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.

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. 

Reagan Wisdom--"Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us"

Below is an extremely well done video that showcases vintage Ronald Reagan applied to our current circumstances. "The Great Communicator's" words are flawlessly delivered and remind me of those of  F. A. Hayek in his Road to Serfdom. Every word of it is so true and so on point. I love this video!!!



Hat Tip: Memorandum

Nikki Haley and the New Conservatives by the Southern Avenger

A Victory for Rand Paul and the Tea Party

The power of the Tea Party Movement manifested itself mightily in yesterday's GOP primary in Kentucky. In what seemed an impossibility just a few short months ago, Rand Paul--a Bowling Green doctor and Tea Party favorite--defeated the establishment-backed Trey Grayson with a margin slightly higher than 2:1.

Lacking the powerful donors and the backing of the establishment machine, Paul's support came primarily from Tea Party patriots, conservative/libertarian groups, and other grassroots activists across the Bluegrass State. Defying the likes of Mitch McConnell and a whole host of neoconservatives, Rand Paul's primary victory proved that the grassroots can still provide electoral victory, and it will be that same grassroots support that will provide general election victory for Paul and other liberty lovers come November.

Looking to the results in Kentucky, we can draw a few conclusions.

1. The establishment should not overlook the possible success of  those they currently do not see as threats. Those minor threats could morph into major contenders who boast major victories.

2. These positive results can and should be replicated in races across the nations. If it can happen for Paul in Kentucky, it can happen for other candidates around the country. (I believe it will happen for Ron Ramsey in Tennessee, personally.)

3. The Tea Party can and will make a difference at the end of the day. The media and others can mock all they want, but they cannot argue with these (and similar) results.

Despite these truths the Tea Party movement should remain vigilant and guard against co-optation. If they are not careful to maintain philosophical consistency and purity, they may be the establishment who is punished years from now.

Progressives Don't Understand Economics...Big Surprise

Wes over at The Humble Libertarian has posted the link to an interesting study. The results found self-described Progressives to be quite ignorant about basic economics.

Some of the results:

• 67% of self-described Progressives believe that restrictions on housing development (i.e., regulations that reduce the supply of housing) do not make housing less affordable.

• 51% believe that mandatory licensing of professionals (i.e., reducing the supply of professionals) doesn’t increase the cost of professional services.

• Perhaps most amazing, 79% of self-described Progressive believe that rent control (i.e., price controls) does not lead to housing shortages.

The conclusion:

'Those identifying as “libertarian” and “very conservative” were the most knowledgeable about basic economics. Those identifying as “Progressive” and “Liberal” were the worst.'

Check out Wes' full commentary here. (Btw, I had to use his picture...brilliant!)

Lessons from the Dobson Endorsement Scandal

 My latest post at the Humble Libertarian.

Earlier this week THL reported that Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson has officially taken his support away from Trey Grayson and endorsed Rand Paul in the Kentucky Senate race. The implications of this act are vast and reveal a great deal about Dobson, Paul, and the GOP establishment.

After listening to Dr. Dobson's change-of-heart explanation it is evident that he was lied to by Republican Party leadership. In a shameless act of political desperation, leadership within the GOP flat out lied to secure the Dobson endorsement for Grayson. In short, Dobson was falsely told that Rand Paul is, among other things, not pro-life. This led to an understandable opposition to Rand's campaign by the famed social-conservative. But this past week things changed.

Thankfully, after hearing Rand speak on the pro-life issue, an OB/GYN friend of Dobson alerted him to the truth. After looking further into the issue, Dobson uncovered the GOP deception and found Rand to be "my kind of man." He then dropped his support for Grayson, exposed the GOP establishment's lies, and endorsed Rand.

So what lessons can we take away from this? (Continue reading here.)

Federal Court Shows Establishment Clause Ignorance

On Thursday a federal judge in Wisconsin  ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional, claiming it to be a call for religious action that violates our nation's supreme law. Needless to say, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb could not be farther off the mark in her ruling.

