Category Archives: Foreign Policy

The GOP’s Theoconservatism Problem


“The impact of the sound bite mentality which you find in both parties…is there’s been a debasing of the system. Because if you listen to these — I call them the Stepford candidates — on both sides in these debates the only two candidates that speak clearly are the ones they call the kooks.” Victor Gold to Bill Moyer in 2007 interview

 The GOP needs a dose of libertarianism and much less social conservatism if it can ever  honestly claim to be conservative again. Victor Gold, who served as Press Secretary to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter for Reagan and Bush 41, wrote a book entitled, Invasion of the Body Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP. Victor Gold understood a problem for the GOP that would make proclamations of limited government and fiscal responsibility hypocritical and at odds with the desires of its social conservatives. Gold’s diagnosis is prescient; as the GOP has gone on to lose two more Presidential elections since the publication of Invasion of the Party Snatchers in 2007. His book remains a better diagnosis of why the GOP lost 4 of the last 6 Presidential elections and may continue to do so than Reince Priebus’ $10 million “autopsy” written in platitudinous consultancy speak.

GOP’s Neoconservative Problem


Chicago, March 28, 2013 - One week after the ten-year anniversary of the Iraq War and twelve years into Afghanistan, neoconservatism yet remains the dominant foreign policy influence within the GOP.  With its embrace of big government and unlimited spending on interventionism, neoconservatism has to a substantial degree, taken the GOP away from the Republican Party’s roots in conservatism and back towards its own Trotskyite utopianism. It remains to be seen whether there is anything other than the public’s aversion to more foreign policy quagmires, budget busting debt, or defeat in national elections that will make the GOP self-correct its foreign policy.

Neoconservatism is a loosely defined ideology, which in its most consistently expressed terms as it relates to foreign policy holds that democracy should be spread to all parts of the world and that doing so will result in peace. It advocates global military intervention and unilateralism over diplomacy and statecraft. The theory being that western democratic and capitalist states are peaceable. This works when you think of Canada or Australia, but from a longer historical perspective, this belief is unsupported by any depth of historical evidence. Historical proof is not necessary however as the enthusiasm for ideologies are rooted in faith - in the case of Neoconservatism, it is a belief that commitment to world-wide revolutionary change that will bring peace, can only be achieved by the spreading of that democracy to all nations even if by global intervention. This is precisely what the Communists tried to achieve in spreading Communism across the globe until they were fiscally exhausted and ideologically isolated. They shared the same belief in a revolutionary ideology.


UN says Obama’s US drones violate Pakistan’s sovereignty – 400 confirmed civilian deaths


ISLAMABAD (AP) — The head of a investigating casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan declared after a secret research trip to the country that the attacks violate Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, said the Pakistani government made clear to him that it does not consent to the strikes — a position that has been disputed by U.S. officials.

President Barack Obama has stepped up covert CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaida and Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal region along the Afghan border since he took office in 2009.

The strikes have caused growing controversy because of the secrecy surrounding them and claims that they have caused significant civilian casualties — allegations denied by the United States.

According to a U.N. statement that Emmerson emailed to The Associated Press on Friday, the Pakistani government told him it has confirmed at least 400 civilian deaths by U.S. drones on its territory. The statement was initially released on Thursday, following the investigator’s three-day visit to Pakistan, which ended Wednesday. The visit was kept secret until Emmerson left.

Imtiaz Gul, an expert on Pakistani militancy who is helping Emmerson’s team, said Friday that the organization he runs, the Centre for Research and Security Studies, gave the U.N. investigator during his visit case studies on 25 strikes that allegedly killed around 200 civilians.

Read full article here

John McCain & Lindsey Graham Justifying The NDAA Bill Over the Constitution


Lindsey Graham and John McCain demonstrate their lack of constitutional expertise…

Air Force reportedly removes drone strike data from website

USDroneCensus_main_0709 (2)

Amid a growing debate over U.S. policies for using drones, the Air Force has reportedly reversed its policy of sharing the number of drone strikes in Afghanistan and erased previously published statistics from its website.

The Air Force Times reports that the Air Force began publishing monthly data on airstrikes launched from remotely piloted aircraft in Afghanistan in October and made the statistics available in November, December and January.

The statistics report for February contained an “empty space” where the data on drone strikes had previously been and reports from previous months had been scrubbed of drone strike data, according to the paper.

