason and swinging from a hangman’s rope!

  10. Good work fm Steve, but David be careful; don’t get too far out in front of the crowd..Yes; Lincoln, Wilson and FDR were probably the three worst presidents.
    If only the South had been allowed to peacefully secede it seems likely both countries would have been more inward-looking and less inclined towards foreign interventionism..
    Detractors of the South always mention the firing on Ft. Sumter but SC had already seceded so, technically, Ft. Sumter was then the property of the CSA…It was ironic to see some soldiers fm the South unfurl the Confederate battle flag ( the only American flag w/a Christian symbol on it actually ) since 140 yrs ago the CSA was invaded and occupied by a Republican president..
    The disdain shown towards Congressman Paul by Wallace was disgusting..The warped world-view of the neo-cons has become like a virus on the so-called right infecting all and ginning them up for more unnecessary war and bloodshed..Congressman Paul just needs to make a decent showing

  11. —-sorry ’bout that..make a decent showing in all the primaries and hang on until the end..

  12. Its a trap, a setup, the “Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University” is a NeoCon breeding ground. This will very likely be an attempt to pidgeonhole Paul, or worse.

    http://tinyurl.com/yq9oyh

  13. I hope the Hopkins meet IS a trap. Mayor “Adolph Bullyani,” Fox’s “Chris Wallass,” “Brit Hubris” and “Sean Insanity”, and Governor “Mike Huckaster” all tried to clothesline Ron Paul and it BACKFIRED on them. I’m sure “Flush Rimjob” has tried as well. They are, each and every one, consummate establishment media icons: arrogant, obnoxious, condescending, self-serving and more than a little stupid. The uglier the attacks on Dr. Paul, the more determined his supporters will be to prevail.

  14. This is too good to last. Sooner or later, Ron Paul will mention the negative role Israel plays in the Mid East and then he will be immediately hooked off of the stage. Remember how great it was with Howard Dean until he had the audacity to suggest ” a more even-handed Mid East policy”.

  15. The Nitze school has a number of important hawks like Fukuyama and Eliot Cohen, as well as Brzinzinski, the Carter advisor who was the principal culprit behind the misbegotten policy with the world-wide mujahadeen. But the Nitze school also has many prominent area-studies departments that might be very sympathetic to Paul’s positions.

    It would be a mistake to see this invitation solely as a trap. Hopkins (I studied there)is like any large university; it has its share of free-thinking individuals. Fukuyama himself has jumped ship on Iraq. And it was a Hopkins study that first drew attention to the deaths of Iraqi children from the sanctions.

    If you notice, Walt and Mearsheimer’s book on the influence of the Israeli lobby is now a top seller at Amazon. That may be an indication that the realist camp of foreign policy thinkers in the academy has had it with the more overtly hawkish group….. for whatever reason. The invitation to SAIS may be further proof of that rift, although of course, one can never be entirely sure of these things.

  16. That’s Brzezinksi, sorry..

  17. this speech should have been given 9/12/01 if not earlier

  18. Just fyi and to be evenhanded,

    here is Eliot Cohen’s rebuttal of the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401282.html

  19. Dr Paul needs to know he is walking into the Lions’ Den at Johns Hopkins SAIS. The Nitze School has been the real academic home of Paul Wolfowitz and his NeoCon friends for years.

    It well may be a trap — Dr Paul can expect to be politely but devastatingly attacked and should have answers ready.

    Eg if he says, follow the Constitution, they will say times have changed;

    if he says bring the troops home, they will say, don’t you know America has interests abroad?

    etc etc.

  20. Give ‘em hell, Steve. Nice succinct accounting of the State’s atrocities.

  21. [...] On Tuesday, Sept 11, the anniversary of the WTC terrorist attacks, Ron Paul is giving a keynote policy address at the influential Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. [...]

