Random Observations On 2012

RON PAUL'S supporters are often unfairly accused of disregarding electability. The truth is that electability matters greatly to us, but only if we have multiple candidates to choose from. Many of us are unwilling to support RINOs and known liars who

• have shown a willingness to tailor their message to the audience (and thus cannot be trusted to follow through on anything they claim to believe in),
• have embraced bigger, more intrusive government as the preferred solution to a host of social and economic ills,
• supported a government mandate to force Americans to purchase health insurance,
• eagerly look forward to sending more American soldiers into harm's way while having never served in the military themselves, and
• view the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution as bothersome details to be skirted by fair means or foul.

For us, there is only one choice. Every one of these statements applies to every Republican presidential candidate left in the race, except for Ron Paul.
If electability trumps principle so completely that these facts shouldn't matter, then what is the real purpose of this election? It would seem that Albert Nock was right when he wrote in 1936 that elections had become merely "a contest for control and management" of an ever-expanding bureaucratic apparatus and the power it afforded. Is this election about whose turn it is to run the big government, or is it about limiting the federal government?

ON THAT note, here's a thought for those of you who claim to believe in "small" government as opposed to "big" government. What makes government big: the price tag or the level of involvement in people's affairs? The Tea Party movement has rightly called much attention to the insanity of our government consistently spending more than its revenues. It has also argued effectively for the economic benefits of keeping money in the private sector where it can be used productively rather than destructively. But the election results so far indicate that many conservatives are willing to settle for promises of a more efficient government in lieu of a more limited one.
I submit that government is not made smaller by reducing spending, but by repealing excessive and unjust laws and regulations. A government which more efficiently intrudes itself into the affairs of individuals, families, businesses and foreign nations does not appeal to me.

DONATIONS from active duty military personnel to Ron Paul''s campaign in the last quarter totaled six times the amount given to all other Republican presidential candidates combined. Not bad for the one candidate who isn't afraid to criticize the unjust wars these men and women are being called on to wage. Come to think of it, maybe there's even a connection.



YOUNG VOTERS have overwhelmingly backed Ron Paul in the election thus far. Conventional wisdom (or its modern substitute) looks to youthful rebellion as the explanation. There's probably a bit of that, but as one who has rubbed shoulders with more Ron Paul supporters than most media pundits even know about, I think there's a more relevant explanation. Americans who are thirty and under, for the most part, are skeptical of the federal government's ability to deliver on the absurd promises our grandparents extorted from it. Many of us view entitlement programs as somewhere between a Ponzi scheme and a bad joke, rather than hallowed symbols of the American Way. We tend to be equally skeptical of the idea that the rest of the world longs to be liberated and democratized by an overwhelming application of military force, and perhaps less inclined to oblige even if such a desire exists. This is understandable, considering that we hope to inherit whatever is left of our country when the baby boomers are finished looting it.



DR. PAUL is often criticized for not promising to endorse the eventual nominee, whoever that is. Some GOP elites are on record saying that he should be thrown out of the party for his unwillingness to make such a commitment. Does anyone really think that any of these hypocrites would endorse Dr. Paul if he were the nominee? I didn't think so. Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich, among others , have indicated that they would vote for Obama rather than Paul. Hmmm.



AT THE RISK of sounding a bit conspiratorial, I can't help noting that:

• Ron Paul is the only candidate whose percentages in every caucus and primary, without a single exception, have gone down as the total percentage of votes reported goes up;
• Ron Paul was close to winning Iowa and close to second in Nevada;
• For the first time in history, Iowa's vote count was moved to a secret location;
• Iowa and Nevada both claim to be unable to report a precise count;
• Both caucuses were handled so badly (whether intentionally or not) that the Iowa GOP chair and the Nevada GOP chair both resigned afterward.

I'm just saying.

Ron Paul, Foreign Policy and the Military

Probably the most common objection to Dr. Ron Paul heard from conservative voters is the well-worn line: “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” This isn’t because the typical Republican voter agrees with the current Bush-Clinton-Obama foreign policy: a November CBS News poll found nearly three-fourths of Republicans believe “the U.S. should not try to change dictatorships to democracies…” More likely, it is because they hear the same drivel incessantly repeated by people they have been accustomed to respect. A delusional Dick Morris, speaking on the O’Reilly Factor, recently claimed that Ron Paul is a “left-wing radical” who “wants to dismantle the military” and “blame[s] America for 9/11.” Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann called his foreign policy ideas “dangerous,” while Newt Gingrich pompously announced that “Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

Really?

Perhaps we should clarify that “Ron Paul’s views” aren’t just random gleanings from the Huffington Post. Unlike Santorum, whose chief foreign policy adviser might as well be Toby Keith, Ron Paul is one of the most well-informed people in the beltway when it comes to the Middle East, its history and America’s involvement there. Even if you don’t agree with his conclusions, you can’t help noticing the depth of his knowledge when he warms up to this subject. His thorough historical studies and his own observations over the last 35 years form a solid basis for understanding world events. His advisers have included Michael Scheuer, a 22 year CIA veteran who spent over 17 years focused exclusively on Bin Laden- and Al Qaeda-related intelligence analysis, and who for some time headed the “Bin Laden desk” at the CIA, and Philip Giraldi, a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and contributing editor for The American Conservative. His foreign policy views are more or less those of George Washington, Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, Sen. Robert Taft, Russell Kirk – even William F. Buckley’s views on foreign policy come closer to Ron Paul’s than those of any other current presidential candidate. With that said, let’s take a closer look at these “extreme” views.

