Dr. Paul.Feb13,2K8

October 28, 2008

New Yorker: Hagel asending Mccain :Beware what falling tide leaves behind

. As many republicans certainly know -in spite of whether they've admitted so- Juan McCain treads slightly en route through his campaign for presidency. Such has been obvious since [R-House of Representatives] Dr. Paul raised 10,000 peaceful supporters in Minnesota. Across the river from the RNConvention, Juan McCain's nomination boondoggle, a coalition of organized protesters rallied to hear from their messenger in Congress.

. This sort were drawn from across the nation, Canadians present, who pitched tent &/or carpooling simply to have "been there". Where?, the initiation of the 2008 Neoconservative demise. Their agenda, touted by Juan of Panama, is most certainly a blunder waiting to unfold. Odds are stacked against McCain as leading party sycophants to jump ship en masse, resulting from core conservatives yet to be convince; in all, Juan's weak strategy through the primaries [utilizing friends to snowball support] isn't reverberating nationwide -nor far beyond the drone base who voted for him during the primaries.

. Juan's constant evasion of debate & discussion brought about underdeveloped policies & proposals. Regardless of the nomination, had Juan talked with all GOP contestants -Dr. Paul included- his foreign policy & economic oversight might not be as pathetic & lame. This is no colloquialism, it's literal! GOP operations have fallen out in Michigan [who knows where else]; Mccain/Palin rallies consist of little substance beyond fear mongering; keystone crimson states of old tradition are prepped to vote for the competition, Ohio/Montana/the Carolina's; examples pour out at every mainstream outlet.

. With little more than a week remaining, Juan treads on by inciting isolationist rhetoric directed to a narrow demographic, white-bred crowds in a rabble over socialism & patriotism, slight words used to replace age old racist quips. Centering on Obama's "otherness", weak associations of deviant behaviour, selecting a VP who condescends intellect above 5th grade stamina & a drowning attachment to mercantile enterprise clumsily drive the "Straight talk" campaign. All these will certainly bring about Juan's fall, as it should.

. Yet, for it all talking heads are already propping up the next politicos. It seems, for every attempt failed, contemporary thought through media only gains legitimacy by supporting junk -so long popular consumers bite. By such a measure, the pop princess Gov. Sarah Palin might continue running weeks after the election. Still, in spite of the repudiation of phony conservatives to come, it's been said, no republican seat is safe this coming election [Nov.4/2k8], I know of one congressional district which no DNC campaign will bait, Texas' 14th. Apparently, DNC chairman Gov. Howard Dean knows better than to compete in Paul's district, whose popularity runs a strong 70%+ majority, as indicated in the recent primaries.

. Approaching the coveted Mar. 4 primaries, McCain wanting to seal his nomination & gain access to the RNC treasury, conspired to distract Dr. Paul with a congressional campaign during his presidential bid -despite arrangements for automatic seating- forcing a competition within a waning party. Little more than self-destructive to sinister means, the RNC suggests neoconservatives are prepared to destroy their own in pursuit of self fulfillment; warning all that failing to tow the party line would result in sabotaged careers.

. So, who does the establishment have ready to roll out for the next election catwalk, post-Nov.4? Chuck Hagel has been presented strongly by the influential New Yorker, as has been Palin, by Cheney's gang no less. Obviously Romney/Giuliani/Huckabee still dream -in spite of being discredited by supporting race/sex-baiting Juan Mccain; but more importantly, the R3voLution needs philosophic leaders to rally around. Senatorial & Congressional campaigns haven't been maneuvered successfully yet, though insider talk indicates stronger campaigns two years from now. Other influential party seats have been gained, certainly a solid base to start for a dream. Come 2010, our R3voLution could strike a few seats in Washington, under either establishment party. Remember, they're only teams in a game they've rigged. Independents are important, but change must ultimately come from within. As for Hagel, he is significant because of his reported stance:

On the Senate floor, he declared, “Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force.” He also expressed fear about what he calls “the uncontrollables”[Dr. Paul's blowback!]—the unpredictable consequences of military action—and about America’s limited knowledge of the Middle East. “How many of us really know and understand Iraq, the country, the history, the people, and the role in the Arab world?” he asked. “The American people must be told of this long-term commitment, risk, and cost of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets.” In September, 2004, he called the situation in Iraq “beyond pitiful.”


