One of the most common misunderstandings (lies) spread about Ron Paul is that he is an “Isolationist”.  The people that usually spread this misinformation (writers, columnists, talk-show hosts, and bloggers) should be expected to have taken the time to look up what “Isolationism” means, what it entails.  Leave it to the programmer to dig under the surface to find out what it really means and to explain why Ron Paul is NOT an Isolationist, for as I often say, “The Devil is in the Details and the Details are in the Specifications.”

Let’s start with that often quoted yet unscientific, often-praised and often-ridiculed resource: The Wikipedia.  From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). "

"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."

--It can't be much clearer.  Ron Paul simply can't be an "Isolationist" because he is one of the premier advocates for Free Trade in Congress.  Let's dig deeper into the details and show how Ron Paul understands Free Trade and has a history of teaching his colleagues in Congress.

From: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr050200.htm 
"WHAT IS FREE TRADE?"
Excerpts:
"The first reason I would like to mention is a moral reason. There is a moral element involved in trade, because when governments come in and regulate how citizens spend their money, they are telling them what they can do or cannot do. In a free society, individuals who earn money should be allowed to spend the money the way they want. So if they find that they prefer to buy a car from Japan rather than Detroit, they basically have the moral right to spend their money as they see fit and those kinds of choices should not be made by government. So there is a definite moral argument for free trade."

--As is common with Rep. Paul; first we get the moral argument:  People should have the right to spend their money on whatever they want.  The government has NO right to limit your ability to spend your hard-earned income.  Next we get the economic reasons:

"The second argument for free trade is an economic argument. There is a benefit to free trade. Free trade means that you will not have high tariffs and barriers so you cannot buy products and you cannot exert this freedom of choice by buying outside. If you have a restricted majority and you can evenly buy from within, it means you are protecting industries that may not be doing a very good job, and there is not enough competition." 

"There really are no costs in the long run. Free trade does not require management. It is implied here on conversation on the House floor so often that free trade is equivalent to say we will turn over the management of trade to the World Trade Organization, which serves special interests. Well, that is not free trade; that is a misunderstanding of free trade. "

--And finally we get the Constitutional argument.  Prepare yourself, this strict constitutionalist does not hold back when it comes to our government turning over our Sovereignty to international organizations, allowing them to influence/change our laws.

"Our agreement says very clearly that any ruling by the WTO, the Congress is obligated to change the law. This is the interpretation and this is what we signed. This is a serious challenge, and we should not accept so easily this idea that we will just go one step further."

"We cannot just sit back and accept the idea that the World Trade Organization, we have entered into it, it was not a treaty, it was an agreement, but we have entered into it, and the agreement says we have to do what they tell us, even if it contradicts the whole notion that it is the Congress' and people's responsibility to pass their own laws with regard to the environment, with regard to labor and with regard to tax law."

More from: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm
"CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade"

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional.  The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade.  The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible.  Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty.  This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated.  Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution."

"It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty.  When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple.  I can assure you first hand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union.  Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year."

"CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade.  Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body."

More From: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst032000.htm
"The World Trade Organization, Barrier to Free Trade"

"The CRS report on the World Trade Organization (August 25, 1999) is explicit in its explanation: "As a member of the WTO, the United States does commit to act in accordance with the rules of the multi-lateral body. It is legally obligated to insure national laws do not conflict with WTO rules."

"The most blatant example of the World Trade Organization undermining US sovereignty was the recent ruling rejecting US tax breaks to US companies doing business overseas. The European Union charged that the Foreign Sales Corporation program established in 1984 is now an "illegal subsidy," and the WTO appellate panel supported this position. Despite the fact that the US unfairly taxes corporations for profits earned overseas, unlike our foreign competitors, this program was meant to compensate to some degree for this unfairness built into our tax code. Nevertheless the WTO, in a ridiculous ruling, claimed that allowing a company to keep more of its own money through lower taxes is a "subsidy" -- something given at the behest of government."

--So there it is.  Dr. Ron Paul's arguments FOR Free Trade and against Managed Trade (WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA), the moral argument, the economic argument and the constitutional argument.   Ron Paul has written even more on these subjects.  If you want to further educate yourself go here: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12