According the the Associated Press, Judge Crabb "wrote that the government can no more enact laws supporting a day of prayer than it can encourage citizens to fast during Ramadan, attend a synagogue or practice magic."

Actually, the government could do all of those things and still fall within the pale of the Constitution. Regretfully, the judge's ignorance of the Constitution's meaning is glaring. The First Amendment to the US Constitution merely forbids laws respecting the establishment of religion--an understandable concern for a nation founded as a refuge for religious liberty. Anything that falls short of an establishment of a national church/religion is not the least bit unconstitutional. Of course, the Court has over the years attempted to set up arbitrary barriers around Church-State interactions, but whether or not these barriers are good policy is beside the point. It is constitutionality, not the effects of policy, which should be the Court's concern.

I think it is personally bad policy for the event to happen, but that does not mean I can call such unconstitutional. I believe the National Day of Prayer is a superficial act which does nothing to further the Gospel or health of the Christian faith. To me it is an event that has turned into one big DC charade, therefore, I could care less if it was done away with. But, when it faces cancellation based on false rulings by a federal court, I will be quick to call foul.

Whether or not one agrees with prayer in a political setting is of no concern in the matter. The simple question is "What does the Constitution mean, and is this particular act a violation of such?" If properly approached, a ruling contrary to the Wisconsin court should be the result.

I hold to the classical evangelical position that goes beyond a forbidding of establishment and calls for a lack of mingling the business of church and state, believing that such causes harm to both and a compromise to the Gospel. But even if I think something is in poor taste, I would never be as foolish as to call such unconstitutional.The court system would be wise to follow suit.

Almost as bad as the misguided ruling of the court is the cry of many conservatives.

The American Center for Law and Justice, which represented 31 members of Congress who joined the federal government as defendants, called Crabb's ruling flawed and promised to appeal.

"It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group of Christian lawyers, issued a statement saying Crabb's ruling undermines American tradition dating back to the nation's birth.

Completely missing the mark, these opponents of the ruling point to tradition for support. Tradition is not the final word; the Constitution is. The document's actual meaning should be their source of strength.

What we see in this case is failure on both sides to respect the Constitution. The court appeals to a need for a "significant secular purpose" to constitute prayer. (What could that even be?!?!) And the defendants point to tradition. I would merely like to see the document given the final say; apparently that is too much to ask.

PS: In case you were wondering, the Obama administration is not backing down and intends to go ahead with the National Day of Prayer.

Sanctions Will Not Stop a Nuclear Iran...It's Bad Policy

Continuing down a path of poor policy, President Obama has made it clear that he supports tough sanctions on Iran to prevent nuclear arms development. The policy is misguided not because Iran cannot prove to be a threat; it very well could, and its leadership is less than trustworthy--to put it lightly. Rather, sanctions are never good policy!

If the goal of the Obama administration is to defend the United States, then sanctions against Iran will do little to provide for it. Contrarily, Iranian sanctions will merely provide for innocent people suffering and the emboldening of Iran's leadership.

If history has taught us anything about sanctions, it is this: The innocents of a sanctioned country suffer while the corrupt leaders thrive, and the goals of the sanctioning country are never truly met. Likewise, the so-called "targeted sanctions," which have gained popularity in the past few decades, have proven both ineffective in meeting security goals and in shielding the populace from suffering.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul rightly noted on the House floor back in December:

As we have learned with US sanctions on Iraq, and indeed with US sanctions on Cuba and elsewhere, it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most. The purpose of these sanctions is to change the regime in Iran, but past practice has demonstrated time and again that sanctions only strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition. As would be the case were we in the US targeted for regime change by a foreign government, people in Iran will tend to put aside political and other differences to oppose that threatening external force. Thus this legislation will likely serve to strengthen the popularity of the current Iranian government. Any opposition continuing to function in Iran would be seen as operating in concert with the foreign entity seeking to overthrow the regime. 