. Doesn't this sound a little like someone we know? Hagel voted for the war, so his rheological proclamations are weak... but sounded through the right tubes, citizen-voters may be duped into supporting this establishment politician. If nothing else, this ought to spur us to remain vigilant and constantly growing, otherwise, the RNC tide which falls out may leave behind unsavory company.

October 12, 2008

Egalitarian economics Examined

Suppose an individual was equal to another as such, in that their worth was undiminished by social preconceptions, establishing their rights at birth. By this standard, we might achieve social standing by personal actions weighted through the public sphere. For such a reality to take effect, condemnation & appreciation of individual action [positive or negative] ought to be fixed on a varying scaled, measured by their relative cost-benefit -equally, across the board with draconian enforcement.

Sadly, extreme application of the theory above would, under current conditions, prove draining and unmanageable throughout society. Heavy handed conditioning begins early, during a child's rearing, so unless early development models aren't trained to improved towards critical-thought,  true egalitarianism escaped us by another generation, again.

However, against my better nature, economic fundamentals diminish the ideals of the eqali, with stronger theory, namely the free market. Of course, totally laissez-faire services aren't common -although many exist off the grid. On a gradual scale, a market becomes freed when entrepreneurial individuals place risk before gain, to achieve success. Conversely, closed markets become more prevalent when gain is placed before risk, so that central planning dictates what is necessary and what is valuable.

[eqali - n. those who exists as equals amongst their peers]

In free markets, an individual might risk their savings, investing in an idea or product so that they may approach the market, exchange within it, and profit while benefiting both parties. The challenges of  engaging the market are elastic, variable and fickle, to say the least. However, succeeding in this environment provides the greatest reward; financially, often the pursuit also allows for greater investment upon social development.

Ultimately, entering the market requires acknowledging four factors, defined as: price, the negotiated value of a given product by buyer & seller; product, development and production of said item which is marketed with purpose; distribution, providing the means by which to facilitate an exchange between manufacture and end-user; finally sales, the manifest process of transaction.

With these challenges, it becomes apparent to anyone attempting to enter free-market enterprise that the fewer invasive obstacles placed before the entrepreneur, the less strenuous maintaining a venture becomes. Strains upon a business venture are those which inhibit competition, growth and productivity.

These may take form in unfair legislation, such as mandating all hotels use identical sprinkler systems, regardless of size or structural capacity. Not only would this close the local market on sprinkler systems in the clutch of few businesses, but it would also overburden unprepared unnecessarily, where another safety measure might prove more cost effective.

Taxation leeches from growth when it become apparent to management that greater revenue means a greater loss to government demand. That is, if it means profiting more equals a larger percentage of revenue being, individual ambition to achieve greater is diminished. Underachieving is promoted by burdening success.

Again, intrusion upon the market, by outside sources [e.g. government, but not consumer watchdogs] often -if not as a rule- leads to concentrated management of production and distribution, so that here must function like there, regardless of capabilities and demand. When in fact, local market expectations and availability ought to decide how business gets done.

So, while there is hazardous cost to forcing the market into anything but what is possible & necessary, there are those who seek to level the playing field, per se, by facilitating regulations that claim to manage the market's factors [preventing this natural advantage of location or that benefit of cheap labour] actually dilutes the strength of commerce.

It is often thought, minimum wages, public works or subsidized prices benefit the neediest in society; however, it is my belief that  these very policies perpetuate poverty and struggle. While establishing a claim upon the market is difficult, made none easier by precocious regulations, the incentives wrought easily make up for any mental challenges required to succeed.

