Libertarian response to State of the Union and Republicans

WASHINGTON – This evening, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict spoke in response to the addresses from President Barack Obama and Congressman Paul Ryan.

A transcript of Mr. Benedict’s speech follows:

Good evening and thank you for your interest in the State of our Union.

My name is Wes Benedict. I’m the executive director of the Libertarian National Committee here in Washington, DC. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace.

Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan.

President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won’t really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it’s necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.

However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.

Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget.

On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan’s hypocrisy appalling. He claims to want big cuts in government spending. But he didn’t seem to be too worried about cutting spending when Republicans were in charge. He supported the huge Medicare expansion in 2003, and the expensive No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.

Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.

Republicans don’t want to cut spending — they want to talk about cutting spending.

Congressman Paul Ryan is a perfect example of why Republicans are bad for America.

Republicans’ plans for Social Security and Medicare are little more than a distraction. It’s time for someone to have the guts to tell seniors the truth: You were promised way too much, and now we’ve got to make major cuts. I’m asking retirees to think about the enormous debts piling up on your children and grandchildren.

Libertarians would stop spending billions on bailouts, the War on Drugs, federal education programs, and we would end mandatory Social Security and Medicare.

Today, America is a country that attracts hardworking immigrants from Mexico and around the world, leaving countries that are less free and prosperous. Libertarians welcome these immigrants warmly. But I often wonder if — in 20 years — America will still be a great place to live, or if it will be another declining civilization fraught with poverty and abuse that your children want to leave.

The future of America may depend on the Libertarian Party steering us towards liberty and away from tyranny.

The Libertarian Party is America’s third-largest party, and one of the most successful alternative parties in American history.

We are recruiting bold, principled men and women dedicated to freedom to fill leadership positions and to run for office as Libertarians.

You don’t have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party. You can still make a difference and help us move our country towards freedom.

The Libertarian Party has more information at our website, LP.org. Please visit LP.org and join the Libertarian Party today.

Thank you and good night.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets, civil liberties, and peace. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

 

###

116 thoughts on “Libertarian response to State of the Union and Republicans

  1. paulie Post author

    Aaron is correct. The idea that Obama was antiwar came from other people, not from him.

    However, most of the response text is really good, and I’m also glad to see it come out so quickly.

    The video is a good idea in principle, but the reading does not sound like natural speech for chunks of it. There’s only so much you can do on short notice.

  2. Thomas M. Sipos

    Aaron Starr: “That statement is simply not accurate. I’m disappointed that we didn’t get this part right.”

    Root and Obama are on the same page. Root advocated an Afghan surge in 2008: http://libertarianpeacenik.blogspot.com/2008/08/wayne-allyn-root-calls-for-afghan-surge.html

    Aaron Starr is right to call for accuracy. Perhaps Hinkle should have said, “While the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, shares President Obama’s call for military escalation in Afghanistan, the Libertarian Party itself opposes such foreign interventions.”

    Better, Aaron?

  3. Down and Out in Dixie

    #3 It’s also a complete outrage that Benedict failed to mention the views of 2004 VP candidate Richard Campagna about the Asian wars. Why this omission? What is he trying to hide?

  4. John Jay Myers

    2 things:
    1. We need to get Wes another monitor behind the camera to keep his script on.
    2. Fantastic overall, I am glad to see they are wipping these things out within hours of an event. We need that.

    Here are my thoughts on the state of the union, I suppose this is 3 things:

    State of the Union 2011 by John Jay Myers

    Politicians regularly promise people things that they can never deliver. Things that they have no way to deliver. Our government cannot create jobs without losing jobs. They cannot make us safer without threatening our freedoms or making new enemies abroad. They cannot give us health care without taking away quality or increasing prices.

    Each side promises everybody everything, and we believe it. They divide America in half in an effort to gain support for their side, pitting Americans against each other, believing that one day… just one day if they could get their guy in office, they would be richer, or safer, or more handsome. They won’t.

    They are just going to give major corporations, the insurance industry, the military industrial complex, the oil companies, or foreign lobbies the things that they want, somehow convincing you that these things are in your interest. They are not.