Dr. Paul could not be anymore right. The harm in sanctions go beyond the pain inflicted upon the populations of targeted nations; our national defense is put in jeopardy as well. 

Osama Bin Laden, himself, noted US sanctions as one of three main reasons for his holy war against the United States. In his evil response, one thing is evident: Nations remember when a hegemonic power causes suffering. Misguided policy will breed ordeals in the future which we will be forced to face, and the scars of the past are hard to overcome. 

It is clear that sanctions do harm. The evidence cannot be hidden, and even the government itself has defied its own policy and confirmed that sanctions don't work.

Jacob Hornberger notes:

Recall the brutal sanctions that the U.S. government enforced against Iraq for more than 10 years. Every year, they were causing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children from infectious illnesses, malnutrition, etc. Those deaths didn't cause Saddam Hussein to leave office, which is what the U.S. government wanted. Equally important, U.S. officials were indifferent to the deaths of all those Iraqi children. In fact, the official U.S. position was that those deaths were "worth it," the term used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright when asked about the deaths by "Sixty Minutes."

 Because we know the track record of sanctions as one of failure and harm to civilian populations, those who value liberty and a strong national defense should be the first to come out against them. No conservative, libertarian, or constitutionalist can consistently support these brutal and ineffective measures.

If Iran poses a true threat, sanctions will only heighten that threat. The Obama Administration would be wise to consider a vastly different policy.

A Reflection on J. Stevens and the Future

On Friday news broke that Justice John Paul Stevens, leader of the Supreme Court's liberal bloc, is retiring. Despite President Obama's claim, Stevens has been far from an "impartial guardian of the law."

The CATO Instiutite rightly notes:

While a friend of liberty in certain limited circumstances, he ultimately hangs his hat on supporting government action over the rights of individuals in contexts ranging from property rights (Kelo v. New London) to the Second Amendment (D.C. v. Heller) to free speech (Citizens United and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning case) to executive agency power (Chevron).  And even on those issues where friends of liberty can disagree in good faith as a matter of policy, such as abortion and the death penalty, Stevens admittedly and unabashedly asserted his own policy preferences instead of following the law.

I could not agree more with this assessment. Justice Stevens, consistently a friend to liberal policy, did much harm to the Constitution during his time on the bench--the second longest in the Court's history. Even though I most often, though not always, found myself an opponent of Steven's jurisprudence, he was a good natured fellow. But this good personal constitution is no excuse for his neglect of the US Constitution.

Of course, President Obama's intent will be to fill the vacancy with another reliable liberal vote. So not much should change in the Court's ideological composition. Hopefully, Stevens' replacement will not forsake the sound positions held by his predecessor. While Stevens may have been wrong 97% of the time, that is much better than 100%. May his successor not fail in the other 3 percent!

One valuable thing each modern judicial nomination process brings is a reevaluation of proper jurisprudence. Questions will be asked to determine judicial philosophy, and the proper guiding philosophy will be considered.

As an originalist I believe in a strict adherence to the Constitution, interpreted according to its original meaning. I could care less about intent, outcome, or pragmatism. But I realize that no one who President Obama nominates will share my Jeffersonian views. So what is the job of the Senate in this nomination process?

As legislators who have sworn to defend the Constitution, each senator has a responsibility to oppose any candidate who does not adhere strictly to the Constitution--regardless of their party allegiance. Of course, most will neglect this duty, and those who do attempt to defeat poor nominations may ultimately prove unsuccessful. But bad appointments still should be opposed, and a fight should still be put up. Likewise, if the president nominates a good candidate, both parties should offer support.

Regardless of who is appointed, the next justice will have a major impact on our nation as we continue forward. Whether the result will be good or bad, the nomination process will truly show that it matter who governs and elections have consequences.

