The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations withdrones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has wagedan unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Read it all at Salon.com.

I don’t agree with a lot of what Herman Cain says, but I have to admit he has charisma that will give him a lot of support. Expect the other candidates to start attacking him if his poll numbers go up. I think they will.

Gary Johnson did very well with a few odd moments. If I’m looking at him through social-con or neo-con eyes voting for him would likely be impossible. He did come off as a very honest “make the hard choices” candidate. Sort of like Cain without the charisma.

Pawlenty seems to be channeling John McCain a bit too much and Santorum just comes off as angry. Both seem to be going after the George W. Bush voting block; however small that is these days.

Enjoy the entire debate below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK8Y2nO_8TM

Compare that interview with the rather hard-hitting tough journalistic interview Judge Andrew Napolitano did last night with The other Donald:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-cqq-WxhRM

And here is the Judge after the interview, saying that Rumsfeld described the interview as the “toughest” he’s had. I’m thinking he wishes he’d rather be asked if he’s a lizard by Louis CK than be interviewed by the Judge again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpYe0MgEsI0

Please take some time to watch video of the debate embedded below. It truly demonstrates the dividing line between non-intervention and intervention. Both Fein and Kuhner provide excellent arguments, however I feel that Fein missed an opportunity to point out a serious flaw in Kuhner’s interventionist logic.

First, Kuhner does not dispute and therefore admits Fein’s assertion that the war on terror is a perpetual war. Later, Kuhner cites putting the Japanese in interment camps during WWII was a necessary and temporary evil. He argues that during times of war we must be willing to sacrifice some of our liberties so that we can be more free down the road once the fighting is over.

Fein could have jumped on this point by asking Kuhner the following question:

If we are in a perpetual war aren’t the civil liberties sacrifices we are making also permanent?

Equating the war on terror with WWII is like saying Coca-cola and orange soda taste the same. I bet Kuhner and his interventionist peers would be unhappy if they ordered a Coke and were brought orange soda instead.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=60EDBA3CAFE9867F

First, his opening speech and questioning of Bernanke.

httpvp://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1085FB9C42A58EDF

And then, Paul’s floor speech against American assassinations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGktTws2bK0

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.
• Jacob Hornberger, Founder and President of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

CPAC 2010: “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 1″ from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

CPAC 2010: “Why Real Conservatives Are Against the War on Terrorism, Part 2″ from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.

We made our way to a panel discussion called “Saving Freedom: Defending the Constitution”. The panelists included Steve Bierfeldt of the Campaign For Liberty. Bierfeldt was the man who was detained by the TSA for carrying a “suspicious” amount of cash. He fought the TSA and they modified their policy. The discussion from all the panelists were interesting and educational.

Bob Levy of CATO used his time to make the distinction between a living breathing document, textualism, original intent, and strict constructionism as they apply to the Constitution. Bierfeldt gave an excellent speech that focused on historical abuses of the Constitution. This gave him an opportunity to bash Lincoln and plug Tom DiLorenzo’s work on the topic. He ended by discussing the abuses of power and the legal cover the Patriot Act provides.

The Q & A portion ended with a man holding up a Federal Reserve Note and asking if paper money is constitutional. All the panelists answered in the negative though one pointed out that there is ample Supreme Court precedent to block any kind of effort to repeal the federal legal tender laws.

After the session ended we went to the main room and listened to Michelle Bachman finish her speech. She was pretty good, mentioning the threats to our economic liberty, but she didn’t mention auditing the Federal Reserve, at least not while I was there. We then left and had lunch.

Later in the day walked into the main room to find some seats for Ron Paul’s keynote speech. There were no seats available except for a bunch of reserved seats on the far side of the room. We were able to talk to a coordinator and get him to open the reserved section for us and many others milling about looking for empty seats.

