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.
By now you’ve seen Ron Paul’s response to Lindsay Graham’s flippant response at a town hall meeting when Graham blurted out that he wouldn’t let Ron Paul “hijack the Republican Party”. Graham also said the GOP will not be “the party of angry white guys”.
He said he was going to “grow the party” yet he finished his comments with “if you don’t like it you can leave!” Yeah, that seems like a good way to grow the party Lindsey.
Paul is going about his business defending the Constitution and bringing the GOP to young American patriots through the Campaign For Liberty. Paul educates with his books like his most recent “End the Fed” and last year’s “The Revolution: A Manifesto“. Meanwhile neo-conservatives and strangers to logic like Graham attempt to grow the party by shouting down those that would support them if they had any principles at all.
It is this lack of integrity and principle on display right now. Graham is the worst of the lot. Integrity, honesty, and principle are the ideological fuel to grow the Republican Party. That is the fuel of Ron Paul. Utilizing the Lindsey Graham infested fuel has already been attempted and failed.
Last time I checked John McCain wasn’t the President of the U.S. Although he could certainly be described as an angry white guy. Hmmm… maybe that’s who Graham was talking about after all.
Ron Paul published a video answering the question, “What do you think about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Price?”
Ron covers many of the same points critics have made already, but he interestingly points out that the anti-war Left is AWOL now that Obama is in office. Projecting a bit into the future I’m curious what will become of these “Tea Partiers” if another big-government neo-conservative Republican wins the White House in 2012. Will they go AWOL too? I fear they will. Can we please, for the love of liberty, break this vicious cycle?
Partisanship is an evil drug and too many Republicans and Democrats are addicted. The Constitution was not created for convenience or whim. It was once the “supreme law of the land”, but now it really has become “just a god-damned piece of paper” for far too many people.
I saw a bumper sticker today that said, “I Love Sarah”. I assumed it meant Sarah Palin and not Sarah Jessica Parker, but I can’t be sure. Last month Palin was echoing Ron Paul on the role of the Federal Reserve in America’s economic crisis. I encouraged her (not that she gives one moose about what I think) to echo Ron Paul on foreign policy as well.
Yesterday it became quite clear that she was never in danger of becoming a foreign policy non-interventionist like Paul.
Palin published a note on her Facebook page Tuesday that encourages President Barack Obama to grant a request for the tens of thousands of additional troops reportedly requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country.
“Now is not the time for cold feet, second thoughts, or indecision,” Palin wrote on the site. “It is the time to act as commander-in-chief and approve the troops so clearly needed in Afghanistan.”
Noting the possible consequences of not helping to build up Afghanistan’s institutions, the former Alaska governor also wholeheartedly endorsed McChrystal’s counterinsurgency approach to continued U.S. military presence in the country.
“We can win in Afghanistan by helping the Afghans build a stable representative state able to defend itself. And we must do what it takes to prevail. The stakes are very high. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Afghanistan, and if we are not successful there, al Qaeda will once again find a safe haven, the Taliban will impose its cruelty on the Afghan people, and Pakistan will be less stable.”
She is just confirming that she never was and never will be a libertarian, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Don’t let the new designation (or Eric Dondero) fool you. The Palin-Cons are the same old Neo-Cons.
Liberty Maven
” and last year’s “
“. Meanwhile neo-conservatives and strangers to logic like Graham attempt to grow the party by shouting down those that would support them if they had any principles at all.
Loading ...