Ron Paul’s budget calls for cutting defense spending back to 2006 levels. That’s right, the same spending levels we had four years into the so-called War on Terror and three years into the Iraq War. If that were done, our defense budget would only amount to 35-40% of the entire world’s military spending, approximately equal to the next ten countries combined (Russia, China, UK, France, etc.). It is beyond difficult to imagine that Dick Morris is unaware of this fact, so he must be either nuts or disingenuous.

On “blaming America for 9/11,” Paul has merely pointed out that our policies and actions in the Middle East have – predictably - caused an extreme backlash among Muslims, of which 9/11 was a result. To the neocon hawks who measure the strength of America’s defenses by the number of bombs we drop in a given week, this view may sound extreme and radical. It is shared, however, by the previously mentioned left-wing radicals – sorry, I meant intelligence experts - Scheuer and Giraldi. It is also the view expressed by the 9-11 Commission and by many of the counter-terrorism experts who testified during its investigation. Even more relevant to the absurd claims of Dick Morris is the prediction conservative icon Russell Kirk delivered back in 1991 in a speech to the Heritage Foundation. Speaking of the Gulf War and the policies pursued by the first President Bush, Kirk warned that “We must expect to suffer during a very long period of widespread hostility toward the United States — even, or perhaps especially, from the people of certain states that America bribed or bullied into combining against Iraq. In Egypt, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Algeria, in Morocco, in all of the world of Islam, the masses now regard the United States as their arrogant adversary …”

Those of us who have admired Ron Paul for years were entirely unsurprised to hear him say that 9/11 reflected a backlash to American policies. After all, he had called for President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998 after the Sudan and Iraq bombings, noting that “our national security is jeopardized by allowing this to happen… We’re liable to have more attacks … by terrorists. ” Many Republicans agreed with him at the time. Prior to September 2001, Dr. Paul had repeatedly predicted that the arrogant course we pursued since the 1950s in the Middle East would lead to increasingly deadly terrorist attacks. His warnings were largely ignored, but given the accuracy of his predictions, those who ignored them should not be astonished that he still maintains the same views.

Speaking to Sean Hannity back in October, Rick Santorum credited Ron Paul with extensive experience and a “deep” understanding of foreign policy issues; and, while noting that he and Paul had “different viewpoints,” added that “when the phone rings at three in the morning” Paul would likely know the history and the characters and have a plan to handle the situation. But last week he called Paul “dangerous,” falsely accusing him of saying that a nuclear Iran is not a threat to Israel. Actually, Paul has said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a credible threat to America, and that Israel has both the right and the capability to respond should they determine that Iran poses a risk to them.

A little known fact bears mentioning here: when Israel bombed two Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, the United States Congress passed an almost unanimous resolution condemning Israel’s actions as reckless and unjustified. I said almost unanimous – Ron Paul was the only vote against the resolution. He opposed it on the grounds that Israel had a right to defend itself and that America should stay out of their affairs unless our involvement was requested.

Santorum also recently attacked Paul’s assertion that military aid to Pakistan is not in America’s best interest, arguing that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, America has no choice but to buy Pakistan’s allegiance, whatever it takes. There is a lesson here if one can get past the embarrassment of a presidential candidate making such a cowardly argument in public. Maybe Rick doesn’t realize this, but if he is smart enough to make the connection between Pakistan’s nukes and the billions of dollars their political and military leaders siphon away from American workers, you can bet the Iranians are too. As Dr. Paul has pointed out before, we talked Gaddafi out of his nuclear ambitions and then turned on him. Bomb = aid; no bomb = lots of bombs dumped on you; what possible motivation have we left Iran for abandoning a nuclear weapons program, if indeed they have one?

But Newt Gingrich stands out in the lineup of Paul bashers. His sweeping, all-inclusive, and arrogant attacks are earning him the disrespect of many, if not most, Americans. Imagine that you are a soldier in Afghanistan, or a sailor in the Persian Gulf, and a Ron Paul supporter. You’ve gone beyond merely supporting him; you’ve given a chunk of your shamefully low combat pay to his campaign. You’ve made this sacrifice, along with thousands of your fellow fighting men and women, precisely because of Paul’s views on foreign policy. You know why active duty military personnel are far and away the largest group (by employer) among his supporters. You know why he has received more in donations from military men and women than all the other GOP candidates combined. You are living the war on terror; your life is on the line every day; you’ve seen firsthand how the effort to win hearts and minds in the Middle East really works; and you believe Ron Paul is right when he says we are less safe because of our military adventurism. Now a narcissistic career politician and lobbyist who studiously avoided military service in Viet Nam declares those views - your views – to be “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.” How exactly does that feel?

Which brings to mind one thing I really don’t like about Ron Paul: he is way too kind to Gingrich and his ilk. He tends to stick to his own argument even when seemingly irresistible opportunities present themselves for showing up windbags like Newt. He did finally call Newt out as a chickenhawk last Saturday night, which brought an angry reaction from the former Speaker: he denied using college deferments to avoid the draft, claiming that he was married with a child and thus wouldn’t have been eligible anyway. To which Paul responded icily, “When I was drafted, I was married and had two kids, and I went.”

And one more thing for the record, Newt: he’s still married.