In my next discussion I will attempt to repudiate socialist tokens of common-sense, defend social class against egalitarians & tell you why the centralized management breeds despair.

Till then, tread conservatively & live liberally


February 21, 2008

Brown Bear Fur...

...as hair crest upon a skull
of flesh, blood, circuitry and sweat.
From regions near we pulsate our
existence; sensation liquidating luminescence
emitting reality as response; imagination
covering the corners of despair, seeking exits
from an inescapable hive. Disperse appeal
upon ambition, towards disdain embrace stone
eyes. Without efface, we collect exemption,
from solitude shaded upon sanctity. Alone we
last, within seclusion; no luxuries of
simplicity. Such that to eat, to bathe, to
sleep, to wake, to work, to read and write
of our own ambition is stolen away by
procedures and timetables, dictum of a system
out of touch with its sinners. Thus, 'hope' of potential
decays by day, lasting till the lady waves her staked
gravel of justice, gory grins behind gray vise letting
up only when the bar is passed and the pages are
stained with ink.

February 15, 2008

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [01]

A Constitution to call our Own, Canada's Charter, Preamble - Article 6

Calling out a signal to loyalists of sovereignty everywhere, especially those of Canadian soil. I would like to produce an often under looked -lesser understood- document that matters to all. Writing not in protest nor objection, rather to brief & refresh those who seek an alternative prospective on liberty. While this document seeks to retain complete accuracy, errors are likely to occur; if not by my hand, perhaps subject to document sources. Regardless, enjoy.

In body, the Canadian Constitution, as enacted in 1982, consists of thirteen major bodies and/or 34 sections/articles + 1, which I'll come to explain in due time. Known to be the standard bill of rights to Canadian groups, it succeeds the Canadian Bill of Rights [J. Diefenbaker, 1960] which was more a federal statute -rather than a constitutional letter- held highly ineffective by many. This fine document was brought together by the late P.E. Trudeau, who sought to lessen dependence from the British parliament.

In body, the Charter details fundamental Rights ranging from equality to mobility. While each body may be taken at face value, an amalgamated understanding of the entire document is necessary when considering the judicial processes granted to Canadians, and aboriginals, nationwide. In contracts to the U.S. Constitution, the Charter applies specifically to government action and law [federal, provincial, municipal, etc] not private activity. However, it does bind all those who are physically present in Canada, with rights civil and political. Most can be exercised by any legal person, save corporations; while, Sections 3 and 6 regard citizens only.

Forthwith, I will attempt to decipher and illustrate the range of Canada's law of the land.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:"

Describes Canada's foundation as one upon God's supremacy and rule of law. Though not constitutionally effective, as it undermines the removal of religion from law as dictated in Section 2], it does provide a template from which one could interpret the later body of the letter. Whereas, the ambiguous "rule of law" must be placed within context of "God", whether that be the Judeo-Christian god of the Canadian founders or the divinity of humanity is left to the interpreter to decide.

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
"1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

1. In which the document in question cites its own authority, protecting the people it binds inasmuch as it does not supersede reasonable free/democratic society limits of law. This I hold protects individuals given they do not infringe on the rights of another, within legal reason. Example, my practice of faith is protected as long as my worship does not hinder the liberties of my neighbour.

Fundamental Freedoms
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association."

2. Nationwide, any/all residents are entitled to:
[a] freely exist and worship as they choose; enables atheism and abortion, controversial in that conscience is highly intangible and only manifests itself when individuals choose
[b] free thought/belief/opinion/expression including free press & any medium of expression; enables democratic processes to occur without hindrance
[c] free assembly, see section 1 and 2.d
[d] free association, e.g. unions and organizations

Democratic Rights
"3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months"

3. Citizens are enabled to vote for government members, in a open democratic manner in which no third party interest interfere; and become one themselves
4. 1] House elections are required every five years
2] 5yr exceptions in case of war/invasion/insurrection, provided 1/3 House pass motion
5. Parliament must sit at least once in 12 months

Mobility Rights
"6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada."