  22. [...] Reviving the Constitution – Mr. Paul Goes to Washington Reviving the Constitution – Mr. Paul Goes to Washington by Lila Rajiva On Tuesday, Sept 11, the date of the WTC terrorist attacks, Ron Paul is giving a keynote policy addressat the influential Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C. His topic is “A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy.” If you wanted to quibble, you could. Personally, I would have preferred it to read, “A Rational Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.” Or “A Constitutional Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy.” Because there are traditions and traditions. And while those of us who are intellectually of a conservative bent tend to give any tradition the benefit of the doubt, it will not do to consider non-intervention a good by virtue only of its history, when history is composted with the bones of institutions that rotted from the inside. Traditions are prone to developing hardening of the categories – as some wit noted – and if we classify non-intervention as one, then we are surely inviting some clever update of it. We are asking for the Monroe Doctrine to be turned into Manifest Destiny – with gender neutrality and racial sensitivity thrown in to certify it kosher. But the Constitution of America – whatever its alleged and real flaws (and it isn’t free of them) – has been a guiding light to this nation and countless others not because it is a tradition but because the principles it embodies are rational, in the highest sense of the word, and because they are worthy of emulation. The Constitution is universal in its appeal. But it is universal because it persuades by its reasonableness, not because it imposes itself over the breadth of the globe as the law of an empire. The distinction is of some importance today. Because there are those who demand exactly the opposite – an interventionist foreign policy – for exactly the same reason – universality. You could call them “liberventionists.” They are the humanitarian bombers, like Mr. Hitchens. (That is, when he can find the time in between conducting his jihad against what he likes to call god but sounds more like theological literalism.) The liberventionists were the people who demanded that we go into Iraq in the first place. Also for universal reasons – one of which was to rescue Iraqi women from patriarchal Islamic traditions. Even though Iraq, under Saddam, was never Islamicist – until the U.S went into it. The rhetoric of war quickly sidelined such inconvenient facts. I am afraid it might sideline this one: Requiring a war to be constitutional is not a quaint tradition waiting to be made obsolete by age and time, like a spinster running out of marriage proposals. It is an imperative, since constitutionality is the only language possible in a country whose citizens have such divergent backgrounds and hold such contradictory views that they might as well live on the opposite sides of the globe. The constitution is the only form of reasonableness available to us any more. The only kind of universal appeal that appeals finally to something more than naked force. The constitution is a different kind of universality. Of “how” rather than “what.” It points to procedures and ways of “going on” – not to results and places where we ought to arrive. The insightful English political philosopher Michael Oakeshott described the difference between the two approaches as the difference between the rules of a civil association (such as a nation) and that of an enterprise association (such as a business). The constitution is the governing law of the civil association called America. On the other hand, the new laws this administration is replacing the Constitution which are different creatures. They are the regulations of the business called US Govt. Inc. US Govt. Inc. is not a nation at all, but a vast holding company with unlimited liability for its innumerable tiny shareholders and none at all for the handful of directors at the top. And with many of its most valuable assets hidden off-shore through international trade agreements. The dangers of a change from association to enterprise are self-evident: If we already know before-hand where we want to get to, we may be tempted to hijack the laws – and logic itself – to that end. But what could be wrong with that, some might ask? Aren’t freedom, democracy, and human rights “social goods” for which our laws should strive? And in countries beyond the reach of our laws, shouldn’t we impose them through our military? But language, like logic, is slippery unless it is rooted in something deeper than either words or minds. As one commentator on Oakeshott writes: “Words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘rights’ have long histories and their meanings have shifted over time. Further, when unscrupulous operators use them to rally supporters in some great cause, such words become hazy promises of better things to come. The warm glow of anticipation may be as deceptive as the witches’ promises to Macbeth…” Our words and our minds reach deep into our bodies in a way we don’t fully understand, except that they operate together. It is not just that the way we think affects the way we act, but the converse: The way we act affects the way we think. If we violate our consciences, we will tend to alter our consciences after the fact. And then alter our language and our logic, as well. To be truly rational, we need to go beyond disembodied words and logic to a reason that is rooted in our bodies, our intuitions, and our consciences – as they are inviolate in us, as individuals. That means that our rules and our institutions must preserve us ultimately as free individuals, while preserving equally the freedom of all other individuals. My liberty cannot infringe on yours. No, not even if I am the President of the United States. Even the President must be bound by the Constitution’ s rules. That is not a very good thing for US Gvt Inc. Because following the rules does not always help an enterprise association (whether it is a business or a state), reach the goal it sets for itself. It might even hinder it. But following the rules is a marvelous thing for the civil association called America. Because by following the rules and conventions of the constitution citizens can let themselves be seen as acting in good faith, not only here at home, but everywhere. It is adherence to the Constitution that makes us a nation of laws and not of men. Without that, there can be no good faith. And without good faith, we will no longer be part of a civil association of individuals, but only insignificant units in an enterprise that can only grow more and more barbaric. http://www.lewrockw ell.com/rajiva/ rajiva7.html [...]