_______________________________________________

Here's a great article by John Nichols on why Ron Paul isn’t just a conservative, he’s the only conservative running for President this election cycle:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Ron Paul, Slander and Christian Libertarianism

As a Christian, I constantly get emails from moral majority types who think they believe in freedom, but have encountered the shocking idea that freedom might actually allow others to behave in ways that are ultimately wrong. And as a vocal supporter of Ron Paul, I get a lot of unsolicited information regarding his views on individual liberty from well-meaning folks who imagine I don't know what those views are. I generally ignore this stuff unless the sender is a personal friend, in which case I try to explain why I agree with Dr. Paul (which I do, most of the time).

Yesterday, however, I received a particularly low assault on Dr. Paul's candidacy, one which had evidently been circulated widely before reaching me. I was particularly upset because it was forwarded by a fellow Paul supporter who seemed a bit shaken by the allegations it contained. What follows is my response. I hesitated to post it here but ultimately decided it might be helpful to someone, so here goes. I removed the name of the individual who apparently originated the email, partly out of courtesy and partly to deny his blog the unmerited attention it might receive as a result.

I should point out that I don't go far into my own positions in this response - it is pretty narrow and focused in scope. I was simply answering the charges made in the email. On some issues I'm not so libertarian-leaning as Dr. Paul, and on others (like immigration) I might be even more libertarian than he is. But that's irrelevant to this post.

---

This is absolutely shameful. I don’t have time to respond but this is too slanderous and deceptive to ignore. Point by point:

1. Denies that God says homosexuality is a sin.

The link is to an interview with a particularly obtuse John Lofton, who consistently refuses to get the very important point Dr. Paul repeatedly makes about sin and military service. He does not deny that God says it is sin, but he does not admit it either. He’s wrong about that. But why don’t the hypocrites that slam him for his hesitation also slam Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Barry Goldwater, and the majority of other Republican candidates who won’t call homosexuality a sin either?

2. Supports open homosexuals in the military and repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

Another link to the same interview, but this statement is absolutely a lie. Paul clearly says in the interview that he does support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” – a policy similar to George Washington’s approach 2 centuries ago.

3. Supports the “freedom philosophy” of legalizing cocaine, heroin, marijuana and all other hard drugs. “Government has no role or authority in regulating drugs.”

The federal government has no role in , or authority to, regulate drugs. Anyone who reads the Constitution knows that. Some, however, would prefer to slander a man who has done more for this country than they ever will, rather than admit that their own pet issues are beyond the legitimate purview of any government. I wonder if D___ would support a United Nations initiative to prosecute drug dealers and users globally? To be consistent he would have to.

4. Supports legalization of pornography and prostitution.

I didn’t follow this link because it’s youtube and I don’t want to know what else might be there. But this is another false statement because it ignores the difference in federal and state government.

5. Supports right of homosexuals to marry one another. i.e. “gay marriage.” (“Gay couples can do whatever they want.”)

Also not true. Dr. Paul rightly says that in the absence of a federal marriage amendment, marriage is a state issue. Again, how about a global ban on gay marriage?

6. Is “pro-choice for states” on abortion. Individual states should be able to legalize abortion if they so choose. All pre-born babies don’t possess a God given right to their own lives which no individual state may ever violate.

I’m trying to stay calm. Really.

This links to a hit piece by prolifeprofiles.com which is so slanderous and transparently dishonest it seems beneath even the national prolife lobbying profession, which is saying a lot. I simply can’t take the time to dissect it, but anyone interested in the truth should be able to see through much of it just by reading it carefully. Those not interested in the truth can keep reading D___ .

7. Supported abortion legislation regulations which have resulted in 7.4 million chemical and surgical abortions since taking office in 1997 in Congress.

Still trying to stay calm, but failing. This links to the same hit piece, but restates the most profoundly evil of their claims, which is that since 7.4 million abortions have been committed since Paul last took office in states where abortion might remain legal even if his Sanctity Of Life Act were made law, he is somehow responsible for allowing those abortions. Are we to hold those allegedly pro-life legislators who oppose the Sanctity Of Life Act to the same standard? Are they responsible for all the abortions that have taken place in states which might have outlawed or restricted abortions if Roe v. Wade were nullified? Of course, exceptions.com isn’t interested in telling us those numbers.

8. Doesn’t believe it’s government’s role to “legislate morality” even though all laws are based on morality.

Watch the clip. He is absolutely right. The most totalitarian of Christian conservatives still thinks government shouldn’t legislate morality in the areas where they are immoral. Of course all legitimate law is based on morality, but that isn’t the only criteria or we would all be criminals before the civil law, as we are before the Creator and His Law. This gets back to the point Lofton doggedly refused to acknowledge in the very interesting interview linked earlier. The so-called “Christian right” loves to dwell ad nauseum on a very few sins, while ignoring or even promoting others just as evil. Unlike Ron Paul, I won’t hesitate to agree that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination, and a shameful blot on the face of our society. But unlike D___ and the myopic brand of “Christian” politics he represents, I also believe that lying, back-biting and slander are equally shameful, abominable sins.

