Over the last 60 years, the U.S. government has been eager to send young men and women to the deserts of the Middle East, the jungles of Asia, and the remote lands of Africa to fight conflicts that do not threaten the nation’s security. These costly battles, whether in Iraq or Vietnam, have resulted in immense and tragic death tolls. Considering that only one-fifth of the representatives and senators on Capitol Hill are retired military veterans, perhaps it is time that there are more voices from the Army, Navy, Air Force, and other branches heard in Washington – men and women who have witnessed first-hand the hells of the previous administration’s foreign policy.
Tinus has the credentials: a family man (married for 33 years, three children, and two grandchildren), an active community leader, a fiscal conservative, a civil libertarian, and a strict constitutionalist. This would be the resume of a frontrunner, but Tinus may have one obstacle in his path to the Capitol Building: he is a Libertarian Party candidate.
Libertarians have never elected a member to Congress –the party presently has 158 officeholders across the country. Tinus is attempting to be the first sitting Libertarian at the federal level. Is it achievable? Tinus is optimistic, adhering to the old adage of “all politics is local,” though his sanguinity would have been greater if he had the support of Representative Ron Paul (R-TX), who endorsed Michael Cloud, a Republican.
Liberty Nation spoke with Tinus about Ron Paul, foreign policy, President Donald Trump, and his party’s chances of making history in November’s midterm elections.
Liberty Nation: You have been a big fan of the three-time presidential candidate and former Congressman Ron Paul for a long time, and he was quite successful for so many years in his district. What has drawn you to Dr. Paul, and how would you emulate his career in Congress?
Daniel Tinus: I am a Ron Paul “fan” and have supported and voted for him when he represented my district. We share many of the same libertarian principles of sound money and monetary policy. Abolish the IRS, and, at a minimum, audit the fed. I will not vote for any increase in spending, CRs, and will fight to scale back government to its constitutional limits. That is very cut and dry for me. I agree with most of his views, including foreign interventionism, particularly financial aid that props up dictators funding the oppression of their own people.Daniel Tinus
LN: During the 2016 election, Donald Trump showed some signs of being a non-interventionist, which has gradually changed heading into the second year of his administration. How do you view the current foreign policy of President Trump?
DT: Now while I am with him [Ron Paul] on military interventionism and am against the U.S. being the world’s military, I do not agree with isolationism. We enable nations to remain weak in their own defense by pacts that permit them to reduce their militaries to mere playthings. The invasion of Kuwait and subsequent wars (that we paid for) that followed is a prime example. Having said this, I do believe there are times when it is in our best interest to come to the aid of others for mutual benefit and to protect American lives. Most all wars, however, are a symptom of the cause. Through financial and military welfare, we are causing problems, not stopping or deterring. We do what we accuse others of doing with our intervention, then use what they do in response as a reason to escalate.
Our government is a little more than the biggest bully on the block, not just internationally, but to her own people. Like I say, on a case by case basis I may be for aid, but killing or dying so we can prop up the petrodollar is not justified. None of these things happen in a vacuum and all are tied together. As a lover of history with a logical mind of an engineer, I look at cause and effect based on fact. All can be traced to money and what it is based on. That is why we fight OPEC’s wars and overthrew Libya and saber rattle with Iran.
Trump has indicated and actually made moves to correct foreign welfare. But you are correct in pointing out he has backed off, and what he has done is targeted towards behavior modifications of sovereign nations. I would love to see a hard shift from our global presence, but it will take years to get many of the nations up to speed for real self-defense. How did we defeat the Soviet Union? Really, they defeated themselves as the system they had could not compete. The same is true for all nations. In the long-term, the citizens of those nations will see the folly of both socialism and communism and militarism.
LN: Recently, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said North Korea is acting belligerent and determined to keep its nuclear weapons because of the U.S. overthrowing foreign leaders. Meanwhile, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has warned about arming rebels and meddling in the domestic affairs of foreign nations. Do you agree with these ideas? And what else would you propose to complement their proposals?
DT: Yes, I agree with Tulsi Gabbard in principle, but I do think it will be more incremental. They are failing, aka self-correcting now, so just sit back and allow natural selection to occur. We don’t need to be an excuse for tyrants to continue to act belligerent. Now as far as Rand Paul, history and current events proved the folly of arming rebels as we have to often forcibly remove those arms from the same. Afghanistan comes to mind as well as ISIS being armed directly and indirectly through Iraq and the overthrow of Libya. I might add Libya is also a case study in the results of our defense of the petrodollar
LN: Do you think it is time for the U.S. to leave NATO, the United Nations, and all of the other international bodies?
DT: The United Nations and NATO have become a means of oppression and globalization. The UN, in particular, has become a running joke with nations that blatantly and openly abuse their own citizens serving as leaders for human rights. It is just a money redistribution machine on a global scale. NATO is the U.S. I served with NATO/Multinational forces and we funded everything! Man, can I tell stories!
LN: With your military record, what can you tell Republicans and Democrats in Congress – many of which have no military experience – about the U.S. presence in the Middle East and Africa?
DT: With only 20% of the Senate and 19% of the House former military members, we don’t have to look far as to the rationale to the rush to war. Too few had to look a teenager in the eye and have to decide to take his life. Sleep well in your D.C. homes, Congressmen.
LN: Is the Libertarian Party ready for 2018 and beyond?
DT: The party definitely needs some reforms, but the concepts are as sound as they were from the dawn of humans. I am encouraged, and though I may have huge hurdles to overcome, my life has been filled with hurdles, and I overcame. If I am to be there, I will be there. If not, it will not be because of the message or this messenger. In the light of Black History Month, if I am judged by my character and not by the color of my party, I will be the first ever Libertarian Congressman!
The Tinus campaign slogan is: “Liberty is the solution, not the problem!”
In a toxic environment where civil political discourse is all but extinct, winning is more important than principles, and government only gets bigger, politicians and bureaucrats need a daily reminder that liberty should be the rule, not the exception. Tinus regularly averred that he “owes this nation more than I ever can repay.” Perhaps he can repay the country by returning the virtues of liberty and the values of the Founding Fathers to the halls of Washington.
Should Tinus be victorious in November, can the Libertarian Party finally break the glass ceiling and inject the ideals of Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman into politics?