Saturday was the final day of CPAC 2010 and it was a great one. I started the day by attending Ann Coulter’s speech in the main ballroom. She was funny and quick-witted as expected. Also, as expected, she continued playing the part of the neo-conservative poster girl. At one point she admitted, “If Ron Paul is behind it, and it has nothing to do with foreign policy, I agree.” Regardless of your opinion on Coulter it’s a good sign that Ron Paul is popular enough to warrant such discussion.
I then made my way to the friendly environs of the Young Americans for Liberty Youth Summit. This young group of American patriots left me impressed. There is no doubt that these students of today will be the liberty leaders of tomorrow.
Following the summit was a panel of speakers discussing why good conservatives are anti-war. The room was packed with two rows of people standing in the back. Philip Girardi, Karen Kwiatkowski, Bruce Fein, and Jacob Hornberger took turns speaking. All were excellent, but for me, Jacob Hornberger, was the best at clearly articulating all of the major arguments for a non-interventionist foreign policy. He did it with passion. It rivaled Judge Napolitano’s speech from the Liberty Forum the other night.
Ron Paul is coming out swinging again following his “dust up” on Larry King last week when he was accused of making anti-semitic remarks by Ben Stein. In a newly released video from the Campaign For Liberty Paul speaks a bit about the altercation and ends by officially challenging Ben Stein to a debate on foreign policy.
It’s obvious Paul is trying to get his foreign policy argument back in the public eye after Obama seems to be following the Bush doctrine in Afghanistan. The question now becomes: Will Ben Stein agree to a moderated debate on foreign policy with Ron Paul? I’d love to see it. If you’d like to see it too then feel free to use the contact information for his agent on his site to make a request.
Incidentally, I do wish Paul would pronounce Yemen correctly. He says YAY-men. It should be YEH-men. Then again I don’t support him for his speaking ability, I support him because he fights for liberty.
I ask my Congressman why he insists on giving taxpayer money to foreign nations while we are in foreign debt.
by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Originally published on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 at http://www.nolanchart.com/article6649.html
“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address as President of the United States, 1801-1809
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – James Madison
“I think Americans should have a policy of love. That should be the foreign policy, love. Export Love.” – Ziggy Marley
The following is a letter sent to my local Congressman today. Although I happen to be running against him in the 2010 election, I am obviously writing as a concerned citizen. I have sent this note to his office and also called his office to state my opinion, which was courteously received.
An excellent op-ed in the Washington Times today authored by Congressman Ron Paul hammers home the Old Right ideas of non-interventionism in foreign policy arguably better than he ever did during his Presidential campaign.
Paul writes:
Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to “fight them over there” they say, so we don’t have to “fight them over here.” This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.
In this piece Ron Paul seems to be taking some lessons from his son Rand. Paul the elder is framing his non-interventionist foreign policy beliefs in a way that should be less off-putting to die hard neo-conservatives.
If Obama starts jawing strongly against the Iranian government what happens next? Does his God-complex become reality and the Iranian government crumble underneath every syllable? I doubt it.
There’s every reason to believe that forcefully condemning Iran today will lead to more direct intervention tomorrow. Obama, thus far, has played it properly. If he starts drawing lines in the sand we are in trouble. Or perhaps that is what his opponents would like?
Imagine this… Obama succumbs to political pressure and speaks strongly against Iran to the point of threats. When Iran fails to cease their savagery he has two choices:
Draw another line in the sand further back which would only give his opponents more ammo to hit him with the weak President charge.
Follow through on the condemnation and intervene more strongly, possibly with troops or other aid, embroiling us in yet another “entangling alliance” that could be expensive, both in blood and money.
This is one of those situations that illustrates why Presidents enter office with their natural-colored hair and leave office with a full head of gray.
I must confess. This Ron Paul supporter suffered from a temporary bout of neo-conservatism after viewing that completely horrifying video of the young woman lying in the street bleeding to death in Iran over the weekend. I will not link to it because I don’t want to infect anyone else. My long lost compassionate conservatism gene made a return as I was filled with hatred and sadness. I thought, “Something must be done!. America needs to intervene!” A few hours and a reality check later I found myself back on firm Founding Father-style non-interventionist footing once again.
Some claim taking a non-interventionist approach on the Iran election aftermath is the height of hypocrisy from someone who claims to believe in liberty. Ron Paul is being criticized for his lone “Nay” vote on condemning the Iranian government’s heinous actions on it’s own people. On the surface it appears Obama is taking a similar non-interventionist approach for now, although there are some arguing the opposite may be true. Hopefully, Obama stands his ground (this time) against the interventionist opposition.
Those clamoring for intervention need to answer a few questions, but there is one question that trumps them all.
Quotes of the Day: “The Democrats’ failure to pass a troop funding bill that will actually get our armed forces the money they need is nothing less than a disgrace.” — House Minority Leader John Boehner, June, 2008
“It’s going to be an interesting fall as Republicans try to explain their vote against legislation that they’ve described as funding for our troops in a time of war, because I’m confident their constituents will be reminded.” – a White House Official, June 2009
The Democrats are pro-war, the Republicans anti-war.
But when the Senate got their hands on it they added still more unrelated items . . .
* Funnelling billions of dollars to a failed, neo-colonial (i.e. “foreign aid”) scheme called the International Monetary Fund
* The Graham-Lieberman measure, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act to continue the coverup of the detainee abuse scandal
House Republicans wanted the IMF provisions stripped from the final bill, and the detainee abuse coverup retained. Instead, they got the exact opposite of what they wanted, and so they voted no, even though this meant they would not be “supporting the troops.”