Just Kidding Conservatism by the Southern Avenger

What to Look for at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference

This weekend Republicans from across the country will flock to New Orleans for the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. The likes of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Ron Paul, and a host of other top Republicans will be giving speeches in order to garner support for themselves and their causes. Moreover, for those GOPers looking at a presidential run in 2012, a SRLC straw poll victory would be a great thing to take away from their time in The Big Easy.

Here are five things to look for during and right after this weekend's festivities in Louisiana.

1. Look for each speaker to try to out-conservative the other. Obviously, this will be quiet hilarious for a number of reasons. Sadly, Dr. Ron Paul will be the only consistently true conservative in attendance; the others will merely be putting on a show. Evidence of such will come in speakers mistakenly flexing their war muscles, believing such is traditional conservatism; it isn't!

2. Look for very little mention of George W. Bush. This will be the complete opposite of the 2006 SRLC when John McCain urged his supporters to write in the former presidents name to show their support and Lindsey Graham called Bush "the Churchill of our time." Don't worry, The GOP establishment still loves W. They just know that real conservatives do not.

3. Look for more calls for war. Iran needs some bombing and many at the SRLC will be happy to give it to them. Look for talk of Obama being soft on defense, soft on the War on Terror, and soft on Iran. Of course, the president is almost identical to Bush, so don't believe it for a minute.

4. Look for a condemnation of Obama policies across the board. I am in agreement with most of this. Obama has failed pretty much in every area. He is an enemy to constitutional government, does everything bad that Bush did, and has lied time after time by not keeping his promises to the American people. The problem is that the same things can and should be said of most of his GOP opponents. Hypocrisy will be the true theme of the SRLC. The GOP will call Obama out on policies of which they themselves are guilty.

5. Finally, if Ron Paul wins the straw poll, look for it to be downplayed. If he losses, look for a big deal to be made of the winner.The establishment does not look favorably on Dr. Paul's success; CPAC showed that. Therefore, I am looking forward to Paul supporters ticking them off.

Though their will be a lot of hypocrisy and neoconary going on in New Orleans this weekend, the liberty movement will be there as well. So keep an eye out, point out wrongs, and celebrate victories!

Actions Fall Short of Words

I came across the following article in which an self-proclaimed "old Republican" laments the party abandoning him by pursuing too conservative an agenda. (He must  see a GOP that I do not. Contrarily, I lament a party that has left me because it refuses to be conservative.) The author has some legitimate concerns, but for the most part, I believe his argument fails to hold water. He looks back to the Rockefeller Republicanism of the past that has long been cast to the fray--at least in open speech. Of course, the liberals never left, but the Reagan coalition put an end to much of their influence. But that is beside my point.

My point is not to challenge this man for his Republicanism. Rather, I would like to draw on the fallacy found in his opening paragraph.  

I am an old Republican. I am religious, yet not a fanatic. I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee. I am socially conservative; yet, I believe that my lesbian niece and my gay grandchild should have the full protection of the law and live as free Americans enjoying every aspect of our society with no prejudices and/or restrictions. Nowadays, my political and socio-economic profile would make me a Marxist, not a Republican.

Truly, I doubt he would be considered a Marxist. Rather, I think he would be considered for party leadership. Remember, it was Bush not Obama who abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market.

The author claims, "I am a free-marketer; yet, I believe in the role of the government as a fair evenhanded referee." Well,sir, you are not a free-marketer!

This type of statement is so flawed. It is like saying, "I'm no murderer, but I do murder people."

If one believes in market intervention, one cannot be committed to free markets. Such betrays the term "free market." (Moreover, it must be added that if he expects the government to fair and evenhanded in anything, he will always be found wanting.)

It is time that we hold people accountable for what they label themselves. If you claim to be a conservative, just be conservative. If you claim to be a libertarian, just be libertarian. If you claim to be a modern liberal, just hate America. (I jest, of course...sorta.)

Many problems in politics stem from people not holding to consistent worldviews and positions. People assume that everything should conform to them and their view of reality, but that cannot be the case. I cannot call myself a black American and expect people to accept my white tail as such. So why can I call myself a free marketer and not hold to free market economics? Likewise, I cannot expect free market economics to conform to my meaning. I am limited to its meaning, not the other way around.

