Alameda GOP is Anti-War?

While the Alameda County Republican Party (ACRP) has a history of hostility, lawsuits, and in-fighting, the November 17th Monthly Meeting is shaping up to be a war-zone.

Earlier this week, the ACRP Executive Committee gave their approval (4 ayes, 1 no, 1 abstain) to a resolution that would make a non-interventionist foreign policy, the official position of the county party. The text of the resolution is based on the widely circulated “What If” speech given on the House floor by Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

To pass, the resolution must receive 2/3rds approval from County Committee members at the November 17th meeting in San Leandro.

Alameda County Republican Party – Proposed Resolution
Submitted by: Walter Stanley III, David LaTour, and Jerry Salcido of the Alameda County Republican Party 

Whereas, our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests; and

Whereas, the terrorist threat is a predictable consequence of our meddling in the affairs of others and has nothing to do with us being free and prosperous; and
Whereas, propping up repressive regimes in the Middle East endangers America and our allies; and
Whereas, occupying countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us; and
Whereas, losing over 6,000 American Military personnel in the Middle East since September 11, 2001 is not a fair trade off for the loss of nearly 3,000 American citizens, no matter how many Iraqi, Pakistani and Afghan people are killed or displaced; and

Whereas, torture, even if referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques” is self-destructive and produces no useful information and that contracting it out to a third world country or a corporation is just as evil; and
Whereas, war and military spending is always destructive to the economy; and
Whereas, war time spending is paid for through the deceitful process of inflating and borrowing; and
Whereas, war time conditions always undermine personal liberty; and
Whereas, we as small government conservatives see our government’s interventionist foreign policy providing the greatest incentive to expand the government; and
Whereas, the only logical, conservative position is to reject military intervention and managing an empire throughout the world; and
Whereas, the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests; and
Whereas, the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations; and
Whereas, our aggressive foreign policy and seemingly permanent presence in other countries throughout the world has served to weaken our national defense at home; and
Whereas, the borders’ of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are more secure than our own borders here at home; and
Whereas, our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and never changes from one administration to the next; and
Whereas, Christianity teaches peace and not preventive wars of aggression; and
Whereas, diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America; and

Whereas, the aggressive foreign policy of so called “neo-conservatives” is anything but conservative and has wasted more than $1 trillion on nation building and billions more on foreign aid; and

Whereas, there is a strong tradition of non-interventionism in the Republican Party that is exemplified by the legacy of Senator Robert Taft and the Old Right.
Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Alameda County Republican Party supports a non-interventionist foreign policy as advocated by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and believes costly undeclared wars and the occupation of other countries only serves to weaken our national defense and strengthen the resolve along with the ranks of our enemies. 



  1. says


    Just because I don’t totally agree with the Reagan foreign policy doesn’t mean that I can’t quote his comments relating conservatism to libertarianism when the topic of libertarian lenaing Republicans comes up.

    And if I told someone that Reagan was a great President, that doesn’t mean that I support amnesty for illegal aliens either, as I’m sure you would agree.

  2. Wendy Lack says

    Walter, it’s ironic that you would quote RR, inasmuch as his presidency did not follow your definition of a “constitutional foreign policy.”

    Many of us libertarian-leaning Republicans can and do question various aspects of military decisions, our nation’s , our foreign policy and actions by the U.S. way-left-leaning state department. It’s just that we don’t accept that the isolationist bent of this resolution is the best strategic path forward.

    As do so many others, I, too, have family members serving in an active duty capacity in the military — and would like nothing better than to see our troops come safely home NOW.

    However, to bring home troops now would be tantamount to ceding Iraq back to enemies of freedom — which would serve neither our national interests, nor those of our allies, nor certainly the interests of the majority of Iraqi people who are relishing improved living conditions and grateful for the efforts and stabilizing presence of the U.S.

  3. Kyle Vallone says

    I give Walter credit for standing by his beliefs. The fact that we are in two wars and we are unwilling to either put the country on a war footing and win them or get out speaks for it self.

  4. says

    “BP” that’s a bunch of BS!

    Remember what Ronald Reagan said?

    “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” -Ronald Reagan

  5. BP says

    Well thought out resolution?
    This is pathetic. Whoever Wendy is she is the ONLY post on this site that makes sense.
    The only Rinos are you Libertarians posing as Republicans. The only thing a Libertarian is IS a fiscally conservative Democrat.

  6. says

    Here is a full report from committee vice-chair Walter Stanley:

    There’s Nothing Conservative About War

    This past Tuesday, during the November monthly meeting of the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, Elected Members’ of the Party did some soul searching on what it actually means to be a conservative.

    The County Party leadership consisting of outgoing Chairman Jerry Salcido [AD-20 Fremont], Vice Chairman Walter Stanley [AD-15 Livermore] and Assistant Treasurer David LaTour [AD-18 Hayward] proposed a resolution that would have made a non-interventionist foreign policy the official position of the County GOP.

