The Revolution: A Manifesto

I am slowly reading through Ron Paul’s great New York Time’s best-seller: The Revolution: A Manifesto. The first two chapters argue persuasively about the deep flaws of American policy both at home and abroad. The American government has in many ways undermined the dreams of our Founding Fathers. Instead, they have opted for a policy of greed and disrespect for our traditions. The Jeffersonian foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations is nothing more than a dead bumper sticker. But Paul is not about to abandon the principles of the American Republic. In the Manifesto, he calls Republicans and Democrats to return to a more sane foreign policy; a policy that does not threaten our existence and that properly allows other nations to handle their own problems. It is a well-known fact that American intervention has hindered certain nations to proceed as they think best. Rather, American interventionism over the last century has led to the phenomenon called “blowback.” Blowback is the necessary consequence of an unrestrained government which thinks it is always able to intervene in the affairs of other nations. As a result, these nations (especially Middle Eastern nations) easily–through charismatic leaders–galvanize a loyal group of supporters who will do anything to rid their own country of American presence. As Paul writes: The terrorists, in short, have played us like a fiddle. With the unnecessary and unprovoked attack on Iraq, our government gave them just what they wanted.” Preemptive wars against nations who never attacked us is an political and strategic blunder. The Manifesto calls us to re-consider our ways.

About these ads

About Uri Brito

I am the Pastor of Providence Church (CREC) in Pensacola, Fl.
This entry was posted in Book Reviews, Ron Paul. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Revolution: A Manifesto

  1. Jonathan says:

    Hi Uri,

    I have been thinking about something lately that is not related to the subject of your post but is related to supporting Ron Paul. As theonomists, or even as Christians, where do we draw the line of pragmatism or supporting candidates who do not agree with our views? For example, according to Deut. 17:18-20, the leader must adhere to the Law of God. Ron Paul does not adhere to the Law of God in many cases. Perhaps we may argue in favor of supporting Ron Paul because he is the best candidate out there right now. But, having adopted this pragmatism, how do we argue against further supporting McCain because McCain will be better than Obama etc?

    Thanks, I am looking to hear from several theonomists on this issue.

  2. apologus says:

    Jonathan, I do not have time to give you an expanded answer, but my short answer would be that Ron Paul is a means to an end. In other words, we seek to empower the candidate who will give the MOST liberty so that we may apply God’s law in all of life. Furthermore, what is most significant is that families have the liberty (homeschooling, etc) to train a new generation of Christians willing to see the righteousness of God from sea to sea.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s