What makes me want to cry is that people can tear down the most pro-life candidate in the race, a stand-out beacon of decency, honesty and integrity in the cesspool that is our federal capitol, because they can’t stand the thought that their beloved leviathan of a federal government might be somehow restrained by the Constitution from instituting heaven on earth, something we can all see is just about to become a reality. They treat the one candidate with no skeletons in his closet, no improprieties in his personal life, and no stains on his honor, as if he were a first-degree pervert because he doesn’t recognize the federal government’s jurisdiction in the bedroom. Yet these same people care nothing for the slaughter of 40,000 Mexicans in less than five years by the drug lords they have created and sustained. They support the torture of their fellow men by an out-of-control military and intelligence sector with no oversight, no protection for the innocent or justice for the guilty, and justify it all with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred in the history of the world. They dismiss with contempt the deaths of more than 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan because it feels good after 9/11, and they lash out in rage when a soldier exposes to them and the world an example of how those deaths occur. (Bradley Manning and Julian Assange shone a light on a world of iniquity beyond most American’s comprehension, but the average “Christian” conservative I meet knows far more about their personal sexual sins than the cruelty, violence and fraud they exposed.) Like Jonah, they hope and pray for the destruction of “Israel’s” enemies rather than the triumph of the gospel of Jesus Christ over the false religions that keep Jews and Muslims alike in bondage. They are a worse blot than homosexuals, because they dishonor not only the society in which they live, but their Lord and Savior.

Maybe we need to be reminded that there are other sins besides homosexuality:

Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I read that list and thank God with fear and trembling for His forgiveness and long-suffering. I don’t feel that I’m in a position to focus on other people’s sins. There is plenty of guilt to go around. That doesn’t mean I think other people’s sins are ok, just that when I hear others calling for the state to legislate morality, I wonder where they find a definition of morality that they would want the state to judge them by? If the legitimate authority of the state is not limited to those areas where one’s immorality violates another’s rights, then where is the limit?

Guantanamo, Torture and Due Process

Of all the political positions that tend to be arbitrarily labeled "right-wing" or "conservative" by the mindless mainstream these days, support for "Club Gitmo" (and the detention and intelligence gathering systems it has come to represent) is surely one of the most inexplicable, not to say inexcusable. While many self described libertarians (including those of us in the GOP) are well aware that there is anything but unanimity in the military and intelligence communities on the Guantanamo issue, most rank and file conservative Republicans view opposition to this government's handling of terror "suspects" as disloyalty bordering on treason.

Even on the issue of torture (now euphemistically called "enhanced interrogation techniques), those relatively few conservatives who do not embrace its alleged usefulness still tend to rely on arguments that skirt the real problem. I recently heard a sermon delivered by a PCA minister for whom I have great respect to a group of military personnel and their families, in which he objected to torture on the grounds that it dehumanizes those who engage in it and lowers "us" to "their" level - they, of course, meaning terrorists. Essentially, he argued that torture is immoral and "isn't us" - therefore we should not rely on it.

This is true, of course: torture, like indefinite detention and war in general, brings out and fosters the worst in human nature. But rejecting torture solely on such grounds fails to address the other fundamental problems with coercive interrogation. One of those problems is that torture and other forms of coercive interrogation have been extremely effective throughout history at producing false confessions, but not accurate intelligence. There is an important difference between inducing a suspect to talk and inducing him to be honest, and the more intense the pressure to talk becomes, the more likely the suspect is to say what he thinks will relieve the pressure.

Significantly, many of the torture methods employed by this and the last administrations in the "war on terror" were borrowed from the military's SERE training program. SERE was developed during the Cold War to prepare American aviators for the treatment they would likely suffer if captured by a Communist military. The interrogation techniques used during SERE training, including waterboarding, smoke inhalation, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, and other cruel and humiliating treatments, were all known methods of interrogation used by the Soviets and their allies. What should be painfully obvious to anyone familiar with the interrogation of captured Americans during the Korean and Vietnam wars is that these methods were used primarily for the purpose of extorting false confessions. While pilots like Red McDaniel and John McCain were also questioned regarding intelligence and technology, the primary focus of their interrogations was to get them to admit to war crimes. And while little useful intelligence was ever gained by the torture of American pilots in Vietnam, many false confessions were obtained and circulated around the world.

Similarly, during the Iranian hostage crisis, some of the American hostages were subjected to much milder forms of coercive interrogation, and while their treatment was not nearly as harsh as the standards adopted by the Bush administration and continued under Obama, it nevertheless resulted in several false confessions. One hostage famously confessed to being "in charge of wheat mold," leading the gullible students questioning him to announce to the world details of an American plot to starve Iranian families by molding the bread in their cupboards.

The problem of false confessions leads us to what I believe is the central problem with our entire approach to the detention and interrogation of terror suspects. When libertarians argue that terrorists should be tried in the criminal court system like other criminals, the usual objection is that as foreign "enemy combatants," they aren't entitled to the legal protections and due process of the American judicial system. The idea seems to be that, unlike rapists, murderers, mob hit men and other privileged persons, the terrorist doesn't deserve due process. He's evil, so we should just take him out with a drone, but sometimes we capture him so we can talk to him first. In either case, he has no rights, so it doesn't matter what we do with him.

As any thinking person will observe, this line of argument takes for granted that the detainee is a terrorist. There is not the slightest allowance for the possibility that he may be an innocent individual. He was picked up on the battlefield, right? No chance of a mistake there. One is left to wonder why there should be any trial at all?

This is the fundamental misunderstanding of most conservatives. The legal protections we call due process are not there because criminals of any sort deserve them; they are there because innocent people deserve them. They are not designed to clog the legal system and to slow the wheels of justice; they are designed to make sure that justice is indeed served. The tragedy of Guantanamo is not that would-be terrorists are locked up there, but that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the majority of our fellow creatures who are locked up there really are would-be terrorists.