    The proposed resolution was introduced from the podium by Salcido to his fellow Republicans’ on the committee. The wording of the resolution was largely inspired by a speech given on the House floor by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has always been critical of past administrations’ aggressive foreign policy regardless of if it is Bush, Clinton or even President Obama as the Commander and Chief.

    The foreign policy resolution was longer than all other resolutions considered by the committee during the first year of their two-year term. The proposed resolution declared that our [the United States] foreign policy of the past century is “deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests” and that “diplomacy is superior to bombs and bribes and the illusion of protecting America.” It also declared that, “the official positions for going to war are almost always based on lies and promoted by war propaganda in order to serve special interests.”

    During the discussion, the wording of the resolution was attacked by several neo-conservatives on the committee. Local Republican, Rosann Slonsky-Breault [AD-16 Oakland] told Members’ of the Party that terrorists wanted to kill Americans because of the freedoms we have and called the proposed resolution “despicable.” Republican Anne Woodell [AD-16 Oakland] said it was “anti-George Bush” and “isolationist.” Both women support the undeclared war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and both voted against the resolution. In all, twenty Members’ on the committee opposed a non-interventionist foreign policy as set forth in the proposed resolution.

    David LaTour argued in favor of the resolution, “In 2000, Bush ran on a humble foreign policy. Go back and look at the debates. He opposed Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo and then ended up being a nation-builder himself. The Republican registration in the county has sharply declined over the last 8-years. If you think that has nothing to do with this unconstitutional aggressive foreign policy, you’re kidding yourself.”LaTour also rejected Woodell’s notion that a non-interventionist foreign policy means isolationism by responding, “We’re not saying that the United States shouldn’t communicate, trade, or have diplomatic relationships with other countries, we support all of that, those are all good things that promote prosperity. We’re saying that we need to embrace a constitutional foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances and focus on securing our own borders’.”

    John den Dulk [AD-16 Oakland] seemed to be confused during the discussion about what exactly a constitutional foreign policy is. He spoke about the enumerated powers’ listed in the U.S. Constitution and then contradicted himself by confessing his support for undeclared war and his opposition to the resolution.

    Fellow GOP committee Member from neighboring Contra Costa County, Ted Hudacko, joined forces with Salcido, Stanley and LaTour backing the resolution and telling those in attendance, “There is no effective Declaration of War with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.” Hudacko asked those who opposed the resolution, “Can any of you tell me by what criteria you would consider that victory has been achieved and when we could determine that our troops can come home?”

    None of those who were opposed to the resolution addressed Hudacko’s question. For some reason, the argument coming from the neo-conservatives was that Republicans needed to ’support the troops’ by being in favor of the conflicts in the Middle East.

    LaTour said, “The neo-cons in Alameda County are living in fantasy land. They think our foreign policy is about freedom rather than empire and special interests. To them, 9/11 justifies anything and the moral, strategic, and financial repercussions of our actions mean nothing.”

    There were a total of 13 Republicans in favor of the non-interventionist foreign policy resolution. Not enough to pass with a two-thirds majority; however, it might be a good sign of things to come in the Republican Party.

    Casey Fargo [AD-15 Livermore] said, “People are waking up in the Republican Party. It’s time for Republicans that believe in small-government to realize that there’s nothing conservative about war. Our troops are spread thin throughout the world and a common-sense individual can see that this makes us less safe here at home.”

    Erika Lopez [AD-18 San Lorenzo] who voted in favor of the resolution said, “I believe in a strong national defense, but having troops stationed in countries all over the world is not a strong national defense. I support our troops, I want them here protecting our country, keeping us safe.”

  7. J. Max Powers says

    So, what happened? I can only assume that the RINOS of Alameda County touted there pro-war sentiments to the defeat of this well thought out resolution.

  8. Lois says

    To my Patriot family,

    I want to thank you for everything you do. I’m proud of all of you!

    You are citizen soldiers, in the war of politics. I respect you, admire you….you are of the ‘3 Percenters‘, that will help the U.S. to survive. Keep up the fine work!

    God bless you!

    Sincerely, Lois

  9. jon, alameda county says

    I enjoyed reading the resoluton, and have to say that agree with the position of minding our own business. The troops should come home now!

    Too many republicans have bought into the fear factor of the failed George Bush administration believing we need to battle terrorists in far off countries, and if we don’t they will attack Americans on American soil. This is not true!

    Part of the reason that people in other countries are pissed off at America is because we are there in their countries, in their neighborhoods, and even in their homes imposing our will. Occupation is not freedom, and those who fought in our own American revolution would have agreed.

    People like Wendy Lack need to consider how the people in the middle-east feel. Those middle easterners who were not supportive of Sadam in Iraq, or the Taliban in Afghanistan don’t want US troops patroling their neighborhoods, imposing curfews, pointing guns in the direction of their loved ones and kicking down doors.