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Bill Speaks told the Air Force Times the Defense Department was not involved in the policy change. Air Forces Central Command did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more:

Marco Rubio, Rand Paul differ on Middle East


Sens. Marco Rubio and Rand Paul — in what could be a preview of a 2016 Republican presidential primary showdown — are staking out markedly different positions on U.S. intervention in the world, and particularly on American policy toward the Middle East

Kentucky’s Mr. Paul, who visited Israel and Jordan in January, is calling for Republicans to adopt a more restrained and less interventionist approach to global affairs, and is embracing the sequester cuts to the defense budget that is sending military hawks into a tizzy.

Mr. Rubio, who visited Israel and Jordan last month, is advocating a more muscular brand of global leadership and observers said it is significant that the Florida lawmaker tapped Jamie Fly, an adviser to President George W. Bush, as a counselor on foreign affairs and national security.

“What you are getting from Rand is really what he thinks,” said James Jay Carafano, vice president of defense policies studies at the Heritage Foundation. “What you are getting from Rubio is in part Jamie, who is more senior, more experienced, and who is more on the side of the offensive realists.”

Read article here

Rand Paul’s Seminal Speech


In his speech, Paul lauded Cold War thinker George Kennan for articulating a strategy based on a careful calibration of U.S. interests. Kennan, he said, objected to President Harry Truman’s “implied obligation to act wherever Soviet aggression or intimidation occurred, without regard to whether American interests were at stake or the means existed with which to defend them.” After all, not every cluster of Islamic radicals in far-flung outposts of the world constitutes a threat to the United States, just as not every two-bit Communist regime constituted a Cold War threat. Paul’s “saner, more balanced approach to foreign policy” would take account of these distinctions.

Paul was particularly intriguing in his assessment of Ronald Reagan, often invoked by neoconservatives as a model for their aggressive foreign-policy prescriptions. This is a false analogy, says Paul, adding that Reagan’s foreign policy was “robust but also restrained.” He quotes Reagan adviser Jack Matlock as saying the fortieth president’s Soviet policy “had more in common with Kennan’s thinking than the policy of any of Reagan’s predecessors.” The Cold War ended, Paul argues, because the engine of capitalism defeated the engine of socialism. “Reagan aided and abetted this end not by ‘liberation’ of captive people,” but with tough talk accompanied by a willingness to engage diplomatically. And he praises Reagan’s “strategic ambiguity”—his willingness to keep the world guessing about just how he defined his own foreign policy.

This was far more effective, says Paul, than the current tendency to outline precisely what the United States will and won’t accept from other countries, which he suggests undermines effective diplomacy. He is particularly critical of how this has worked vis-à-vis Iran, which has been told that “all options are on the table” (meaning, obviously, the military option) while U.S. officials sternly remove from the table any prospect of containment and have handled the diplomatic option in ways suggesting limited interest in that as well. Just as it would be unwise to state unequivocally that we will accept containment as a policy against a nuclear Iran, says Paul, it is equally unwise to say we will never accept containment. “War,” said Paul, “should never be our only option.”

Read article here


Tom Fitton, Head of Judicial Watch, Battling Obama Administration for Access to Photos of Usama Bin Laden’s Body


The watchdog group Judicial Watch is battling the Obama administration in court for the release of 52 photos of the body of terrorist leader Usama bin Laden and his burial.

The Justice Department has argued making the photos public could inflame tensions in the Muslim world. At the time of bin Laden’s killing in Pakistan, President Obama said he would not release the photos because he did not want the world to view it as “spiking the football.” The body was ultimately buried at sea.

In denying this Freedom of Information Act request, the administration said the photos could harm national security or lead to attacks on Americans overseas. The case is now in a federal appeals court…

Read full article here

Opposing Unconstitutional Wars

Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray.

The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time.

I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA over indefinite detention, fought to end mandatory minimum drug sentences, and voted against my party’s official budget because it didn’t cut enough spending.

I introduced a resolution against an unconstitutional war in Libya, and tried to repeal the authorization for the unconstitutional war before that in Iraq.

Read article here

Your Government is a Relentless Menace

Since 2002 government and industry have been working toward a system to identify and track every farm animal from birth to market.

This met vigorous opposition.

Read Here   And Here

At one time it seemed as if vigilant energetic Citizens had won a victory, making their petitions heard.

Read Here   And Here

But it’s back

Read Here   And Here

We spend our time and energy fighting tyranny while tyrants spend our energy fighting us. We may all die of exhaustion demanding or begging to be left alone. If  we only dare ask for liberty time is on their side. When enough assert their liberty we will live as free men.