    All of these people who promise you things have to get more money so they can promise you more things in more places, more clearly and loudly, on TV, on the radio, and in the news paper. So they need more and more money from their sponsors, either above board at $2400 a pop, or through secret accounts in Antigua.

    There is only one solution, stop thinking that the government is going to save you. It is not. Stop requesting that your government do these types of things for you. Government can only take. This country was not made great because we had a government that did everything. It became great because we had a government that stayed out of the way. Freedom is the answer.

    The libertarian message is a freedom train and it is heading towards a better America. When we reach a destination 10 years down the road that is too free for you, hop off. In the mean time hold on tight and stop sweating the small stuff.

    I know a lot of people placed a lot of bets that the Tea Party was going to save them. The Tea Party was created because of the bailouts, because corrupt politicians voted to give our money to the banks, which is a good reason to start any movement.

    Luckily the Tea Party now has Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Pete Sessions standing up for them in Congress. Oh wait, Pete Sessions, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan all voted for the bailouts. That is a little thing called the bait and switch, and that is the State of our Union.

  5. Robert Capozzi

    tms3: Aaron Starr is right to call for accuracy. Perhaps Hinkle should have said, “While the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, shares President Obama’s call for military escalation in Afghanistan, the Libertarian Party itself opposes such foreign interventions.”

    me: Did you mean Benedict, not Hinkle? Incorporating Root seems way off the mark, so Wood nails it…there’s not six degrees of separation, all roads lead to Root in Siposland! 😉

  6. Eric Dondero

    Wes is right in one sense. Paul Ryan was more of a Centrist during the 2000s. Which is not surprising, cause Wisconsin in the last few years has been quite a liberal State.

    But lately he’s become much more hardline. He scored a Perfect 100 in the very latest index by the libertarian group American For Prosperity (run by fmr. Libertarian Party V.P. candidate David Koch).

    And this is a shocker! Ryan scored 5 points higher in the index than former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, now Congressman Ron Paul.

  7. Eric Dondero

    The Libertarian Party’s first Presidential candidate Dr. John Hospers supports both the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is diehard Pro-Defense.

    So, much so, in fact, that he balked at endorsing Badnarik in 2004, and instead enthusiastically endorsed George W. Bush.

    He even served as Honorary Chairman of Libertarians for Bush.

    The consistent libertarian foreign policy is to oppose Islamo-Fascism; not to appease it.

  8. Eric Dondero

    Obama is in fact – Pro-War.

    He is Pro-War on America. He is a diehard Islamist, who bows down to Saudi Arabia (literally), and gives speeches in Egypt encouraging that Radical Islamists.

    Obama is a Muslim himself. So, his interests lie with Islamic Jihad against America. Thus, his rush to pull American Troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Last thing Obama wants is an American bulkhead in the Middle East protecting Israel, and protecting American values and interests.

    He may not be completely Anti-Semitic, but his past alliances with Radical Muslims in the Chicago-area and Jew-hating Bill Ayers, leaves him extremely suspect.

  9. Down and Out in Dixie

    But lately Paul Ryan’s become much more hardline. He scored a Perfect 100 in the very latest index by the libertarian group American For Prosperity (run by fmr. Libertarian Party V.P. candidate David Koch).

    How “lately” would that be?

    ” He supports the expensive War on Drugs. In 2008, he put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk by voting for the massive TARP bailout, and he even voted to spend billions on the GM and Chrysler bailout.”

    “Just one month ago, Congressman Ryan voted for the tax compromise that included a big increase in unemployment spending, and even extensions of government spending on ethanol.”

    Maybe Americans for Prosperity is not so libertarian if they gave him a perfect 100 score.

  10. Robert Capozzi

    wb: You don’t have to agree with every single Libertarian position to join the Libertarian Party.

    me: Hmm, this is good to know. Technically, I’d suggest that the LP has planks, not “positions,” but I am pleased that Wes states this. I do wonder what NAP Absolutists think of this statement?

  11. paulie Post author

    @13 As a “NAP absolutist” I don’t have a problem with the statement. Given some of the ways the party platform is evolving, there are things that I don’t agree with in there myself, such as border controls. We can have a big tent, as long as it does not lean too far to the right – then it topples and all you get is crushed dead elephants, faith healers and clowns.