  23. Thank you so much, all. I sure as heck ain’t buying their bs anymore, but the harder Paul runs, the more they try to sell the same old bs.

  24. The audio’s up here: http://www.sais-jhu.edu/

  25. I stared that method barring the result. One casino is freshly ruling. This unique wife spun the gambler dizzily. I swept that side opposite to this money. Striking council is the absolute light. Electronic council is that varying record.
    free online casino guide – http://www.bgriver.com/

  26. IRAQ WAR-POSITION PAPAER
    As kids, we learn very early on in school and at home that we are to be obedient and never to question “God, Our Country, or Family.” We have been taught to believe that these three entities are too be trusted above all else. Indeed, it should be so, but alas, in today’s tumultuous times, we cannot rely on past paradigms, but we must now, if not challenge, at least look at each situation on a case-by-case basis and to become independent thinkers.

    I believe that if we think of the War in Iraq in the following medical terms-we can provide more Americans a better understanding of our dilemma in Iraq.

    Our invasion of Iraq is identical to a severe cut or bruise that we get when we fall down and injure ourselves. The surface area around that bruise will immediately go into a defensive mode, ensuring that no germs enter the area and our body will begin repairing the damage done. If the condition is more severe than that area can handle, other parts of our body, fluids, etc will begin assisting that area of need. If the situation worsens, and there is an invasion of germs and other microorganisms, parts of our body may even shut down, so that greater attention can be given to the battle between keeping our body healthy and the sickness that may occur.

    WE-as INVADERS, are the infestation to the BODY-IRAQ. Sure, we may use our military might to convince ourselves that we can win this WAR. But they (Iraqis) will and are prepared to die, before allowing invaders to come to their land and change their way of life. It is as it should be, it is a foundational principle. When our body goes into defense mode, ALL functions of our body, to the extent necessary, will work as ONE to contend with the invasion of microorganisms. Until ALL germs are eliminated or until death, will the body continue to fight. Such is life; such is the way of MAN.

    This present situation and our (American’s) arrogance can only be defined as a Pyrrhic affair (A victory achieved at great or excessive cost; a ruinous victory). It is as if we have a “WIN AT ALL COST” philosophy. However, those who are making these decisions are not the ones willing to put their own, or their love one’s life on the line. They are anxious and more than willing to send our young men and women who have not yet gain the experience of life, those who are looking to seek their own independence and moreover, those who do not understand the subliminal messages that are conveyed through the media that would make them want to prove themselves on the field of battle, to fight in a war that was doomed to fail before it began.

    We should revisit our selected President’s speech and declare victory as he expressed, “Mission Accomplished”. In his own famous words, “All major military operations will now cease.” Declare victory and leave! IN ADDITION, we must also appropriate funding to THEIR (IRAQIS) contractors to rebuild THEIR own cities in THEIR own way. AGAIN, if we use OUR contractors to do the job, the people will rebel. Is it possible for germs to assist in the repair of the body? I think NOT! Germs do not take ANY part in the rebuilding of the body. The body does all the work-gladly. However they decide to use the money, it is up to THEM – NOT US.

    I express this opinion not to degrade any efforts of goodwill that America has attempted to express. I certainly value the contributions that our armed forces have given. Nevertheless, it is unfair to continue further down a path of destruction without being true to the principles of ethics and the fundamental laws of nature. Bring the troops home!