    Think about if another country invaded America, and told us all that Obama was out of control, and destroying the greatest country on earth with his socialist agenda, and needed to be stopped. If they posted up on Wendy Lack’s street corner, claimimg to be there to free the people from socialism, I doubt Wendy would be supportive of the idea. If Wendy was a “freedom lover” as she suggests, she might be labeled an insurgent, or maybe even a terrorist by the occupation forces by taking up arms against the foreign forces.

    Wendy, you should think about your position before going on the attack. Non-interventionist is not isolationism. The real isolationists hide behind so called “free trade agreements” and impose embargos and sanctions on other countries. Being non-interventonist does not mean that we don’t trade with other nations, or shut off communications with other countries. It does not mean that we stick our heads in the sand either. It means that we get out of the “sand” *so to speak* in the middle east, and return home to focus on the needs of our *own* national security, not Iraq’s, Afghanistan’s, or Pakistan’s.

    We need to be supportive of a humble foreign policy! That’s the only conservative position that makes sense. Are you aware how much our nation building foreign policy costs us each year? It makes the Obama stimulus, and the corprate bail-outs seem like a drop in the bucket. Think about how much we will have wasted when 2012 rolls around, and we are still over there? It didn’t even take this long to win our own freedom from King George with muskets, and cannon balls.

    FYI- I’m a registered Republican!

  10. J.Q. Adams says

    This is an excellent resolution. The GOP really needs to become the anti-war party and ascribe to the Founders’ visions of friendship and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Aggressive war is bad.
    Good job ACRP on leading the charge to change the ridiculous stance that the GOP has taken in starting and continuing needless wars.

  11. Wendy Lack says

    One more comment:

    What does the reference to Christianity (in paragraph 17) have to do with policy positions of the GOP? Frankly, it is simply ridiculous.

    Reference to a specific religion in your resolution makes no sense whatsoever . . . unless you advocate the U.S. becoming a Christian theocracy rather than a free republic. C’mon — surely you must favor FREEDOM of religion?

    Hmmm . . . thought we lived in a free republic.

    Words do MEAN things, ya know.

    So much for a “big tent” in the Alameda GOP world.

    No, thank you. This flavor of Republicanism holds no appeal for rational thinkers, freedom lovers, patriots and individualists.

    Best advice: Withdraw your resolution and pause for a period of reflection.

  12. Josh Daugherty says

    Hey wendy, why don’t you try pulling your head out of the sand.

    It’s the most apathetic and pathetic stance to take, being a war hungry imperialist. Do you ever read what the founding fathers wrote about staying out of entangling alliances and not looking for dragons to slay?

    Do you not understand that Rome, Egypt and the British empire all were destroyed because they spent their economy into an oblivion, mostly by wasting money on an evil, immoral empire?

    Have you ever put yourself in the shoes of the innocent civilians that we mercilessly kill for natural resources and imperial gain? have you ever imagine what it would be like if say china invaded? they had their tanks rolling down the street shooting and killing your family members? telling you you can’t leave your house after a certain time? i’m sure you haven’t.

    You live your comfortable lifestyle not questioning anything because everything you have is given to you. you wouldn’t know what freedom was if it hit you in the face. you think freedom is having the choice between mcdonald’s, burger king, taco bell or jack in the box at 3 in the morning.

    So please read up on imperialism and what the founding fathers had to say about it before you run your mouth again.

  13. Wendy Lack says

    Hey, Alameda GOP: You’re dead wrong on this one.

    This resolution is one of the most absurd and naive things I’ve ever read. Sticking one’s head in the sand is not a strategy. Isolationism doesn’t work – and certainly cannot overcome the fundamentalist Islamic threat, nor any of the other threats the U.S. faces from rogue nations throughout the world.

    Isolationism fails every time it’s tried.

    The reality is that we live in the world. The U.S. cannot just pull the covers over its head and hope that the bad guys in the world will just leave us alone. Sorry, but things don’t work that way.

    Evil exists. It is real. And we must defend our nation from our enemies (foreign and domestic).

    As Republicans and lovers of freedom we may agree on many issues – e.g. strict constructionist views on the Constitution, the inherent morality of capitalism and individualism, the threat to freedom from our tyrannical, bloated government, etc. – but on this issue you guys are just dead wrong, as history amply illustrates.

    I’m embarrassed for you. Sorry to burst your bubble . . . somebody had to say it.

    Hope you reconsider this position . . . it does nothing positive for your organization nor for the party at large. Just sayin’.

  14. Gary Clift says

    Good luck on the resolution ACRP. I hope the rest of the Republican Party wakes up and returns to our principles as written by our founders in the U.S. Constitution.

  15. Matt Heath says

    Excellent resolution!

    When is the meeting where the committee will vote?

    Great job trail blazing again!

  16. says

    Very nicely said. Spelling error: “Whereas, loosing over 6,000 American ” should be losing.
    My thoughts is you should go further and denounce the actions of the Bush administration too. Only one way to save the republican party… Repent! :-)