When people make statements like this or betray what they claim to be, we must hold them accountable. We must correct the error. Lack of doing so has left us with a government full of "conservatives" but little conservative governance, an anti-war president who escalates the wars in the Middle East, and "supreme law of the land" that is disregarded at every turn.

What Will Novemeber Bring?

Besides my take on the passage of Obamacare, I have been most asked the following types of questions as of late by concerned citizens: Can we actually get some good guys in office this Fall? Do you think the Republicans will take back the House come election night? Will the Tea Party actually be able to have a positive effect on the conservative movement in November?

Well...I'm no soothsayer; so my knowledge of the future is just as good as the next guy. Moreover, I think that each of these questions, though they may overlap, are referring to different things. Nevertheless, I will attempt to unpack the political situation as I see it.

Yes, the Democrats have been engaging in very unpopular behavior for a number of years which has escalated over the past 14 months, and they have just passed a mammoth piece of unpopular legislation--Obamacare. But we need only look back to the 2004 re-election of George W. Bush to see that unpopularity and poor policy does not always guarantee electoral failure. Despite this reality, I see major gains for the GOP come November unless their is a drastic, unforeseen change in the political environment.

Therefore, if one is merely concerned with success for those running under the Republican brand, it will be a good year. This does not mean, however, that 2010 will be a great year for conservatism. As we can see from our current crop of Republicans, true conservatism and a commitment to limited government principles couldn't be further from many in the GOP's minds.

Indeed, 2010 should be a great year for conservatism and a great year for the restoration of the Republican Party to its conservative platform, but if early signs hold true, those of us who love liberty and the Constitution may be left wanting. I say this not for lack of opportunity nor for lack of strength in our cause. Rather, my doubts stem from both the party establishments' support of non-principled candidates and from movements like the Tea Party folks' perceived willingness to pick the "lesser of two evils." The establishment of both parties is powerful in its support of the status quo; since the current status quo is against liberty, the tide will not be easily turned. Moreover, if those who claim to want change side with "the lesser of two evils," there will be no hope for lasting change--unless the change one wants is a government full of liberals like Scott Brown and John McCain.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, I would like to clarify my opinion. I do think good things will come about this Fall. Good conservatives, like Kentucky's Rand Paul, will have success, and our country will benefit greatly from it. Likewise, many bad officeholders will be punished by losing their seats. Moreover, I think that the Tea Party movement and the whole host of other movements under the "liberty" banner have a great opportunity to do good and put constitutionalists into office this Fall. The time is ripe, and the moment should not be wasted.

But I have also been around politics long enough to know that people are often short sided and quick to sell out their principles. If the Tea Party movement uses its influence merely as an arm of the GOP, we as small government advocates will see electoral failure. Until shills like Sean Hannity are called out on their hypocrisy, rather than being celebrated as movement torch-bearers, their will be great difficulty in restoring a constitutional republic. Moreover, the GOP is not the conservative movement. This needs to be noted. I believe that working within the GOP provides the most promising electoral prospect, and as conservatives and libertarians, we can assert our influence to take back the GOP from neoconservatives and political progressives. But the acknowledgement that working within the GOP may be the best path to power, does not mean that we should wholesale endorse GOP candidates. Only those who share our values and principles deserve our support; others should e opposed. If we don't act accordingly, we will be doomed.

It is my fear that November will bring compromise and neglect of principle that will usher Republicans into office but leave conservatives and libertarians out.

The only way to combat this potential march of the RINOs is to hold strongly to principle. There should be no blind partisanship, no choosing "the lesser of two evils," and no room for selling out. If we do not demand a higher standard from our candidates and our representatives, we will continue to reap these poor results, and we may reap nothing but more bad governance come election day.

Rand Paul Money Bomb!

It is time for the Rand Paul March 23rd Money Bomb. So head on over to Rand's website and throw some support his way. I personally spent last week in Kentucky volunteering for his campaign with over a hundred other young people because I believe in Rand and I believe in the cause for which he fights--liberty and constitutional government.

Rand is the true heir to the rEVOLution his father started. Like his father, Rand is firmly committed to constitutional and responsible government, emphasizing individual liberty. Is he perfect on all issues? No, and neither is his father. But what is sure is this: he is solid on principle. He takes his marching orders from the Constitution, rather than our failed zeitgeist.

In many ways Rand is much better than Ron. (Not to say that I don't love Ron.) Rand is not only principled and committed to liberty like his father, but he is a great communicator. He can present his ideas clearly in a manner that builds support for his cause and allows him to bring others into the cause of liberty. Furthermore, he is solid on the issues, at times even being better than his dad. Moreover, he is a suave political actor, and his ability to campaign well has even impressed me--the jaded political fan boy. 

So once again, head over to RandPaul2010.com and make your pledge today.

(Rand and I)

Supreme Court's Thomas: Conflict of Interest?...Nah

The internet has been buzzing with the Los Angeles Times article about the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas' political involvement. The article notes that Virginia Thomas "has launched a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court." Her organization, Liberty Central Inc., seeks to educate in Founding principles, motivate individuals around key issues, and engage in activism. From what I can tell by perusing around the organization's website, it seems to be your run-of-the-mill conservative activism non-profit.

What makes Liberty Central stand out is its president/CEO--Mrs. Clarence Thomas. I say this not to downplay her organization; I am sure they do fine work. My point is merely that Mrs. Thomas' husband's place on the highest court in the land is what makes this newsworthy--if, indeed, it is newsworthy.

I am not entirely convinced that Thomas' political involvement is a problem. Nowhere in the Constitution do we see a ban against such a situation. Moreover, legal experts have admitted that Mrs. Thomas' work violates no ethical rules. Nevertheless, there is still some concern over a potential conflict of interests. This concern is justified and should be something always guarded against. But so should it in all cases--regardless of whether a spouse is a judge, a legislator, or even a low-level bureaucrat. There is always potential for abuse, and we should safeguard against it. However, that reality should not forbid a spouse from pursuing a career. There is no need for one's ambition to be thwarted when another succeeds.Furthermore, we would be foolish to assume that judges' spouses are political neutral. I hate to break it to you, but the judges aren't even politically neutral.

Though the examples of spousal political involvement may be limited, their is a long history of members of the Court stepping aside to prevent conflicts of interests. I am sure that Justice Thomas would excuse himself from any proceeding involving Liberty Central, if a case happened to arise. Moreover, to suggest that Justice Thomas would use his position on the Court unethically to advance his wife's organization is both silly and unthinkable.

Virginia Thomas is no stranger to politics. She has over 30 years of beltway experience, including stints with Dick Armey and the Heritage Foundation. Nineteen of those years have been with her husband as a Supreme Court Justice. In that time we have seen no conflict of interests, giving us no reason to expect it now.

For now, we should remain vigilant (as we always should). If a problem arises, we should address it. But for I see no reason to worry. I don't say this because I like Justice Thomas, though I do in many ways. I say it because I am realistic. I know the Court, and I know that Justice Thomas is too bright and principled to unethically assist his wife.

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty by the Southern Avenger

 I don't know how I missed this one when it came out, but it is good nonetheless.

Not Necessarily a Neocon If...

In light of yesterday's article, I thought it might be beneficial to provide a list of things that don't necessarily make one a neoconservative. Some may say, "Of course, that does not make one a neocon. I share that belief myself." Well...you would be surprised with what some who recklessly throw around the term "neocon" use to pin down so-called neocons.

1. If someone believes that there can be a just cause for war, that does not make them a neocon. Believing in classical liberalism does not prohibit one from supporting just, constitutional wars and true national defense. However, foreign adventurism and unjust wars of aggression cannot be supported by a true conservative. Moreover, I would even go far enough to say that one can be in support of our current wars and not be a neocon. That is not to say that they are not wrong in that support; they are. But some legitimately believe the wars in the middle east are legitimate acts of national defense, rather than being motivated by neoconservative desires for global domination.

2. If someone does not think 9/11 was an inside job, that does not make them a neocon. You are free to your opinion, but many of us do not believe that 9/11 was a government-crafted conspiracy. I don't , and neither does the enemy of all neocons, Ron Paul.

3. If you have ever read The Prince, that does not make you a neocon. Yes, neocons are Machiavellian, and they do revere his work. But who has studied political theory and hasn't studied Machiavelli? I have. I've also studied The Communist Manifesto, but that doesn't make me a communist.

4. If someone is pro-military, that does not make them a neocon. Being against unjust war and against the military-industrial complex does not necessitate one being anti-military. Just because someone supports the troops, that doesn't mean they are a neocon. Some of our greatest liberty movement activists are or were in the military. Besides, someone has to support the troops; our government sure doesn't--whether it be on the battlefield or here at home.

5. Just because someone has been influenced by neocons, that does not make them a neocon. Let's face it, the neocons control the agenda and have defined what it means to be "conservative" for over a decade--almost two decades. Therefore, they have had a heavy influence on weak-minded and misguided "conservatives." We need to rescue these people from their wrongs, not write them off as neocons.

6. Just because someone believes differently than you, that doesn't make them a neocon. This is the most important one. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone called a neocon for the simple reason that they hold differing views. "You don't believe we should legalize drugs...neocon." "You don't believe in trying terrorists in civilian courts...neocon." Sometimes this frustration is properly directed, but neocon cannot become the auto-response for "wrong!" Neoconservativism is always wrong, but wrong is not always neoconservative.

Make no mistake, I do not want to defend neocons or downplay the hoards of them out there. I can't stand them. Furthermore, I don't want to defend those who share neocon views and are wrong on the issues. I want them to be taken to task. But I think it is important that we are careful in throwing around the "neocon" label. If we make proper distinctions, we can better work to bring conservatives back to what the claim to believe in--limited government and personal liberty--the very things the neocons stand firmly against.

The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn't 'Conservative' by the Southern Avenger

Also, check out an earlier blog of mine regarding libertarianism and conservatism here.

Underwater Mortgages

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian in regards to "underwater" mortgages and contractual obligation.

 It begins:

The “Great Recession” has hit almost every sector of the economy. Times are tough, people are out of work, and paying the bills is no easy task for most. Therefore, many are falling increasingly behind on their mortgages, paying for homes that are worth substantially less than when they were first purchased. In light of this, Washington Post columnist Brett Arends advises readers behind on their mortgages to stop making payments altogether in his recent article.

Mr. Arends contends that you should neglect your payments, offering that “No, you shouldn't feel bad about it, and you shouldn't feel guilty. The lenders would do the same to you—in a heartbeat.” Likewise, he claims that you should not worry about meeting your obligations because “the economy is fundamentally amoral.”

Needless-to-say, I am fundamentally opposed to Mr. Arends’ opinion. I understand the hardship, and I do not want people to suffer in order to make payments. Moreover, many of these people are victims of the government’s intervention into the economy, which makes the situation even worse. But the solution is not to shirk responsibility. Rather, if a contractual agreement was made, that needs to be honored. We should sympathize with those who have legitimately fallen on hard times, but we should not encourage bad behavior.

Contracts are an important part of a free society. They protect our relationships and property, while providing for commerce and employment. In fact, our Founders valued the right of contract so much that they inserted a safeguard against the government violating contractual obligations into Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution. That being said, a free society can only operate when contracts are honored—whether it be a contract between the government and the governed or between individuals conducting business. Therefore, when we refuse to uphold contractual obligations, there are always consequences.

(Read the rest here.)