Hammers And Nails: Getting Things Done

With Republicans taking control of the House for the next two years, a tired old template for debate inside the beltway has been rediscovered: it's now time to put aside the rhetoric and partisanship and focus on getting things done for the American people. New polls assure lawmakers that a majority of Americans want compromise for the sake of "progress" (a helpfully vague ideal that is almost never given a definite meaning). This concept is nothing new: principled legislators like Ron "Dr. No" Paul or Pennsylvania's Sam Rohrer are often criticized for their failure to "get things done" - usually defined as authoring legislation which will ultimately become law. As with most political debate, the underlying question (what are legislators for?) is never asked unless in a rhetorical sense; the assumption is nearly always that the legislator's first responsibility is to come up with additional laws.

There's an old proverb that applies here: to a man with nothing but a hammer everything looks like a nail. Lawmakers are always happy to indulge, even when the public really doesn't want them to. As early as 1834, a profligate Congress drew this rebuke from William Leggett in the New York Evening Post:

"One of the great practical evils of our system arises from a superabundance of legislation. ... Putting the acts of Congress and those of the State legislature together, they amount to some thousands annually. Is it possible that the good people of the United States require to be hampered and pestered by such a multiplicity of fetters as this: or that they cannot be kept in order without being manacled every year by new laws and regulations? Every superfluous law is a wanton and unnecessary innovation of the [people's] freedom of action... [yet our] legislative bodies have been regularly and systematically employed in frittering away, under a thousand pretenses, the whole fabric of the reserved rights of the people."

Good thing our great-grandparents put a stop to that. Imagine what our country would look like if Congress and the Pennsylvania General Assembly still enacted "some thousands of new laws annually."

Oh wait - they still do that.

The most overlooked consequence of nearly all legislation today is, embarrassingly, its primary purpose. Generally speaking, a new law means a new crime. It is precisely for this reason that unnecessary laws are so destructive to freedom and economic growth. Whether a law's purpose is to ban a substance, levy a tax, create a license, or impose a reporting requirement, it has invented a new crime where none existed before. This is not to say that laws are bad, only that unnecessary laws are bad.

I'd like to suggest that legislators aren't elected to make laws. Their responsibility is to see that only good and necessary laws are made. If no new laws are needed, then their responsibility is to prevent bad laws from being made (obstructionism, if you please). If bad laws have already been made, then their responsibility is to undo them.

Is there any doubt that this last is the situation we find ourselves in today? Almost everyone, regardless of their political opinions, thinks that we have bad laws on the books. But when the political class is confronted with the problems caused by their collective OCD, they don't undo anything, they just do more of it. It's time for that to change. The American voters took the legislative hammer away from a significant number of politicians on November 2nd; now we need to keep the pressure on those replacing them to start pulling nails instead of driving more. And instead of cringing in fear when others label us "the party of no," why don't we remind them that a "no" to the Nanny State is a "yes" to freedom, not just for Republicans, but for all Americans?

From Mao To Hitler; The Full Political Spectrum?

Yes, I'm still alive.

I was asked to speak about Patrick Henry at the 19th annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet earlier this week, in recognition of the 275th anniversary of his birth next year. The following is the last half of my remarks, which address the subject of empire-building, something that has generated a good bit of reaction here in the past. The first half covered the history and context of Henry's public life up to the Revolutionary War. I begin below with the debate over the Constitution.

___________________________________________

We don’t have time to dwell on Henry’s time in the Governor’s Mansion and the Assembly during and after the war – I want to jump ahead thirteen years to June, 1788. The Constitutional Convention had been held in Philadelphia the year before, for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. They had concluded that the Articles were past amending and instead produced an entirely new constitution, which was sent to the states to be ratified or rejected.

Henry thought it should be rejected.

He had many objections, but they all boiled down to centralization of power. Henry was convinced that America could not remain free with the triple powers of trade regulation, taxation and defense all consolidated under the federal government. He believed that the framers of the constitution had lost sight of essential liberties in their desire to see America become great.

Now, history has proven many of Henry’s objections to have been groundless, and, with the benefit of hindsight, I do not agree with him that the Federal Constitution was a dangerous step toward tyranny. But the truth is, if Henry had not objected to the constitution as it stood we would, most likely, have no Bill of Rights today. What is more, while Henry (I believe) underestimated the value of the various checks and balances that were built into the federal Constitution, on this point at least his words seem eerily prophetic when read today. He returned again and again throughout twenty-three days of debate in the Virginia Convention to this question of empire vs. liberty.

“I own, sir,” he said, “I am not free from suspicion. I am apt to entertain doubts… You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government. … Sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good. … Guard with jealous attention the public liberty! Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel!”

“The American spirit,” he went on, “has fled from hence: it has gone to regions where it has never been expected; it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government—a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a simple to a splendid government? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government—for the loss of their liberty? If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great, splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: liberty, sir, was then the primary object.

“We are descended from a people whose government was founded on liberty: our forefathers of Great Britain made liberty the foundation of every thing. That country is become a great, mighty, and splendid nation; not because their government is strong and energetic, but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. …

"But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects. …. No matter whether the people be great, splendid, and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish Grand Signior, alongside of our President, would put us to disgrace; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, when our citizens have been put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege.”

Henry’s opposition to the constitution barely failed to prevent its ratification; but his influence was enough to ensure that a list of amendments was sent to the first Congress from the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He also successfully nominated two opponents of the Constitution to the first United States Senate. Their election convinced James Madison, one of the leading Federalists, that concessions would have to be made if the new government was to succeed, and he agreed to support the proposed amendments in Congress. He did so ably and successfully, thereby earning the popular title “Father of the Bill of Rights,” which rightly belongs to Henry, if to anyone.

That brings us around to the reason we are celebrating here tonight. But I can’t bring myself to leave it there without asking the million dollar question: have the past two hundred and nineteen years validated Henry’s fear that Americans would lose sight of liberty in the pursuit of national greatness?

The value of history is only what we learn from it. Perhaps every one of us here tonight would agree that we have indeed lost much of the freedom our forefathers enjoyed. Probably not so many would agree with Patrick Henry that our liberty has fallen a victim to our pursuit of greatness and empire. But I do. In fact, I believe that, not a belligerent minority, not even fifty percent, but the vast majority of Americans are complicit – unintentionally, perhaps – but complicit none the less, in the loss of that freedom; or perhaps I should say complicit in the growth and centralization of government power, which is the same thing.

It has been common, especially leading up to last month’s election, to hear “liberals” blamed for the growth of government; and not without cause. People who describe themselves as “liberals” tend to be open about their view that government is good, and they readily acknowledge that they support more of it. People who describe themselves as “conservative,” on the other hand, tend to have at least a vague idea that big government, on the whole, is a bad thing for society. Unfortunately, this idea is usually not clear enough to serve any purpose. While there are probably countless reasons for this lack of clarity, the one that seems most obvious to me is the box in which we are all expected to think. You know, tyranny imposed through a democratic process is often the worst possible kind of tyranny, because it requires control over the mind of the electorate. And I’m not talking about some high-tech, top-secret government mind control program. The most effective way to control the outcome of a debate is to control the framework of the debate, and the great American experiment has shown, among other things, that such control is both achievable and effective. So in the spirit of Patrick Henry, let’s think for a minute about the box.

And please understand, if I am particularly hard on conservatives, it’s because I am a conservative Republican talking to a room mostly full of conservative Republicans. Fair enough?

What do the words “conservative” and “liberal” mean? Why is conservative politics a good thing and conservative Islam a bad thing? Why is economic liberalism an essential ingredient of a free society while political liberalism is a threat to a free society? Properly defined, political conservatism really just means a philosophical support for tradition or the established order of things – you could almost define it as a strict adherence to what is. Political liberalism is a philosophy of progress or change – not to put too fine a point on it, an affinity for what isn’t.

What I’m driving at is that the terms “conservative” and “liberal” only have real meaning when they refer to a standard. When we lose sight of that standard we get confused and end up rooting for Team A or Team B without asking why the goals are on the same side of the field. If the standard is that liberty with which all men are endowed by their Creator, I’m conservative. If the standard is the Constitution I’m conservative. If it’s anything else I’m not playing. But if we can agree that the Constitution is indeed the standard, then much of the popular conservative agenda today doesn’t look conservative anymore.

I can hear somebody say “Enough with the dictionary. When we say liberal or conservative we know what we mean!” Really? Do we really? Ask a certain popular radio host to define conservative and he’ll probably say something about lower taxes and not talking to rogue dictators without preconditions. To confuse matters even further, we have come to use “right” and “left” interchangeably with conservative and liberal. You talk about a box! We think in terms of a political spectrum that runs from Mao to Hitler.

As if there is a difference.

That strikes me as being like a medical practice that offers a full range of family health services, from euthanasia to assisted suicide.

Seriously, how did we accept this fraud? Between Mao and Hitler, where do you want to be? You say, “Well, I guess in the middle. Get as far from either end as I can.” That’s exactly what you’re supposed to say, because the center is engineered to be where your elitist leaders want you. And if you dare move away from the center they can call you names. “Socialist,” or “Fascist,” depending on which way you go.

Our political dialogue is like the emperor’s new clothes; we’re supposed to be so intimidated by the experts that we never call the game what it is. This kind of thinking is how we end up with ObamaCare being socialized medicine while RomneyCare is innovation and leadership. It is why the same party that brought us the TSA, MediCare Part D, the TARP bailout, the National Animal ID System, No Child Left Behind, the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, the National ID Card, legalized torture, massive increases in the national debt, the greatest consolidation of power in the Executive Branch since FDR, the two longest wars our nation has ever fought, and the only mass confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens in recent American history – it is why this party can still sell itself as the party of small government and effectively convince Americans that they will roll back the size, scope and cost of the federal government if they get the chance.

I don’t mean to engage in needless Republican-bashing; it’s just that I’m convinced we Republican voters are being used. If the political spectrum made sense, and the far left believed in total government control, one would expect the far right to believe in no government at all; anarchy, in other words. But somehow, the statists have sold us this fraudulent idea where both ends want big government in some area, with the result that no matter who’s in and who’s out after a given election, there is always a big government agenda to move forward. Think about this: both the “right” and the “left” also claim that they want to rein in government - in certain areas. But what happens when they take control? Did the Republican Party take advantage of their six years of control in Washington to reduce the debt, or to stop abortion, or to cut entitlement programs, or to roll back federal control of anything? No, but they sure managed to consolidate power in the Executive branch, trash our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, dramatically expand law enforcement and the military, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector. When the Democrats took over, did they reduce corporate welfare, or cut pork-barrel spending, or bring our troops home from a single one of our 800 overseas citadels, or end the travesty of justice that we call trial by military commission? No, but they sure managed to take over our health care system. They sure managed to tighten their chokehold on small businesses, further trash our Fourth Amendment rights, and reward a bunch of cronies in the financial sector.

Forget rolling back the size of government – if we don’t recognize the game that is being played we will keep demanding bigger government. Because the expansion of government today isn’t only an item on the liberal agenda; it seems to me to be divided pretty evenly between both “sides.” The feel-good, bleeding heart big government may be for “liberals,” but conservatives are all about the empire thing. We blame liberals for promoting dependency on government when it comes to economic security, but “conservatives” just as avidly promote dependency on government for physical security. I know this isn’t going to win me any new friends, but this issue has to be addressed; it is a ball and chain on the movement to restore liberty in America.

Our assumed role of superpower and our obsession with security has put us exactly where Henry predicted, and with exactly the consequences that he expected. How can you have a restrained government at home and an adventurous government overseas? How can you spread freedom by force? You cannot empower your leaders to aggressively use force abroad without losing your soul and your liberty to the monster you have created. “Government,” said George Washington, “is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” And history has shown again and again that the government that acquires a taste for mastery abroad will never be content to serve at home.

The only way I see to break out of the box is to reject the fraudulent “right-left” political spectrum, reject the notion that either party is the answer – and I’m not talking about a third party; I am a Republican – but we need to start judging every single government action by one standard: freedom, based on the fact that all men are created equal. For too long we have been told, “Yes, government is out of control, but terrorists are trying to kill us, so just give up a little more freedom here. Sure, government is out of control, but there are thousands of illegal immigrants entering the country every day, so we need a little more power over here. Yes, it’s a crime to saddle our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt, but we’ve got to maintain a strong national defense, so don’t ask us to bring troops home from any of the 130 countries we keep them in.”

Where does it end? No matter what the problem is, it is time for Americans to demand only solutions that make government smaller, less intrusive, and less costly; or, to put it another way, solutions that result in more freedom for us as individuals. Such solutions do exist, but they will never be willingly implemented by this power-drunk government. The American people will have to reassert their control over their public servants, but we cannot do that until we first control our own thinking; until, like Patrick Henry, we are willing to make liberty the standard, to think outside the box, to ask the uncomfortable question. I believe that the question for us today remains what it was in 1775; it is, as Henry said, “a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate.”

Thank you very much.

Join the Club!

This feels good!

Am I nuts? Perhaps. But there’s nothing like a little skirmishing to whet one’s appetite for the big fight. And I have to admit, I found listening to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh today rather satisfying. (That doesn’t regularly occur.) Please don’t misunderstand; I recognize the tragedy unfolding as the GOP commits suicide. But in the process, “we” have been vindicated.

For many years, constitutionalists like me have been described by a broad range of more or less vile adjectives. The ultimate crime “we” are accused of is reckless abandonment of the Republican Party. “We” have been charged (accurately) with slighting conventional wisdom, which demands of all conservatives an unflinching loyalty to the elephant lest we be kicked to death by the ass. In the past year, as “we” have formed under the banner of the first constitutionalist presidential candidate many of us have ever seen, these complaints have merged into one incessant whine, “You’re helping to elect Hillary!!!!!!!” Imagine! To abandon the Republican pachyderm in his hour of greatest need - when he has become so accustomed to being led about by public opinion polls that he no longer knows how to lead himself; when, having abandoned every principle he once represented, and wasted his strength in attempting circus tricks for the entertainment of the world, he cowers in fear of a well-deserved beating from his braying opponent - how could “we” be so thoughtless? Aren’t “we” team players?

The answer, of course, is no. We’ve never been team players. In fact, we don’t even get the point of the game. We don’t comprehend the vast gulf that allegedly lies between HillaryCare and MittCare. We don’t see the moral distinction between liberals stealing from us to feed and/or bomb third world countries and neo-cons stealing from our children for the same purpose. We fail to appreciate the generosity of leaders who reduce their annual frontal attack on our wealth by 2% while they inflate the money supply by 10%. We still believe our Constitution is the greatest form of government ever, and we don’t see why a few camel jockeys should scare us into abandoning freedoms that were bought and paid for with the best blood of millions of Americans. We are sick and tired of fiscal policies that make as much economic sense as shooting a cow for her milk, and we don’t really care whether the milk is wanted to perpetuate the welfare state or the warfare state.

In our defense, we haven’t actually abandoned the GOP; we’ve simply stuck to our principles and supported the one candidate who has spent his political career behaving like a Republican. But when the camp followers, office seekers and other assorted herd animals ask what we will do should November present us with a choice between Senator Mitt Huckabee and Ms. Clinton, the words “write-in” have always evoked a torrent of reproachful exclamations. Until this week.

In a few short days, I’ve watched “loyal” Huckabee supporters jump ship and endorse either McCain or Romney. I’ve heard talk show hosts frantically endorsing anyone but McCain. I’ve heard prestigious social conservatives like Dr. Dobson announce their intent to write in (gasp!) a candidate should McCain be the GOP nominee. But the final nail in the coffin was Ann Coulter’s brazen threat to endorse Ms. Clinton over the Senator from Arizona.

I can respect Dr. Dobson’s position (though I fail to note any meaningful difference between McCain and the candidates he would support) and I appreciate his unintentional vindication of my own convictions. I have difficulty respecting the ex-Hucklings, but their actions were predictable considering their prior condemnation of Congressman Paul’s supporters. But Ann Coulter’s words are a chilling proof of the absolute emptiness of the shell that was once the conservative movement.

We have said for years that the lesser of two evils was still evil; that merely slowing the growth of government was not enough; that buying into the old “two steps forward, one step back” approach to government expansion was unworthy of a free people. We’ve doggedly pointed out the failures of conservative leaders to anticipate the end result of repeated compromise. And we have consistently refused to cast a vote for a known crook, regardless of party affiliation. For our pains we have been derided and marginalized to the point of denial by the mainstream of the GOP. Now, at last, a conservative icon has provided us with a caricature of the danger we’ve been warning everyone about.

So to Ann Coulter and anyone who may sympathize with her, I have this to say: if your moral compass permits you to compare two socialist, big-government, anti-family candidates and endorse one because “she is more conservative than he is,” go right ahead; but forgive those of us who mentally place you in the Benedict Arnold category. You have lost all claim to our respect. When conservatives are willing to openly embrace either John McCain or Hillary Clinton over Congressman Ron Paul just so they can vote for a winner, conservatism has indeed lost all meaning. We may as well bury it and go back to being Americans.

And to Dr. Dobson: welcome. :)

Conservawhat?

Recently I’ve been pondering the meaning of the term “conservative” – or perhaps I should say the lack of meaning. I’ve always called myself a conservative, at least before the neo-conservative heresy made it necessary to christen that view paleo-conservatism. But I’ve begun to wonder what criteria define a political position as conservative? In today’s cultural context the dictionary definition is almost irrelevant, but conservative politics are popularly thought to include such ideas as a strong national defense, Christian moral values, less government, lower spending, and respect for the constitution. That sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? But is it really true?

Consider the belief in a strong national defense. Originally a commitment to preserving national sovereignty and the liberty that set America apart from the rest of the world, it has mutated into unlimited support for the American warfare state and the intoxicating status of “superpower.” Those who challenge the morality of slaughtering civilian populations to break the will of an enemy are automatically labeled “pacifist.” Those who question the bully mentality that national defense requires “full spectrum dominance” over the entire world are dismissed as “lefties.”

Last week my uncle and I were discussing the Iraq occupation with a military cousin who was home on leave, about to be re-deployed. He explained that the Iraq war was “80% about oil.” I was surprised to hear him say so, in light of his whole-hearted support for the war. He defended his support by pointing out that America relies on oil for our “national security,” and that we had to invade Iraq to ensure that Iraqi oil remained available to us. (Between individuals such behavior would be referred to as an armed robbery with multiple homicides, but when nations steal from one another all sorts of euphemisms are employed.) Asked where the spread of democracy figured in the equation, he laughed and stated in no uncertain terms that it was a myth. The other 20%, he informed us, consists of the “bonuses” of toppling Saddam and obtaining a staging area for the invasion of Iran (also for oil.)

What standard of right and wrong is being applied here? Why is it that support for national defense is now expected to imply support for our assumed role of global umpire? When did defending America become a chess game for control of the world, played with live pieces? How is the cause of freedom served by killing civilians for the crime of living under a tyrant? These are only a few of the questions that conservatives have failed to ask, and our failure has left a massive gap in the political debate over the current war.

How about morality? Conservatives like to think of themselves as the champions of moral rectitude. Sure, we’ve compromised a little - we talk about “family values” instead of God’s Law - but, all things considered, we feel like we’ve given our utmost to the preservation of the family. If only the Dems and liberals weren’t so powerful …

What on earth is wrong with us? We are the problem, not the liberals. American Christians adore their President for signing a ban on one rare type of infanticide while ignoring the fact that abortion numbers have soared during his tenure. They rejoice over his meaningless support for a “marriage amendment” while he appoints an open sodomite to the rank of “AIDS ambassador.” In more than 5,900 years of world history no civilized society ever conferred legal recognition on sodomite relationships. Yet so-called conservatives in this country have twice elected a President who wants to do just that. Are we merely opposed to calling duct-tape relations “marriage,” or are we opposed to government-subsidized sin? If family values are nothing more than semantics they aren’t worth fighting for.

Less government? Lower spending? Respect for the Constitution? Six years of complete Republican control was enough to bring about the largest consolidation of power in the history of the nation, invent a new Cabinet-level department and countless subordinate bureaucracies, expand the tax code by over one hundred thousand pages, pump up the Department of Education with expanded powers and the largest budget increase in history, begin the registration and identification of every livestock animal in the country, pass thousands of new laws, create thousands of new criminals, add billions upon billions to the national budget and spend even more billions without adding them to the national budget; and to balance all this we have nothing to show except the sunset of the assault weapons ban. Bravo.

It’s time to be honest with ourselves. For the last fifty years, generally speaking, presidential elections have offered conservatives little more than a choice between various crooks. Our efforts have focused on supporting the crook who owes the most to conservative interests (otherwise known as the lesser of two evils). This reprehensible waste of our vote has supposedly been justified by the threat of “liberal” ascendancy, but in practice it has resulted in an ever-worsening spectrum of crooks to choose from.

No election illustrates this trend more clearly than the one before us. The GOP has so completely discounted genuine conservatism that they expect their voters to choose between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The most painful aspect of this line-up is that few Christians or conservatives see the bitter irony in it. Republicans are expected to choose between three candidates who all support abortion in some form, legal recognition of sodomite relationships, more gun control and bigger government. All three major candidates have long and well-known political records, and their scramble to alter their image to better appeal to the “religious right” only makes their overtures more insulting to genuine conservatives.

In terms of actual policy the GOP has long been nearly indistinguishable from its rival, but the truth is that if McCain, Giuliani or Romney wins the Republican primary next year, their nomination will be the final nail in the coffin of the conservative Republican Party.