6. 1] Citizens have right to leave/stay/return to Canada
2] Canadian citizens and permanent residents have right to:
[a] find residence in any province
[b] obtain employment
3] Rights from above subject to:
[a] laws/practices in force province-wide other than those discriminating persons on the basis of present/previous provincial residence; and
[b] laws providing reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services [e.g. health care, welfare, etc]
4] Subsections [2/3] do not preclude any law/program/activity whose object is the provincial improvement of individual's conditions in said province who are socially/economically disadvantaged if the provincial employment rate is below Canada's employment rate
>Section 6 is one of the less ambiguous articles, really straightforward and comprehensive. While I have little commentary now, the future may provide further discussion.

Here I end this blog entry, not for lack of want, but rather for the reader's benefit. A drawn out entry, pages long, is a greater deterrent to thorough reading than poor literacy. As the Charter is a lengthy letter, I will return to discuss it further in a later post. If nothing else, a return session will ensure a revived mind... both yours and mine.

Till next time, keeping you in suspense, Gobo.

February 13, 2008

Disseminating Ron Paul


Herein is presented a summary of A Foreign Policy of Freedom 'Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship' authored by Dr. Ronald Earnest Paul, published in 2007.

The purpose behind the dissemination of Dr. Paul's message to humanity, in a quick and simple presentation, is accessibility to a profound message. While Dr. Paul provides an unrelenting inspiration against the temptations of wealth and power, it is often difficult to make sense of his seemingly outrageous philosophies of nonintervention, sound currency and individuality. Thus, I present his message condensed so at to make it accessible to a mass audience -especially to anyone interested in Liberty.

While every attempt has been made to retain the original intent of the author, discrepancies may arise; these I hope will be discussed and debated, slander is undesired. Students and supporters of the good doctor, as well as every member of humanity, are invited to share and comment upon these efforts. Only through discussion and analysis can we extract the substance behind these philippics against inconsistency and immorality.

Regardless of how the current 2008 Presidential Campaign results, the vibrant message of Dr. Paul cannot pass into the shadows, least we hope to proceed further into tyranny and manipulation -today or in the future. For this reason, it is important we all familiarize ourselves with our heroes message, for only truth can set up free.

V. Perez

Chapter 3

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." -Dwight D. Eisenhower

Stage often set for intervention in "non-binding" resolutions. U.S. making dangerous commitment to Lebanon.

June 17, 1981
Lebanon: Another Commitment?

House Resolution 159 passed unanimously yesterday, rightfully so.

Parts urge peace in Middle East, praise character of Philip Habib. No problem with these.

Towards end of resolution some words require debate, not quick senses-of-Congress under unanimous consent, as previous resolutions have meant trouble.

H.R. 159 states:
Resolved, H.R. strongly supports diplomatic efforts to resolve crisis in Lebanon, encourages president to pursue comprehensive coordinated policy, including development of effective cease-fire, resolution of Syrian missiles issue, promotion of independence, sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity of Lebanon.

Since when is U.S. guarantor of Lebanon? Promises require troops & billions of tax dollars.

Solve Syrian missile issue by force? Use our troops to patrol cease-fire?

Overboard resolution, sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee, seeds within possible trouble for U.S. Congress should not have considered it, Members hardly had time to read it.

Less meddling in internal affairs of other nations needed, not more. Resolution could be used to justify unknown dollars & lives in future conflict or peacekeeping operations.

H.R. 159 bad resolution, brought up without sufficient time to study implications. Not in country’s interests, should not have passed.

Oct 14, 1981

Oppose sale of AWACS airplanes to Saudi Arabia. This sale of the least objectionable, so often we give weapons away, very expensive; in comparison, this sale less objectionable.

