Although presidential candidate Ron Paul is a life long Libertarian, he has chosen to operate within the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party has never been able to get off the ground due to some of its extreme positions and Paul, like other Libertarians, eventually found a home in a broadened RNC.

However, within that party, Paul is only connecting with a small libertarian wing, about 3-5% of Republican voters, based on an average of all available national polls. Though all conservatives and most Republicans agree with Ron Paul rhetoric concerning a general reverence for our founding principles and documents, there is a clear divide between Ron Paul Libertarians and all other conservatives on matters of national security.

Namely, the alleged "illegal invasion" of Iraq

Although many conservatives could unite with Paul on many other domestic issues, especially the idea of limited government, reduced spending and taxation and less government intrusion into personal lives, they quickly part company on this issue.

According to Ron Paul and his followers, the U.S. military action in Iraq was not an act of "liberating" the Iraqi people or even an act of deposing the world’s most brutal rogue regime, known to have sponsored terrorism. In Ron Paul’s mind, it was an "invasion" of a sovereign nation and on this premise; they follow with the assertion that such an act of aggression is both "illegal" and "unconstitutional."

Of course, I am still waiting for Ron Paul or just one of his supporters to direct me to that part of the constitution that says America is not allowed to take preventive action against a known foreign enemy in defense of our own sovereign nation.

Invasion or Liberation?

I’m puzzled by the use of the word "invasion," which implies an act of aggression usually connected to conquering a territory, a people or a nation and its assets. By simple definition and facts of the mission, this term clearly does not apply. The term "liberation" does…which is of course, quite different.

We didn’t "declare war" against the Iraqi people, quite the opposite. We deposed the world’s best known murderer and sponsor of terrorism in his own country as well as others and the 70% of Iraqi citizens who braved a gauntlet of fire to paint their finger purple in their first free elections seem to understand this, even if American liberals and Ron Paul don’t.

Once you remind them of these facts, they shift their argument from the erroneous assertion of an "invasion" to an equally erroneous assertion of "nation building" and "exporting democracy" around the globe.

The "un-Declared War" argument

As we all know, congress has not "declared war" since WWII and for good reason.

Since WWII, America has sent troops to Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti and Afghanistan. Congress did not "declare war" in any of these instances, because America was "at war" with none of these nations.

We defended South Korea against North Korea, South Vietnam against North Vietnam, American hostages against Iranian terrorists, the people of Grenada and Panama from brutal dictatorial regimes, Kuwait from an invading Hussein regime, Kosovo and Somalia from terrorizing war lords and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from a growing terror group running roughshod over their nations with the help and support of brutal rogue regimes, the Taliban and the Hussein family.

We were "at war" with no nation and no people of these nations. We conquered no territory, no assets and no innocent people. We "invaded" none of these countries. And as a result, we "declared war" against none of these countries.

So the "un-Declared war" argument is heavily flawed right from the start. The emotion driven rhetoric behind the claim is simply not supported by the facts and those who are unable to follow the facts to this undeniable conclusion are certainly not qualified to call themselves "constitutionalists," let alone any form of a national security expert.

The case for "preventive" medicine

On 9/11/01, nearly every American was shocked and demanding to know how such events could happen to us, here on our own soil. Yet the answer to this question is more obvious than most are willing to confront.

America was one of the easiest places on earth to carry out such an attack on that day and it remains so even now. We are an open free society, free to come and go as we please, with open borders and very little concern for who might be crossing them with what intentions.

We love our freedoms and liberties and we want everyone to have them, including the terrorist next door. We are a peaceful, tolerant and welcoming sort, with our arms wide open to all comers and all ideologies, including those that wish us harm.

If you asked 100 Americans on the afternoon of 9/11 if all efforts should have been used by our government to stop the events of that day before they happened, all 100 would have said YES, as if you were asking a silly question. But had you asked the same 100 people on 9/10/01 if it was okay for our government to "wiretap" or snoop on people in America and pick up suspected evil doers before they had a chance to do their evil, almost all 100 would have said NO.

This is a fight we are still having today.

Should we "prevent" further attacks, or simply "respond" to those attacks once they happen?

This is a very important question and although the answer seems obvious to most, it isn’t so obvious once you understand the implications of the question.

To stop or "prevent" further attacks at home, we must identify and confront threats before they reach our shore. This means we must take "preventive" (pre-emptive) measures. We must aggressively seek to learn that which the enemy desperately hopes to conceal. Our intelligence operations must operate at peak levels, both in volume and quality of information and they must have the authority to do so. This requires some special authority, such as that provided by the Patriot Act.

But what about our liberties and freedoms, which can easily be infringed by the abuse of these special policies?

Again, we must ask ourselves how much freedom or liberty we will have once a U.S. city or two is leveled, the economy thrown into a tailspin, our currency collapsed and the streets of America looking more like the Gaza Strip than a day at the park?

Do we want to prevent such a future from becoming a reality or don’t we? Are we serious about preventing such an inevitability or aren’t we? Every American needs to answer this question for themselves and vote accordingly.

This is what divides Ron Paul and his supporters from all other conservatives

Most Americans, certainly most conservatives, want no more government than is absolutely necessary to provide for the fundamental defense of our nation, its people and their freedoms. But at the moment, and so long as this threat goes unchallenged, we may require more government than is otherwise desirable.

I submit that the same people who authorize government to use these additional powers to defend the nation today, have the power to remove those special powers once the threat no longer exists. This of course means that we will have to remain engaged in the process ourselves, until such time that these powers are no longer required, then remove them and return to life as it once was.

But the emotional rhetoric surrounding the subject of this or any other war makes making such difficult decisions even more difficult. It clouds the issues and causes people to fear themselves more than their enemies.

We fear our own government why? It’s elected by us. Anytime we get sick of the one we have, we can elect another one. We are the government. Our government can do nothing that we don’t consent to. If we consent by our silence, shame on us!

But terrorists don’t need our consent. Their agenda is set and how we feel about it is of no concern to them at all… The founders had no such threat in mind when they drafted the constitution, but they brilliantly allowed for a constitutional process by which all threats to the republic could be met.

Ron Paul supporters who think we have somehow lost sight of this, need to show me where?

It’s almost as if Ron Paul and his supporters fell asleep in the late 1700’s and woke up this morning trying to figure out what to do in a world quite different than the one the fell asleep in.

Most conservatives have been awake the entire time however, and they aren’t buying into the emotional rhetoric surrounding the very real war against international terrorism, whether offered by liberals or Libertarians…