Happy Birthday, Grover Cleveland!

Today marks the 175th anniversary of the birth of Grover Cleveland, America's 22nd and 24th President. Like all our presidents, Cleveland was far from perfect, but he towers far above even the best of the rest of our chief executives. Along with Jefferson, Cleveland is one of my favorite presidents. And even better than Jefferson, Cleveland did an outstanding job of standing for sound money, sound foreign policy, and the principles of a free society.

If you are unfamiliar with this great patriot or just want a good refresher, The Foundation for Economic Education offers a great rundown covering the man and his accomplishments.

Once again, happy birthday, Mr. Cleveland. May a our generation come to revere the principles for which you fought.

David Stockman on Crony Capitalism

In the video below David Stockman shares an insightful interview about how the United States is far from a free market economy. Instead, he posits, "Crony Capitalism" is supported by both parties as our current economic system--leading to a lack of accountability, the prevalence of the too-big-to-fail mentality, and a system that favors big business over free market competition. Informed on the issue or not, this is a good video that will leave you better off for taking the time to watch it.


David Stockman on Crony Capitalism from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Hat Tip: TN Libertarian Republicans

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.