While this was going on the Young Americans for Freedom students were delivering their 2 minute speeches on freedom. Some fireworks ensued. For a bit of background, Alexander McCobin of the Students for Liberty gave the following two minute speech. He gets booed as he praises CPAC for allowing GOProud to sponsor the conference. You can’t tell from the video, but the loudest boos (and nearly the only ones) came from one man sitting on the panel right next to McCobin as he was speaking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVBQOoXXYLw

Later the man who booed McCobin the loudest, Ryan Sorba, author of “The Born Gay Hoax” took the podium for his anti-gay rant and for some unexplained reason chooses to call out Jeff Frazee, the head of the Young Americans for Liberty, an organization spawned from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. Frazee said he was just sitting there and suddenly Sorba chose to call him out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBlFflPOIg

I suppose Sorba assumed that members of Young Americans for Liberty in the audience were the ones booing and heckling him so he chose to attack Frazee. This kind of reminds me of our former president attacking Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11. How fitting.

Once all of this died down, it was time for Ron Paul. He’s not a great speaker, but his message did not disappoint. Yesterday I wrote how I thought the Campaign for Liberty was almost like a subversive organization at CPAC, but today Ron Paul proved that they belong and they are here to stay.

After Ron Paul brought the house down we had dinner. Mike had to rush home to attend to a personal matter. I stayed and went to Gary Johnson’s event. Mike Church and Tim Carney spoke first, then Johnson. Johnson is a subdued speaker, but he hits on all the important points. He made it known that he will not pander to the people by saying that we must cut medicare and legalize marijuana. It was a decent talk, but I think Johnson needs some work on his delivery and pace.

Following the talk I introduced myself to Matt Hawes of the Campaign for Liberty. We regularly exchange emails and it was nice to meet him face to face for the first time.

Tomorrow is the final day of CPAC 2010. I’ll be staying until the end so I’ll write another update tomorrow evening.

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.

Read Robert Pape, Michael Scheuer (former head of CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit), or Osama bin Laden himself to find out that the real motivation for Al-Qaeda is our persistent interventions in the Middle East.

Even if the “freedom hate” argument were true, is that hate deep enough to turn non-extremist Muslims into suicide bombers? Successful suicide bombers do not live very long. New recruits are always needed. It’s an infinitely easier path toward graduating from the University of Al-Qaeda with a degree in suicide bombing if the instructors can point to America as an occupier, torturer, and murderer. Without America’s presence Al-Qaeda leaders would have zero credibility if they attempted to paint America with such a brush. Continuing our interventions gives their leaders perfect suicide bomber recruit-fodder.

I find it sadly humorous that Obama gets criticized from the Right on foreign policy. They label him weak, yet he’s merely continuing the same policies that made Bush a hero to those very same people. Hypocrisy abounds. The original Tea Party was made up of patriots who protested an overseas intervention. Today the Tea Parties are over-run with a faction, commonly called “tea-ocons”, that supports America behaving like Britain did back in the 1770′s. These are flawed principles unworthy of the Tea Party moniker.

Many people who oppose government-run health care love to point out how government is inept at everything it does. You’ll get no argument from me on that, but if that is true then why do many of these people also believe that the government can be successful in bullying the world toward freedom? It’s an absurd notion. To win the “War on Terror” we must withdraw and call it a tactic for victory rather than a strategy for admitting defeat.

Once the bully’s gun rises, liberty becomes impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QOrswe9Y44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcrm_awaO0E

Quote of the Day: “Stare into the abyss and the abyss stares into you.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

* Waterboarding and sleep deprivation turned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) into the C.I.A.’s best source on Al-Qaida.
* KSM then provided information that led to the arrest of Iyman Faris, an alleged Al-Qaida sleeper agent sent to the U.S. to plan attacks on New York landmarks such as the Brooklyn Bridge.