It’s funny. Four years ago, Republicans supported the bill to “support the troops” even when Real ID was attached. Last year, they voted to “support the troops” even though the Democrats added $95 billion in domestic pork spending to it.
Why the change of heart now? Probably because a Democrat’s in the White House. It’s not “their” war anymore. As our quotes of the day demonstrate, charges of hypocrisy are flying fast and furious, and will likely continue for some time. Read More »
On Monday a few of us here at Liberty Maven took the opportunity to attend a speech given by Bruce Fein at George Mason University as part of The Economic Liberty Lecture Series sponsored by The Future Of Freedom Foundation. I must admit I was surprised at how animated and passionate Fein was during his speech. I was expecting a more subdued speech after watching him testify on Capitol Hill and seeing him deliver the speech he gave at Ron Paul’s “Rally for the Republic” last year.
He spoke without notes and hammered home the ideas of foreign policy non-interventionism. The Q and A period following his talk was in some ways better and more passionate than the speech itself. Luckily the FFF recorded the entire event and has put it online for viewing.
It’s hosted at Vimeo which sometimes presents connection problems for me, but your patience with it loading will pay off in the end when you get to watch this foreign policy expert rip apart any notion of supporting the idea of American empire.
Wow, this one is a doozy! A ton of new bills were introduced in Congress on Friday: 188 in total. For those who haven’t read this series of articles from the beginning, there are a few things to keep in mind…
When taking a look at the list below, keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution, which created our Federal Government, clearly enumerated 18 specific functions that it is given. For all other things, the 9th and 10th amendment make it clear that the individual states have the power. Note that it states in the Constitution that it is the Supreme Law of the Land, which can be usurped by no other. This means that all opinions to the contrary made by the Supreme Court are technically invalid. Throughout the past couple of hundred hears the Supreme Court has rule one way or another on some “interpretation” of the Constitution, but in fact no interpretation is necessary, as the intention of the founding fathers are quite clear. For example, if the “general welfare” clause or the “interstate commerce” clause was intended to be used as a catch-all for any arbitrary piece of legislation, then the 10th amendments which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
would be completely meaningless. So simple logic, in addition to the writings of Madison and other founding fathers, dictates the notion that the Federal Government was set up to have very little power, and that these United States are intended to be a loose federation of sovereign states.
Only due to politician’s greed and overwhelming desire for power does the Constitution get relegated to the trash heap.
So, despite the noble intentions of many of these bills, it doesn’t mean they are legal.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
– 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Of the bills introduced yesterday, these are ones that are clearly not legitimate functions of the Federal Government [as always, my commentary will appear in red]:
HR1892 – To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 102 North Main Street in Cedarville, Ohio, as the “William ‘Brent” Turner Post Office’.
HR1929 – To establish the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Investigative Commission to investigate the policies and practices engaged in by officers and directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac responsible for making the decisions that led to the enterprises’ financial instability and the subsequent Federal conservatorship of such enterprises. [Keep in mind that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been basically nationalized, which is, of course, unconstitutional.]
HR1925 – To designate as wilderness certain Federal portions of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Great Basin Deserts in Utah for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
HR1924 – To amend the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000, and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to improve the prosecution of, and response to, crimes in Indian country, and for other purposes.
HR1922 – To require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hold at least 1 public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a locality.
HR1921 – To establish an Office of Public Advocate within the Department of Justice to provide services and guidance to citizens in dealing with concerns involving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and for other purposes. [Fantastic! Create another layer of bureaucracy to help people deal with bureaucracy...]
HR1978 – To authorize the Attorney General to make grants to improve the ability of State and local governments to prevent the abduction of children by family members, and for other purposes.
HR1977 – To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study drywall imported from China in 2004 through 2007, and for other purposes.
HR332 – Providing that the House of Representatives will focus on removing barriers to a prosperous economy and therefore renew the dream. [Reading the full text of the bill it all sounds nice, but it's really nothing more than platitudes. Nothing will come of this. It's not recommending anything concrete.]
HR1971 – To provide for the elimination of duties on certain comforter shells
HR1970 – To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt unsanctioned State-licensed retail pharmacies from the surety bond requirement under the Medicare Program for suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies (DMEPOS).
HR1969 – To promote freedom and democracy in Vietnam. [Oh god. Oh god, no! Haven't we gotten ourselves into enough jams with this interventionist crap?]
In a new video message from Ron Paul today he is critical of the reaction to North Korea launching a rocket that has the rest of the world up in arms, but mostly just the U.S.
It’s not shocking that Ron Paul takes a non-interventionist stance on this event as he does consistently when events like these occur. This non-intervention is the area where Ron Paul distinguishes himself from the neo-conservative warmongers. They may agree with him on limited government (although mostly they just pay lip service to it), but they openly chastise him on foreign policy. Of course, Barack Obama is a neo-con Democrat now, or is that redundant?
During the general election I called John McCain, Bush 3.0 (along with many Democrats) . Now Barack Obama is proving to be Bush 3.0 when it comes to foreign policy. This is yet more proof that there is only one party in America. Sure they call themselves Democrats and Republicans, but they argue over technicalities, and only represent the status-quo. There should be a new symbol for the party of the State, a donkey’s head with an elephant’s ass.
Liberty Maven
Loading ...
