A few weeks ago at CPAC, a Friday panel was assembled to answer the question: “Does security trump freedom?” Among the panelists were Robert “Skip” Ash, who teaches a course on “national security law” at Regent University, and also serves at the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) as their Senior Litigation Counsel for National Security Law. The deck was stacked beforehand: The ACLJ claims to be “focused on National Security issues and waging an effective and constitutional war on terrorism” (Constitutional? What Constitution?), and the debate moderator was Jay Sekulow, who serves as the organization’s Chief Counsel.
In his opening statements to the audience, Ash commented: “[The troops] also wonder why the President of the United States cannot bring himself to admit that the United States is in a long-term war with enemy jihadists, who seek to destroy us.” Several panelists, including the chief architect of the Patriot Act, went on to defend the Patriot Act as a set of wartime powers necessary to protecting freedom; as former Attorney General John Ashcroft had explained earlier in the day, “the purpose of security is to reinforce and enhance freedom.” Or, as George Orwell famously listed as a slogan of “the Party:” Freedom is Slavery.
To this, the short response is: If these “wartime powers” are so essential to maintain America’s national security and the freedoms of its citizens, why not declare a war? The heart of the matter, of course, runs much deeper. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in his New York Times bestseller, How Would A Patriot Act?, the goal is not to uphold or defend the Constitution at all, but rather to utilize fear to undermine it: Read More »
The wave of “Tea Party” activism and renewed interest in the Constitution in the wake of the 2008 elections has mostly been fueled by a rightfully-deserved fear of the tyranny and reckless disregard for the rule of law that the current administration has displayed. Attend a local Tea Party event and you’ll likely encounter healthy, much-needed discussions on the 10th Amendment rights of the state, the protection of the inherent rights of the individual via the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the unconstitutionality of wasteful federal programs, and even once-fringe talking points such as repealing the 17th Amendment.
Quite often, however, the Constitution is lost on many when the topic of discussion turns to foreign policy and the so-called “War on Terror.” At a recent GOP primary debate that I attended (sponsored by the local Tea Party), several candidates were asked about national security, the role of America’s foreign policy, and what to do about the rising threat of Iran. Despite drooling over their love of the Constitution for the rest of the evening, the candidates didn’t mention the founding document once in their responses to these issues. One of the candidates, in fact, could be quoted as saying “If Israel bombed Iran, I’d slap them on the back and buy them a drink.” Several other candidates pledged their allegiance to defending Israel at all costs. Another candidate responded that the goal of American foreign policy should be to “help nations” and to “pressure nations that do not comply.” All of these statements drew more cheers than boos from the crowd.
From whence springs this disconnect between so-called “constitutionalists” and their eagerness to abandon all mention of the Constitution as it relates to our world empire? Since the GOP establishment takeover of the national Tea Party – seems funny that the rugged individualism that the Tea Party movement represents would even have a national organization, doesn’t it? – it seems that most of the Tea Parties have devolved into throngs of Republican dissenters who only take issue when “the other guy” is the one shredding the Constitution, while using the Amendments, clauses, and Founders’ quotes that support their agenda.
Ron Paul handily won his primary in his district (14) in Texas yesterday. For the nit-pickers, I’m sorry for emphasizing that it is his primary and his district as if he owns it. However, when someone wins with more than 80% of the vote against 3 other candidates, it should rightly be called “his” district and “his” primary.
The results can be found here, but if you’d rather not click over there…
So the neo-conservatives that were angered at Ron Paul’s performance in the CPAC straw poll now have another election to whine about. Ben Bernanke was probably hoping for a Paul loss as well.
There’s still hope for the anti-Ron Paul contingent though. They can campaign for the Democrat to unseat Paul in the general election. To that I say, good luck!
I’ve seen many people incredulous that Ron Paul could somehow win the CPAC 2010 straw poll. I’ve seen it on Twitter, emails, blogs, and comments on blogs. I’ve read that people call him “crazy” or “liberal”. I even witnessed someone say they would vote for Hitler if he was running against Ron Paul. Yeah, and Ron Paul is the crazy one.
So if you believe Ron Paul is crazy on foreign policy I ask you to watch the following videos and learn why it’s quite possible Ron Paul is actually the sane and constitutional one on foreign policy.
If you don’t have 90 minutes to spare to watch both videos in their entirety then go to 16:55 of the 2nd video and just watch Jacob Hornberger’s speech. If you do have 90 minutes then please watch both parts in their entirety. This video is from last Saturday afternoon at CPAC 2010 from a panel discussion called, “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism”.
The panel is made up of:
Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer.
Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel whose assignments included duties as a Pentagon desk officer and a variety of roles for the National Security Agency.