However, the New York Times (and many other sources) report that the men who interrogated KSM tell a different story…

* The C.I.A. officer who interrogated KSM, Deuce Martinez, said he used traditional interrogation methods, and not the infliction of pain and panic.
* And Ali Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who oversaw the interrogation of another major terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, says that Mr. Zubaydah talked before he was subjected to waterboarding and other abuse, and that “using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions.”

Whom should we believe — Mr. Cheney, or the agents who did the interrogations? The answer seems obvious. However, we believe there’s an even greater argument from principle to be made here. Even if torture were the most effective and reliable interrogation method possible, it would still be wrong to use it, both morally and practically.

* We must not become that which we claim to oppose.
* We must set an example for the world of how people should behave.
* And we must count all the costs and risks to which we subject ourselves when we violate our own most sacred values.

The whole world now knows that the supposed “land of the free and home of the brave” . . .

* Kidnaps people and sends them abroad to be tortured
* Holds people in captivity without due process
* Practices acts of torture for which it has prosecuted others
* Does not practice what it preaches

Our hypocrisy has undoubtedly recruited far more terrorist candidates than have ever been caught by using torture. The Cheney-Bush policy was, and is, self-defeating, even if it could really be demonstrated that torture occasionally results in useful information. Sadly . . .

Even though President Obama promised us change, we haven’t seen much in the way of meaningful change. The new policy of ”Indefinite Detentions” is actually worse than before.

We here at DownsizeDC.org want to see our country once again become “the land of free and the home of the brave.” Toward that end we’ve promoted our “I Am Not Afraid” campaign, through which we, as individuals, win our own personal war on terror instantly, simply by NOT giving the terrorists the fear they seek to provoke in us.

We are not afraid. How about you?

But for this lack of fear to have the most meaning we must also urge our supposed representatives to not be afraid on our behalf, and to reverse all policies that demonstrate fear. If you agree with our stance then we urge you to send an “I Am Not Afraid” message to Congress. Here’s what the message says…

“I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid.”

Here are the personal comments I added to this message in the letter I just sent to my representatives: “I was promised change, but there has been no change. Please repeal all the un-constitutional elements of Bush’s war on terror, or I will start calling it the Bush-Obama war on terror instead.”

You can send your own personalized, I Am Not Afraid letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see how fast your Army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

Your Downsize DC Army grew by 61 net new members yesterday. This brings our total growth for the year to 3,777. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 28,126, nearly 13% of the way between 28,000 and 29,000.

YOU can make the army KEEP GROWING by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

We can also grow faster by spreading the word through the media. Please help us do this by starting a monthly credit card pledge — it can be as low as $5 a month (which is just 17 cents per day). You can start your pledge using our secure online contribution form.

Please let us know if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW MONTHLY PLEDGERS IN SEPTEMBER: Jim Lorenz, Chelsea Moller, 2 unlisted — (4 new pledgers total) PLEDGERS FROM AUGUST: Glen Ihrig, Gary J Leidy, David Bergland, Gary T Gorski, Don J Crites, 8 unlisted — (13 new pledgers total)

Or, you could make a one-time donation. Please let us know on our secure contribution form if its okay to advertise your support here:

NEW ONE TIME DONORS IN SEPTEMBER: Nathan Bailey, 1 unlisted — (2 new donations total) DONORS FROM AUGUST: Sharon Mears, John Matthews, Patricia Barnum, Brian Travis, Sarah Franke, Dirk Doebereiner, James Wahler, Meredith Weaver, Stephen Moffett, Matthew Whitlock, Dan Litwin, Russell Kominski, Veronica Arnold, Michael Bayback, Ann & Todd Secoy (in memory of Julia Bitner), James Marranca, Kay Samalin, David Hyatt, Douglas Steinschneider, Lily Riker, Nicholas C. Beason, Mr. Marlin, Edward J. Krieger, Lynnette Thompson, 17 unlisted — (41 donations total)

If a tax deduction is important you can get one by contributing to the educational outreach efforts of the Downsize DC Foundation. Contribute at the Foundation’s secure contribution form.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation