Have A Problem With Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy?

I have no problem with Ron Paul's foreign policy--never have. This isn't because I am some naive kook who doesn't recognize the danger in the world and the realty that there exist bad men who desire to do bad things. I assure you I do, but my knowledge of this reality is not enough to skew my reality in the field of foreign policy.

One reason I find Dr. Paul's foreign policy position so easy to digest is that it was to some degree or another the mainstream conservative position for some time up until the last decade. It's nothing new, and its nothing I haven't encountered countless times before. One can easily  look back to the great conservative leader Robert Taft in mid-twentieth century or much of the Republican establishment during the Clinton Administration for modern examples of those staking non-interventionist foreign policy positions in our modern times. Even then-governor George W. Bush of Texas held firmly to this position as a candidate for president, though he betrayed this position during his presidency. Of course, one need merely to look to our Founding Fathers' wisdom as the prime example of non-interventionist foreign policy. The non-interventionist position is nothing new and nothing I have reason to fear as some newfangled crackpot scheme. It is actually classical wisdom that has consistently held true.

Another reason I find no problem with the foreign policy of Paul and others who promote non-interventionism is that I am a student of history and politics. I understand that the claims made by Paul and others are no wild works of fiction, but rather, sound statements that line up with the realities of the day and the historical narrative. I don't fear enemies beyond their capabilities because I don't base my assumptions on war propaganda or media monster-weaving. Rather, I base my positions on fact and reason.

It is amazing how level-headed one can think if they weigh the claims of talk radio, mainstream news outlets, and the like, to see if those same claims hold water. Blind acceptance leads to both ignorance and poor position taking, and one who avoids such reckless behavior can easily avoid both. We should each strive to hold sound positions grounded in fact, regardless of the issue. And holding such positions often involves challenging mainstream assumptions.

It is not my intention to right every wrong or change every heart with this post. I merely would like some who hold such strong convictions against the foreign policy of those like Ron Paul to begin testing those convictions--to begin to think about these issues in a new light which has not been darkened by the shades of hearsay and falsehood.

Please begin this journey by watching the video below. See why so many veterans and active duty military have come to trust and support an Air Force veteran from Texas named Ron Paul. Moreover, see why so many experts in the field of foreign policy break from the mainstream media and political pundit's narrative and believe that Dr. Paul is right about these issues. Lastly, see why you  as an American should support the foreign policy of Paul and restore our nation to a position of a sound foreign policy and a strong national defense.

I beg you to please take the time and watch this video.

Fox News on Ron Paul's Decision to Forgo Trump Debate and Trump's Criticism

In the video below Fox News  reports on Ron Paul's decision (along with Jon Huntsman) to not take part in the Donald Trump debate, calling the reality TV star's self-promotion sideshow "beneath the office of the presidency"

The panel rightly pointed out Trump's criticism of Paul's candidacy as unfounded, noting Paul's high poll numbers and solid ground game in Iowa--the state where the debate will be hosted.

It is nice to see the mainstream media finally coming around and noting Paul's credibility as of late. One can only image where the Texas congressman would find himself if given a fair shake more often in the electoral process.

Newt Gingrich Exposed in New Campaign Ad

It is no secret that Newt Gingrich is the current flavor of the month in the Republican primary field, following in the footsteps of Rick Perry and Herman Cain as the mainstream media and GOP faithful's present alternative to Mitt Romney.

It is not that his positions differ sharply from the former Massachusetts governor, who is often chided for his liberal positions both presently and over the years. Rather, Newt--like his other so-called "conservative alternatives to Romney"--does a much better job of masking his big-government agenda on the campaign trail than the perceived front-runner, Romney.

Of course, like Cain and Perry before him, Newt is crossing both fingers--hoping voters stick to a superficial support of his candidacy without delving into his record. Doing so, would only leave him being found wanting in both conservative credentials and political consistency.

For those truly seeking what Mr. Gingrich is about, the campaign of Congressman Ron Paul has put together an invaluable starting point.

The video below is how a "negative" campaign ad should be--grounded completely in fact and policy.  Take a look and see the true Newt Gingrich for yourself.

New Ron Paul Ad--Consistent

This new Ron Paul ad sums up why he has my support and why he should have the support of every freedom-loving American. It really fires me up.

Anti-War Conservatism is Conservatism

Please do yourself a service and read Jack Hunter's latest over at the Daily Caller, dealing with what exactly constitutes a conservative (and constitutional) foreign policy position. Hunter rightly points to the history of the conservative movement to show that there is nothing "leftist" about opposing unnecessary and unconstitutional wars.

Some of the loudest voices on the right continue to categorize Ron Paul’s foreign policy views as “leftist.” It is true that like many on the left, Paul has been a staunch opponent of the Iraq War, our decade-long presence in Afghanistan and the recent intervention in Libya.

Paul believes that the only just war is a war of defense. When America was attacked on 9/11, Paul supported going into Afghanistan because he believed what most Americans believed — that the Taliban was harboring those behind the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. When America is attacked, she defends herself. This is what most Americans think of as “national defense.”

But what Paul’s critics on the right call “national defense” is often something quite different. The concept of preventive war — that is, going to war with nations that “might” be a threat at some point — is something new and without precedent in our history. This part of the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the notion that America can — and must — spread democracy throughout the globe, has become many conservatives’ default foreign policy position.

But this is a strange position for conservatives, because it is not conservative...

...Is Barack Obama a “conservative” for having a foreign policy similar to Bush’s? If “Bush kept us safe” was a mantra conservatives were comfortable using to obscure his big-government record, has “Obama kept us safe” by carrying on with the same wars, starting a new one in Libya and taking out Osama bin Laden? Ron Paul now attacks Obama’s foreign policy just as viciously as he did Bush’s and on the same grounds.

Is Obama the conservative and Paul the liberal?

Read the entire article here.

Debt and Constitutional Disregard

Ron Natelson has a fantastic article over at the Tenth Amendment Center, regarding the debt ceiling ridiculousness going on at the moment. As someone who emailed one of my former Constitutional Law professors at 2:30am last night/morning to vent about this latest bastardization of the 14th Amendment, I appreciate Natelson's sound understanding of the issues.

Some people are claiming that if Congress fails to raise the debt limit, the President can raise it himself unilaterally.  The claim is not only wrong, but far scarier for America’s future than a default would be.

Typical of those arguing this way is Bruce Bartlett, the formerly conservative economist who in recent years has been dashing to the left.

Barlett argues that “In the event that congressional irresponsibility makes default impossible to avoid, [the President] should order the secretary of the Treasury to simply disregard the debt limit and sell whatever securities are necessary to raise cash to pay the nation’s debts.”

Initially, you should understand that Barlett’s “Chicken Little” concerns are based on a false premise: That failure to raise the debt limit equals non-payment of national debt. The truth, however, is that there is plenty of revenue to pay the national debt (and the military, too). Doing so requires merely that the government take care of those expenses before continuing to fund other programs, many of them of dubious constitutionality.

But even if Bartlett’s premise were correct, his legal arguments remind us that he is an economist, and not a lawyer.  Here are his three principal arguments, and the response to each: (continue reading here.)

Cut, Cap and Balance Act Supports the Status Quo

Congressman Ron Paul's statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act is an absolute must read for anyone serious about addressing the debt and spending insanity being carried out by our federal government. Dr. Paul points to the true nature of the Act--a support of the status quo--and defines what must be done to solve our woes--cut spending.

Dr. Paul notes of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act's problems:

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare.  This is impossible.  These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually.  This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget.  Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending.  America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements.  All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year.  To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps.  Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless.  Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government.  As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget.  What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

 Do yourself a service and read the whole statement. 

The Debt-Ceiling Debate is Full of Malarkey

In the video below, ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie points to three reasons why the current debt-ceiling debate is ridiculous and full of falsehood.

1. August 2nd is a Phoney Deadline
2.Reaching the Debt Ceiling is NOT Defaulting
3. Legislating-by-Panic is No Way to Run a Country

For weeks I have talked to both conservative and liberals about this issue and one thing has been crystal clear: no one seems to know what they are talking about. When I correctly stress the points below (especially the second point) I am stared downed as some kind of idiot by folks from all political backgrounds. Sadly, many seem to have a deep commitment to a certain course of action without a lick of understanding regarding the issue.

What is clear is that we need to stop this unconstitutional and unsustainable spending. We need to do it in a timely manner, and we need to cut spending without raising taxes. What we don't need to do is allow fear and misunderstanding to give us more of the same policies that got us into this mess.

Ron Paul Releases First TV Ad of 2012

Congressman Ron Paul has launched his first television ad of the 2012 primary season, and boy, it is a darn good one. Playing out like a movie trailer, it has enough entertainment value to draw the viewer in and keep his or her attention. Moreover, it does a splendid job of positioning the congressman within the historical and present debate over economic policy and outlining his own economic convictions. 

Take a look for yourself below. Paul fan or not, what do you think of this first ad to come out of his 2012 primary bid?

On Independence Day...

On this Independence Day don't lose site of the meaning of this holiday--a struggle for secession, freedom, and self-determination. Please take the time to read or listen to the Declaration of Independence (below). Pay attention to its words. See how far we have come as a nation, or rather, how far we have reverted  back to the ways of those we once rebelled against.

Let us remember that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" for which we must continue to fight. May we continue our struggle and strive to make each July 4th more free and more happy than the last.

Ronald Regan and Foreign Policy

In Jack Hunter's latest op-ed he takes on the neoconservative's latest round of crying "isolationism" when conservatives oppose perpetual and unnecessary war. Mr. Hunter properly attacks the neocons' misguided and misinformed claims and uses Ronald Reagan--a standard-bearer of the modern conservative movement--as an example.

What's a 'Neoconservative?'

Once again, the American Conservative's Jack Hunter does a great job in his analysis.

A Blow to the President's War in Libya

On Friday, the US House overwhelmingly rejected the Obama Administration's military action in Libya. This comes days after Secretary of State Clinton openly voiced frustration over members of both parties' refusal to go along with the President and months after the White House first entered into this unnecessary and unconstitutional new war.

The New York Times reports:

Over the last few months, there has been increasing hostility toward the Obama administration in the House among both Democrats who oppose the war and many Republicans, who cite Constitutional issues, over the president’s refusal to seek authorization from Congress for the operations in Libya. They say such authorization is required by the 1973 War Powers Resolution.

Speaker John A. Boehner has repeatedly warned President Obama that the House considers the situation untenable and would seek to intervene through resolutions and its power of the purse.

The House then quickly moved to debate a second resolution, sponsored by Representative Thomas Rooney, Republican of Florida, that would prohibit the use of money for military operations in Libya, allowing financing only for support operations like search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance — essentially requiring an end to direct American combat activity like missile strikes. The measure, which has the support of Republican leadership, was intended to severely limit America’s role while not completely leaving NATO allies in the lurch.

The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is not expected to pass such a measure and therefore it is unlikely to have any practical effect on the Libyan operations. Still, the measure would send a strong signal to Mr. Obama that he lacked full Congressional support, reflecting in large part a nation weary of war.

While there is still much to be desired in the effort to end the wars we wage, this is a positive action. We are finally seeing actors in both parties standing up and saying "enough is enough," opposing the warfare state. We who have long been part of the conservative/libertarian anti-war movement, should welcome those who are now seeing things our way and hope we can once again be peaceful nation that seeks national defense over military adventurism. We must, if we are to long endure.
 

The Case Against War in Libya

A bi-partisan group of United States congressmen recently brought a lawsuit against the Obama Administration, claiming the administration is in violation of the War Powers Act and is, therefore, carrying out illegal military action in Libya. One of the plaintiffs, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, today released a defense of the lawsuit over at the Daily Caller, which is well worth your attention.

Paul writes:

There is no issue more serious than war. Wars result in the loss of life and property. Wars are also expensive and an enormous economic burden.

Our Founders understood that waging war is not something that should be taken lightly, which is why Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the authority to declare war. This was meant to be an important check on presidential power. The last thing the Founders wanted was an out-of-control executive branch engaging in unnecessary and unpopular wars without so much as a Congressional debate.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly the situation we have today in Libya...

 

Please continue reading the article here.

The Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

Pat Buchanan has an encouraging piece over at The American Conservative regarding a number of those on the right's recent return a conservative, anti-war position. This is truly encouraging news to those of us who have for years championed the constitution and called for a end to our nation's unnecessary and unconstitutional military actions abroad.

Buchanan writes:

"What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?

First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — the first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighth — with their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.

Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.

A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.

Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war."

 Head over to The American Conservative's website and read the whole piece here.

Donate to Support the Constitution

I just did my part by donating to the presidential campaign "June 5th Moneybomb"  of Texas Congressman Ron Paul--our nation's greatest living defender of the constitution. Please head over to RonPaul2012.com and make a donation today. Your donation will send a message to the establishment that those of us who value the ideals of our Founders will have our voices heard.

"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."--Samuel Adams

Rick Santorum: Compassionate? Perhaps. Conservative? By No Means.

I have been involved in a number of Facebook discussions today on a number of topics. One such discussion produced the following question:

"Daryl, what are your thoughts on [Rick] Santorum? Just curious."

I have long despised Santorum, even in my younger years when I was much more sympathetic to the so-called "social conservative wing" of the GOP. So I quickly provided the following response. 

"I think Santorum represents everything that's wrong with the GOP in the post-Reagan era. He is a standard bearer for Bush neoconservatism, which is pie in the sky liberalism at its base, as well as misguided social conservatism. 

What I mean by 'misguided social conservatism' is a focus on government prohibition and moral position taking that flies in the face of conservative values like limited government. I have no problem [I should say little problem with many] with the personal positions he holds on social issues. I share many of his positions myself. I just take issue at his insistence that we need the government to regulate those social issues. And this is coming from me--a guy who has never touched a drop of alcohol, practices abstinence, supports tradition, and the like. So it isn't that I am some immoral degenerate trying to get my behavior supported in the public arena; this is coming from a traditional conservative that believes like the Founders that social institutions and not the gov't should influence such behavior. 

Plainly put: Santorum is all for big gov't as long as that big gov't suits his desires to shape society in his image--a Catholic one at that. Moreover, as an Evangelical Christian I take issue at his reliance on federal laws to change hearts and minds rather than the Gospel. I would not vote for him under any circumstances."

Hours later I came across the latest from Jack Hunter that gives a great analysis of the former Pennsylvania senator's big government ways. If I would have known of its existence at the time, I would have just posted the following video. 

Let the Revolution Continue!

Below is a great video that puts things in perspective, created by supporters of Dr. Ron Paul--the Thomas Jefferson of our day. Check it out and share with your friends, family, and acquaintances.



Hat Tip: The Humble Libertarian

Jack Hunter: Have We Forgotten 9/11?

Once again The American Conservative's Jack Hunter provides fantastic perspective on the issues of the day. In the following he takes to task US foreign policy after 9/11.

Bin Laden's Dead: So What?

Apparently, 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has been killed. This could and should be good news to anyone seeking an end to the wars we are fighting and closure for the victims of those atrocious attacks some 10 years ago. But I fear the death of bin Laden will do little more than fuel blind displays of nationalism and, in the short-term, appease those demanding results in the so-called "War on Terror."

Before I get as excited as those on the internet and elsewhere about Bib Laden's, I must question whether the death of this monster will lead to any real change in US foreign policy. For the death of bin Laden bringing no lasting effect is no good news at all.

Osama bin Laden's hate was fueled and recruitment was aided by US involvement and occupation in the Middle East. Does that mean he was innocent of his crimes? Not at all! It just means that the US helped create and aid the very enemy we then fought to destroy. Our own CIA reported such, and we would be wise to prevent such behavior in the future. We must not repeat our past mistakes, if we are to achieve real, lasting victory in our current aims to crack down on terrorism as well as be successful future endeavors. 

If we do not put a stop to a foreign policy that helped create and aid monsters like bin Laden, there is no victory in his death. Others like him will merely rise up to replace him.

Ten years ago we began our efforts to track down the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Since then we have developed an alarming appetite for war, seen our civil liberties trampled upon one by one, scores of lives have been lost, numerous dollars and resources have been spent, and our country looks far less like America and more and more like a tyrannical empire. Perhaps, bin Laden has had more success than many are willing to give him. Therefore, let us repair the damage done and return to constitutional governance. Let's act to prevent such atrocities in the future.

I would have preferred we'd dealt with bin Laden through the constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but we have brought him death nonetheless. Now let's put to death any policies that would bring about another bin Laden or aid his desired pursuits--such as taking the lives and liberties of others. If we do not, bin Laden is dead, but so what?

Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

Here it is--the awesome sequel to the popular "Fear the Boom and Bust" rap battle between Keynes and Hayek. I am still amazed at how these videos are so well done and properly present the positions of each economic school involved. What do you think?

Liberty Define: Abortion

As I am reading through Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I have decided to briefly provide summaries of his arguments put forth on each issue--or at least the biggest and most contentious ones. Chapter one deals with Abortion.

For those who have followed Dr. Paul's career for some time, it is well know that he is an ardent supporter of the pro-life position. So not surprisingly, in this early chapter, he pulls no punches regarding the issue.

On the first page, Congressman Paul insists his position is the one truly consistent with liberty. He states, "Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how an act of violence, killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right." He continues by noting that such reasoning "ignores all thought of any legal rights of the unborn" and that "cavalierly accepting abortion diminishes the value of all life."

Dr. Paul  points out the hypocrisy of those who support the termination of a child within the womb and oppose the same for a child outside the womb. For Paul protection of life is an absolute; either we protect it or destroy it; there is no middle ground. Moreover, we cannot trump the right to life of the child merely for the sake of the mother.

It should be noted: Paul's argument is not at all lacking in compassion for the mother. He wants to assist these women and make the alternatives of adoption and the like even easier for them by addressing adoption regulation and the costs of carrying a child to term.

Since it is Ron Paul writing on the issue he is quick to layout the constitutional reasoning that bolsters his argument. He notes that any attempt to justify abortion in the constitution will go unfounded. It is simply not in the document, and the federal government has no right to prevent states from protecting the life of the unborn. Moreover, he is critical of those within the pro-life movement which seek to use unconstitutional means to achieve and end even with which he agrees. Abortion can be dealt with in a constitutional manner that would work to protect life.


Ron Paul understands that more federal government is not the answer to the problem, nor is waiting on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Paul believes that the Constitution leaves the issue of abortion up to the states and that is where we as pro-lifers have the best chance of making real change. For years and years each side has done nothing to make in-roads on the issue. Instead the status quo is upheld--a status quo that leads to further death.

Unlike many politicians, Ron Paul has been trying to make honest in-roads for years. One example is a bill he annually sponsors which would instantly overturn Roe v. Wade in a constitutional manner. The bill would use Congress' right to change the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over abortion--instantly making the Court's Roe ruling a non-issue.

Paul notes that his position "does not oppose looking for certain judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, or even having a constitutional definition of life," but these actions will only help in the long run, doing little to protect life immediately.

Not wanting to steal the good doctor's thunder, I will leave most of his arguement for you to read when you pick up the book, but I would like to address a few things I appreciate about his position.

1. Paul realizes that the way we treat the abortion issue as a society directly influences the amount of innocent life that is destroyed. If we act cavalier about abortion, we will reap the negative effects. Moreover, our unwillingness to protect life leads to more people deciding to flippantly take life.

2. Paul is quick to point out hypocrisy on both sides of the issue. In addition to the pro-choice hypocrisy discussed above, Paul points out the hypocrisy of those who claim to be pro-life but support unnecessary war.

3. Paul, unlike many, does not merely run on emotion. You can sense that his position is on thoroughly grounded in fact and conviction.

Please pick up Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom and read his position for yourself. You can buy the book at the link below.

Ron Paul's Liberty Defined

I was pleased to find a copy of Ron Paul's new book Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom waiting for me, after arriving home this afternoon. I had ordered a copy when it came out on Tuesday, and look forward to soon devouring the 325 page work by the Texas congressman in which he tackles over 50 essential issues ranging from Abortion to Zionism.

I intend to write up a review of the work when I finish it, but let me go ahead and recommend you pick up a copy for yourself. I seriously doubt from reading his other books, that Dr. Paul will disappoint. Agree with with him in totality or not, Ron Paul always presents solid arguments and passionate defenses in his books that benefit all who take the time to read them.

If you do purchase the book, please consider buying it through the Amazon link posted below. A portion of the proceeds will go to helping finance In Defense of the Constitution.

An Ayn Rand Movie Recommendation

I've not seen the new Atlas Shrugged movie; therefore, I cannot offer a comment on it at this time. I heard it is a bit clunky and suffers from poor technical film-making, but without seeing it myself I cannot deny or confirm these claims.

What I can do is recommend another movie based on an Ayn Rand novel that I have seen. That film is the 1949 classic The Fountainhead--a film written by Ayn Rand in which she exercised a large amount creative control.

If you have never seen The Fountainhead, I recommend you remedy that loss as soon as possible. More than just a great defense of individualism, the film is a great movie experience. While I do not endorse Rand's Objectivism as a political or moral philosophy, I do appreciate her contributions toward the pursuit of human freedom and free markets. 

I have heard from those who have read the book, which the movie was based on, that the book will satisfy any Rand fan.

Below is a video of the philosophical highpoint of the movie.

Reflections for Tax Day

George Washington once truly opined, "No taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant."  While this is true, we should always attempt to make taxation as fair as possible and strictly confined to its constitutional limits. Sadly, our current system is both unfair and unconstitutional in a number of ways (look to graduated income taxes for a good example).


Government is force, and taxation come at the point of a gun. If you question the truth of that statement, refuse to comply with tax collection and you will see its truth. It should be a primary goal of ours to only levy taxes based on consumption and confine all taxation to what is necessary and proper to meet the demands of government's specified constitutional duties.

Based on one's own humanity, one has the right to keep the fruits of one's own labor. Any attempt to remove that fruit without the consent of those being taxed is plunder--legal or otherwise. As members of a free society we must strive to defeat this plunder.

My problem is not necessarily with taxation. In a constitutional society we have agreed to the collection of some of our wealth to meet certain pre-agreed upon government functions. These functions are clearly defined in our constitution. Therefore, being taxed for government functions and services not defined in the Constitution is where the problem lies. 

Because we have gone far beyond constitutional boundaries in the functions and services of our government, we now have a bigger bill to foot than we should. Our problem is not that we are undertaxed--quite the opposite. Rather, our problem is that our government is involved in unconstitutional activities that demand more of our money. This is wrong, and it is illegal.

Any fight against taxation should find its battle cry in a demand for a return to constitutional government and a stop to the provision of unconstitutional services--charitable or otherwise. Not only can we not afford to meet the current unconstitutional demands of government with our taxes, liberty cannot endure such demands.

Finally a Voice of Reason in the Budget Debate!

It is so refreshing to finally hear someone in Washington refusing to play the partisan game and standing up, like an adult, offering a real voice with real solutions to our national spending and debt crisis. Thank you Senator Paul for taking a stand against the status quo that is being supported by both parties.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Washington Foreign Policy in Four Easy Steps

The Most Ballin' Committee Meeting Speech EVER!

Please take the time to listen to Rand Paul's truthful statements about energy regulators and their hypocrisy regarding choice.

Sarah Palin's Stand Against Egyptian Self-Determination

While taking jabs at the Obama Administration's handling of the Egyptian uprising over the weekend, Sarah Palin once again showed why she is unfit to lead this or any country.

In a weekend interview, the former Alaskan governor was critical of the White House for "not doing enough" regarding Egypt.While any true conservative or libertarian should be critical of the administration's handling of the situation (Likewise, they should also have been critical of US policies leading up to this crisis.), Palin argues for a position that is perhaps even more flawed than that of the White House.

Politico reports:

Palin said the administration must get more information and find out who "fills now the void in the government." She said the U.S. "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood.

She did not offer specifics for how she would handle the crisis, saying only: "We need strength and sound mind there in the White House. We need to know what it is that America stands for so we know who it is that America will stand with."
In speaking out about the administration's handling of Egypt, Palin joins at least two other possible GOP 2012 presidential candidates — Newt Gingrich and John Bolton.

Palin has indeed firmly joined with the neoconservatives on this issue as she often does. Likewise, her comments show an alarming disdain for State sovereignty. To say that the United States "should not stand" for an Egypt led by the Muslim Brotherhood is truly outrageous.

Egypt is a sovereign nation, and the people of Egypt--not the US--should and must decide who will lead their country forward. I must admit that my knowledge of the Muslim Brotherhood is quite limited, but many credible sources claim that the group would not necessarily be bad for the country. However, even if they would be, the Egyptians have the right to self-determination. They must forge their own path into the future, and the United States must stop interfering with the affairs of Egypt--whether we are propping up dictators or trying to "spread democracy."

Of course, calling on the United States to return to a foreign policy envisioned by the Founders, leaving the Egyptians to move forward and govern themselves according to their own desires, is anathema to Palin and her neo-con cronies. For Palin, anything less than the US choosing and propping up a hand-picked puppet is unacceptable. 

In typical Palin style, her comments feature a partisan attack, offer no solution, and lacks any clear understanding of the issue. Palin would have us further entangle ourselves in a situation we have already had too much of a hand in. Her position is all-around flawed. It is wrong. It is unconstitutional, and it runs counter to the American Founding vision.

As for me, unlike Sarah Palin, I stand with the Egyptian people against overbearing government--whether that government is in Cairo or DC.

Happy MLK Day

Today we celebrate the legacy of a great America--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A man who was once seen as a great dividing force by those clinging to the evil relics of codified racial inequality has now become a symbol of non-violent action and hope for many.  One need not agree fully with all of Dr. King's actions or positions to admire the man, for he leaves much to admire. I, for one, greatly admire Dr. King's commitment to racial equality and non-violence. He was a true enemy of the state, and bless him for it.

Below is an excerpt from King's famous "Loving Your Enemies" speech.

To our most bitter opponents we say:

“We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering.

We shall meet your physical force with soul force.

Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you.

We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.

Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and we shall still love you.

Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still love you.

But be ye assured that we will wear you down by our capacity to suffer.

One day we shall win freedom but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process and our victory will be a double victory.”