Complain and object to, think Americans agree, being supplier of weapons for everybody. AWACS for Saudi today, also providing 1,177 Sidewinder missiles for planes already purchased from us. Very possible missiles will be used against American-built airplanes in another country, just as AWACS will be shot down this decade by American-built planes. For this object, policy should be consistent to provide security for this country & not police the world, providing weapons for everyone.

For instance, last several decades U.S. helped build trucks Russians used to invade Afghanistan; Corps of Engineers built the highway in Afghanistan they marched upon. We give weapons to Greece & Turkey, together they fight. We propose weapons to Pakistan, yet aid India. They’re likely to end in battle, as sworn enemies.

Look at policy; decide whether or not to be supplier of weapons, protector, policemen of world. Some suggest reason is protection of oil supplies. Yet statistics find 5% total energy needs come through Strait of Hormuz. Japan depends 100% on imports, Europe nearly as much, yet their responsibility in Mid-East negligible. Why must American soldier/taxpayer assume this great risk/burden? Continual policy of intervention will again drag America into unnecessary war.

First, sale more agreeable than outright gift, but important to point, not clean sale. Example, administration reports AWACS will be manned & operated by American servicemen, which means further & permanent involvement in Mid-East. Some sought to reassure Congress saying, AWACS remain under American control –far from reassuring. Rather, likely lead to escalation of American involvement in any altercation within Mid-East. Permanent military makes commitment, explicit or not, we may soon regret.

Second, danger of sophisticated technology falling into enemy hands; Mid-East volatile region, especially following assassination of President Sadat of Egypt. Shah of Iran supplied with our latest weaponry, to shore up government, but fell away. Those sophisticated weapons & radar installations possessed by Khomeini, if reports true, shared with Socialist & Communist Govs. Dare we risk same with AWACS? Soviets have nothing comparable. Fundamental mistake thinking weapons will shore up government. Iran exemplifies, it is not weapons but ideas.

Believe Americans sick & tired of supplying, deliberate or accidental, both conflict sides since WW II. This happened in Vietnam, U.S. shipped wheat and weapons to Soviet Union, who in turn shipped to North Vietnam, while we shipped wheat & weapons to South Vietnam. Seen between India v. Pakistan boarder wars; between Israel v. neighbors; now again in the Mid-East?

Reason for policy, must maintain balance of power. Cannot this happen by not supplying either side with sinews of war, rather than both? Cannot power be balanced–without U.S. involvement–by staying from the situation?

How much commitment in this sale? Building airbases for AWACS? We will maintain & furnish replacement parts, how far does commitment stretch, 90-day or 90-year warranty?

For this, believe best interest to disapprove sale of advanced technology & weapons to Saudi Gov, urge colleagues do same.

Chapter 2

"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be." -Thomas Jefferson

Ongoing crackdown in Poland, funding oppressors, yet again our focus.

Aug 22, 1980
Workers of the World, Unite

Striking Factory & dock workers -whose leaders were arrested by Communist regime in Poland- admired for courageously defying dictators controlling country. Certainly American sympathy is with workers protesting injustice & lack of freedom in "workers' paradise" for 35 years.

What of the Federal Gov? While Americans sympathize with Polish people, American government supports Polish government.

Example, from end of WW II until 1978, Federal Government loaned & gave Communist Poland $677 million. 1979, Fed Gov granted Polish regime additional $500 million in loans & loan guarantees. Journal of Social & Political Studies published: “The availability of these Western credits is probably relieving the Soviet Union from the expensive task of propping up the Polish economy.”

Poland is deeply in debt to Western countries, including U.S, for propping the Polish economy. Current debt estimated at $20 billion. Has not yet repaid WW I debts, present Communist Gov has no intention either. Why subsidize Communist Poland? Whose side is U.S. Gov on, Communist or workers?

Believe in consistent foreign policy of nonintervention in others’ affairs. Certainly not subsidizing dictatorial regime not support by own people. Outrageous that American taxes pay to prop up Communist Gov. Legislation, H.R. 3408 would end such foreign subsidies. Irrational policy of subsidizing those who hate freedom must stop.

