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.)

The Revolution Will be Pumpkinized

This cool carving of a Ron Paul jack-o-lantern topped with Dr. No's famed "What If..." speech is making its way around the net. Check it out! It is quite cool and creative--just like all liberty-lovers.



Title Credit: A.C. Kleinheider

Great Article on Austrian Economics

This article is well worth the read.

“Peter, you have been mocked on all of these financial shows going back to 2005. Going back to 2005! Not only did you predict problems, you actually explained what was going to happen. Why didn’t anybody listen? You were Cassandra!” — MSNBC commentator Joe Scarborough to “Austrian school” economics adherent Peter Schiff on Morning Joe, March 25, 2009

Scarborough’s reference to Cassandra — the character from Greek mythology given the gift of prophecy and the curse that nobody would believe her predictions — was particularly apropos to the Austrian school of economic theory until the latest economic crash. The name of this free-market economic school acknowledges the fact that many of the school’s “founding fathers” were Austrian nationals and disciples of the Austrian economist Karl Menger. Of course, the “Austrian school” is not a school in the traditional sense of the word denoting a physical structure; the term defines those who believe in pure free-market economics and laissez-faire principles. The Austrian school has a long history of amazingly accurate economic predictions while at the same time being completely ignored by the political establishment and virtually ignored by the mainstream media. (Continue reading here).

Hat Tip: Lew Rockwell

The Paulpocalypse by Brian Doherty

Here is a great article from Reason that deals well with Ron Paul's CPAC straw poll victory.

The straw poll victory of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last week, with a plurality of 31 percent, spurred a wide range of reaction and emotions. If you weren’t already a fan of the radically libertarian Republican congressmen, his victory wasn’t the thing to make you start taking him seriously.

Many agreed that Paul’s win, if meaningful, could only bode ill for the Republican Party’s prospects. David A. Harris at TalkingPointsMemo thinks Paul’s ascendance means the GOP is determined to give up on the Jews (since Paul has suggested that certain U.S. foreign policy decisions benefit Israel more than they benefit the U.S.). Earl Ofari Hutchinson at Huffington Post thinks Paul’s win means racism and nativism is on the rise in the GOP, as he fantasizes about non-existent race-based jibes in Paul’s CPAC speech.

In the real world, Paul’s speech was mostly about fiscal probity and saving the U.S. from a debt-driven dollar collapse. Paul applied principles of limited government and restrained spending to a place where most Republicans fear to tread: foreign policy. He stressed the vital importance of the free exchange of ideas, including a long shout-out to Eugene Debs, the socialist leader jailed by Democratic god Woodrow Wilson for saying the wrong things, and freed by Republican President Warren Harding.

Paul talked to the assembled activists of the unity of liberty, including the liberty to eat and smoke what you want. He harkened back to old Republican icons (such as President Dwight D. Eisenhower with his military-industrial complex warnings) to give his constitutionalist libertarian version of conservatism a usable past. His talk was rambly, perhaps not ready for prime time, but united by a bracing vision of a government that did only what its Constitution intended it to do. This makes him radical indeed. (The rest is here.)

There is No Balance of Liberty and Safety

Below is a quotation from a recent article by Judge Andrew Napolitano that I found to be quite true and well put. I recommend you read the article in its entirety, as well.

And we hear it from the Progressives that the government must take our freedoms in order to keep us safe. That’s hogwash. Freedom is our birthright. It doesn’t come from the government; it is part of our humanity. America is the only country in the history of the world dedicated to the truism that we are endowed by our Creator, as Jefferson wrote, with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The government has forgotten basic civics: "Endowed by our Creator" means that our rights come from God and not from the feds. "Inalienable" means that we and our freedoms cannot be separated, unless and until we are convicted by a jury of violating someone else’s rights. What is the value of being safe if we are not free? Did our forefathers flee the kings and despots of Europe and come here to be safe? Did Patrick Henry say "Give me safety or give me death?" Here is the mistake that the Big Government crowd wants to thrust upon us: They want to balance liberty and safety. There is no such thing as balance when it comes to freedom.