I am not sure the idea is as unpopular as you suggest, so much as it is adverse to the largely undeclarable goals of candidates who represent selfish and destructive U.S. hegemony, international usury, and *their* corporate interests above the people’s. To say it is unpopular is as much then as to say the people don’t understand how all these things represent interests which are against them. The sheeple of the corporate media of course *can* know no better, because the same people, who own that media, purge the tales of today’s events of all the things which would tell sheeple their masters are wolves.

But whether Americans overall have so lost touch with their original principles is at least debatable. I hear some Americans declare outright that they support killing for oil. Yet if many others weren’t astonished by that proposition, neither would the neo-cons have had to invent the WMD lies, or allege that Iraq was a base of terrorism. These lies themselves attest to the unpopularity and distastefulness instead of this naked form of imperialism and military coercion.

Nonetheless, the traditional foreign policy Mr. Paul would like to return to is not merely attributable to Jefferson and Washington. As John Adams recorded by declaring our roots, it’s basis is an adherence to the Christian doctrine of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The principle of that doctrine of course is justice; and that justice, to which no exception can exist, is the core of the further idea that universal justice is the only foundation for real peace. Our original foreign policy was no less a noble concept than that.

Understanding these simple things, furthermore, essentially means advocating the teaching of justice, for without its understanding, we can never have or maintain it. To maintain justice also means the thorough reporting of injustice. It means sustaining dialog capable of establishing universal justice. These in fact were the very things the colonists sought; and against which, being denied them, we revolted.

Rather than imposing the injustice of taking a country’s resources, or denying its means of production, the colonists rose against these very things inflicted against themselves. It is a matter of either great hypocrisy or whole loss of the original principle (or both) then, that a nation which rose up to establish an eternal fortress against imperialism, non-representation, and any denial of property or right, should today find itself resorting to lies and plunder, largely because of a purported economic system which so deprives us of our own production and opportunity to produce, that we leave ourselves little answer but such wickedness.

One reason Mr. Paul is so popular among our military then is it is they who are forced to implement this wickedness not only have to see it for what it is, but pay all its dearest prices. Truly supporting them involves an equally dear obligation to ensure that price is right.

You rightly complain of the faults of interventionism; the costs of foreign aid, while we endure perpetually escalating indebtedness; the banishing of our industry to foreign countries; our sustainment of that industry at huge, unsustainable deficits; and the incredible irresponsibility of leaving our children this mess if we should even be so fortunate not to suffer its full consequences far sooner than that. You muse, “It is seemingly more and more likely that the only way this behavior will end is by an economic collapse.”

But there is one common cause yet of all these things. That cause is usury, which multiplies debt upon us as we are obligated by it to maintain a vital circulation; and as maintenance of that vital circulation inherently entails perpetually re-borrowing principal and interest as ever greater sums of debt, increased at escalating rates of ever greater periodic interest on an ever greater sum of debt.

It is this process which Christ too complained of which is responsible for our industrial deterioration, for it is the costs of servicing the debt which have long ago now driven our real industry elsewhere. It is the usurers who came to own our industry by “markets” which are arenas of predation; and it is these usurers who have taken technologies we developed elsewhere, to our complete disadvantage. It is usury which owns the monopolies which extend their might by foreign “interventions” which thinly disguise the imperialism of the undeclared plutocracy. It is that plutocracy which raises candidate after candidate who will never raise the nature of usury as the most destructive process against the people. It is that plutocracy which owns the media.

Ron Paul however does not preach Jeffersonian and Washingtonian monetary policy, not only because there is no such thing, but because if anything, Austrian dogma preserves the destructive usurpation which was urged on by Hamilton, unopposed by Washington’s monetary naivete.

Hamilton of course worked hard to gain the undeserved trust of Washington, who, because he had not understanding of monetary theory, largely left the development of a monetary system to this representative of “banking” interests. In the resultant controversies against Jefferson, the inability of the founders to determine a sustainable and just monetary system, together with our own failure to do so, paved the way for the issues of our own day.

As opposed to the idea of money representing the wealth we produce, Hamilton advocated both a central bank and the purported free markets which offer up ownership of our productive capacities to the highest bidder, which of course will be the central bank.

Austrian dogma supports these pretentious notions, against which of course, Jefferson warned that the currency of such a system would deprive the people of all property until their children woke homeless on the continent their fathers had conquered.

continued at http://perfecteconomy.com/wp/2008/06/30/response-to-liberty-maven-article-charlie-wilsons-war-and-ron-paul-economics/

None of this makes any sense. China would not have the ability to enforce their control if we were not supporting them. We need to talk to the Chinese and express our displeasure but we have no business supporting an Olympics there, supporting their economy, or getting involved in their internal affairs. They were following the path or the Soviet Union and going down the tubes until they decided to allow a quasi-capitalistic economy to exist. They will fall if we just leave them alone.