Bruce Fein, associate deputy attorney general from 1981 to 1982 under President Ronald Reagan.
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.
Neo-conservatives like to use the expression “cut and run” when describing the Ron Paul-style non-interventionist desire to pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and close our many bases in other countries. If we embraced the “cut and run” strategy instead of the “surge” strategy we would already be well on our way to winning the so-called “War on Terror”. I use the words “on our way” to emphasize that such a war can never be won in the classic sense. There can only be varying levels of success.
The idea would be to trade in America’s my-gun-is-bigger-than-yours foreign policy for a more constitution-oriented, defense-focused effort. Sure, it would permit the terrorists to openly claim victory. So what? This is the kind of victory that, in the end, helps reduce terrorism. Once victorious, what is their recruiting incentive?
I know what you’re thinking: “But they hate us because we are free! They’ll just continue what they are doing!”
“They hate us because we are free” is the neo-conservative equivalent of the “truther” claim that “9/11 was an inside job”. Just because it becomes a convenient narrative for pundits on either side doesn’t necessarily make it true.
Last week there was a big stink made about some comments Ron Paul made to supporters at a Campaign For Liberty conference regarding the CIA. Glenn Beck decided he wanted to understand more about those comments so he had Ron Paul on to discuss them this morning.
You can hear the discussion below. I think this discussion shows that Ron Paul tends to use hyperbole (as many politicians do) when talking to a friendly crowd because at the end of this discussion it appears that Beck and Paul are closer together than they are far apart. Interesting listen…
Bear with me. This is going to be a long and random deluge of my thoughts on the state of politics in the USA as we begin the year 2010.
In 1773 it was Britain’s tea tax on the colonies that moved the American revolutionaries to protest by dumping tea into the Boston harbor. In late 2007 a tribute to that protest occurred on it’s 234th anniversary when $6.04 million was raised in a single day for Ron Paul’s Presidential campaign. In 2009 the Tea Party tribute reached some kind of critical mass with various protests all over America.
Did this happen because the U.S. citizens suddenly realized that their government no longer represented them? Or did this happen because they were just pissed that Barack Obama was elected President instead of Johnny “Maverick” McCain?
It’s important to look at the origins of this “movement”. It all goes back to Ron Paul, or rather, Ron Paul’s grassroots supporters. They were the nuts that commissioned a freakin’ blimp to fly up and down the east coast “advertising” their candidate. They were the nuts that littered America with signs (homemade and otherwise) in every city, town, and suburb. They were the nuts that organized following each debate to vote for their candidate in the post-debate text polls.
They were in your face and you either hated it, tolerated it, or loved it. No matter what your reaction, you can’t deny their dedication. I’m not sure I see that kind of dedication from the Tea Party movement yet. Even though they try to portray that they are angered at the growth of government, many seem to be dedicated to their dislike of Barack Obama and not much else. Bad-mouthing Bush now, comes off as merely lip-service or useless 20/20 hindsight.
Ron Paulers have been doing it since 2007 and are still doing it. The evidence is all around us. Ron Paul’s books are consistent best sellers. His Federal Reserve audit bill has 317 sponsors, including every House Republican and over 100 Democrats. That bill, in the form of an amendment, is contained within Barney Frank’s financial regulatory bill that passed the House and is now waiting for Senate action. Paul is omnipresent on main stream media outlets like CNN, FOX, and MSNBC. He’s a political celebrity that draws huge crowds for conferences and speaking engagements. Politicians seek endorsements from him. In a word, he is “hot” right now, politically speaking.
The best thing to conservatives was for Barack Obama to be elected President. It has galvanized and united many Republicans, libertarians, free market economists, and many independents disillusioned with America’s power elite. However, below the surface runs a very deep divide when it comes to foreign policy. This divide is between those like Ron Paul who support non-intervention and those that support our current policy, the Bush doctrine of preventive war.
Interestingly, this divide cannot be found between Democrats and Republicans. Fundamentally, both parties support the Bush doctrine of preventive war. They may disagree on the specifics of tertiary issues like which country to invade, but there is no difference on policy. This “invade or die” policy is the poison pill that will ultimately bring about our demise because we simply cannot afford it any longer. Perhaps it should be rephrased, “Invade and die… eventually.”
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.
A few minutes ago Ron Paul had his allotted 5 minutes to ask questions during a joint hearing regarding U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan. He used his time to fight for his own view on a non-interventionist foreign policy. He did so rather sarcastically. Then he questions the top 3 foreign policy makers in the U.S. (other than Obama) whether or not they believe in the “Bush Doctrine” of “preventive war”.
Unsurprisingly, they didn’t answer the question as Paul’s time ran out. Check it out below.
Liberty Maven