Polish turmoil dramatizes wasted, worn out slogans of Communism, paradise promised never materialized. Source of discontent expressed by workers, yet neither our Gov nor businessmen have expressed sympathy for protests and support coming from our workers in U.S. Contrasting what predicted–revolt of workers against brutal capitalism–we see opposite; Poles demand liberty and supported by workers throughout the world. “Workers of the world, unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

Chapter 1

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." -James Madison

Upon death of Chinese dictator, statement made, more hawkish that would be today, but moral authority to state position without violating other independence certain.

Sept 15, 1976
The Death of Mao Tse-Tung

Virtual censorship in American press coverage regarding oppression Communist China under Mao; portrays great leader & shrewd politician [he was] yet overlooks monstrous tyranny exercised over Chinese people.

China different today than 1949, but change does not equal progress, Mao must be judged within moral context. Mao cannot be praised for industrial development while ignoring millions executed for opposing communism & millions more living in abject slavery.

True, Chinese values differently from America & West; but foolish to think Chinese don’t yearn for freedom. Fact confirmed, untold thousands risk lives escaping Communist totalitarianism for Hong Kong liberty.

"Realists" asked to overlook unpleasantry, support Communist China to balance military power of Soviet Union. Shortsighted policy repeats error; treat all enemies' enemies as friends. Policy destroys credibility.

American pride comes from breaking Europe’s balance of power-politics, thus establishing a moral foreign policy upholding American interests. Tradition as old as country, survives today, in spite of Henry Kissinger's destructive efforts.

Mismanaged foreign policy has Americans equating moral policy with interventionist policy, not synonymous. Condemnation of Communist tyranny ought not imply threat of U.S. intervention; nor imply support for petty dictatorship paying anticommunism lip service.

America remain forthright, oppose tyranny universally. Recognize Mao as oppressive dictator. Fear not saying so, make it clear; so long as Chinese people remain slaves expect no support from the United States.


Personal Note

Dr. Paul's involvement in politics began in 1960s after reading Friedrich Hayek's, The Road to Serfdom. Studied Austrian economics, especially Ludwig von Mises; explains how central banking & government intervention undermine middleclass & injure poor through inflation & business cycle in market economy. Breakdown of Bretton Woods pseudo-gold in 1974 confirmed Austrian predictions. Ran for Congress in 1974, entertaining little hope of victory, yet felt important to express himself.

Lost race but positioned to win election one year later. 1976-1984, served four years; serving on Banking Committee dealing with monetary issues. Early 1980s, served on Gold Commission -era of stagflation.

Concerned with protection of individual liberty, private property, free markets. Primary focus on economic policy during first Congressional tour, with time learned economic policy [especially deficit financing] & monetary policy interrelated with foreign policy & bad economic policies.

During Reagan years, realized how special interests with bipartisan support drive policy of foreign intervention. Troops in Lebanon & Granada; financial aid to Nicaragua; weapons to Iran & Iraq; military assistance to Osama bin Laden & Saddam Hussein; bomb Libya -for reasons other than national security. Events motivated Dr. Paul to speak out more frequently on foreign affairs and vote [often alone] to make point: follow constitution & advice of founding fathers, stay out of affairs of foreign nations.

Foreign intervention cannot be separated from economic concerns; deficits, inflation, taxes. Current trend towards world government, globalism, managed trade, institutionalized world financial system [fiat based] controlled by industrial-banking-political elite.

Move towards political globalization contrasts free markets, free trade, commodity money; ushered in era challenging national sovereignty & traditional borders.

New World Order permits sanctions, tariffs, privileges for politically connected interests. Trend endangers liberty, sovereignty, prosperity, peace.

Book collection of statements made over 30 years starting in 1976. Wrote & spoke less during 12 year hiatus [1985-1997], still interested in studying case for noninterventionism. Publicly opposed Persian Gulf War, 1991; consider Iraq war continuation of conflict.