    Speaking of which…

    Obama is in about as much of a rush to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan as, oh, Rush Limbaugh. He’s doubled down in Afghanistan, and there are just as many Americans in Iraq as at any point during the war, although fewer of them are official military, more military contractors. He’s also continued (and often worsened) every bad domestic aspect of Bush’s wars.

    And as for him being a Muslim, that is just laughable.

  12. Robert Capozzi

    p, yes, as co-Chair of the Rodney King Caucus, I would expect as much.

    I seem to recall one prominent NAP Absolutist suggest that “violations” of NAP Absolutism — including instances where platform planks adopted in convention — could be appealed to the Judicial Committee to be overturned. Items like “border control” might be deemed NAP violations. To my knowledge, there have been no serious attempts to overrule plumbline violations in this manner, but the notion of doing so has apparently been considered by some.

    Boy, would that ever be an interesting (if dysfunctional) drama.

  13. Dondero/Root are "Obama Libertarians"

    Bush, Obama, Dondero, and Root all agree on U.S. war policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Yes they do.)

    I guess Dondero and Root are “Obama Libertarians.”

    Bill, sorry, but I don’t think Kevin Bacon’s on the same page. Actors are generally smarter about foreign policy than the above quartet.

    — T. Sipos

  14. Eric Dondero

    That’s funny. Obama is an isolationist/non-interventionist immediate pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, Leftist Radical.

    Tell me one time Obama has even used the word “Islamo-Fascist”? As much as a War Wimp as Bush was, at least he did use the term one single time. Obama? Never!

    How can you fight an enemy when you cannot even identify them for fear of political correctness?

  15. Eric Dondero

    Can you tell me what Obama is doing right now to fight rampant Islamism spreading across Europe?

    France, Netherlands, UK, Sweden, even peaceful Switzerland are under daily attack from Islamism.

    France – dozens of cars burned in the streets of Paris nightly by Islamic youth.

    UK – Pakistani men raping young white girls as young as 8 in Northern England.

    Netherlands – Pym Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, murdered in the streets for the crime of opposing Islam. Current Dutch libertarian MP Geert Wilders has his life threatened on a daily basis by Islamists.

    Denmark – libertarian cartoonist Lars Vilk has had three assasination attempts on him, in the last 2 years, for the crime of “insulting Islam.”

    Sweden – bomb blast of Christmas shoppers in busy downtown Stockholm, just missed murdering hundreds of Swedes.

    Why not outcry from our “President”? Why the silence? Why are we not protecting our European allies from this Islamist onslaught???

  16. paulie Post author

    @16 There are several statements in the LP platform that I disagree with.

    http://www.lp.org/platform

    1.5 Crime and Justice

    Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. This may be what most libertarians wish governments exist to do, and the rest of us would prefer they be limited to things in substantial compliance with that as a transition to ceasing to act as a compulsory monopoly, but it is not in fact what they exist to do in the real world. However, the rest of that plank is fine.

    2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

    We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. I would argue that as presently constituted, corporations are empowered by government to socialize many risks and costs while privatizing profit, thus involving people outside the corporation in involuntary association with the corporation. The rest of that plank is fine.

    2.9 Health Care

    We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. While a relatively more free market in health care has existed in the past, I don’t know whether a completely free market in health care has ever existed.

    3.4 Free Trade and Migration

    [..] However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property. The maintenance of such controls can be intrusive, ineffective, or (almost or even entirely certainly) both, but it can’t be both effective and non-intrusive. I would strike that whole sentence from the platform. The rest of the plank is fine.

    Give that my views diverge from the platform on those issues, it would be hypocritical of me to demand that anyone else agree with the LP platform 100%. However, there is also a slippery slope problem whereby people who disagree with substantial parts of the LP platform become active in the party and either change the platform over time or change it in effect through official party pronouncements. I don’t have a good answer as to where exactly to draw the line with this, and I’m not sure anyone else does either.

  17. Eric Dondero

    Bush and Obama are “the same” on foreign policy? Really?

    Tell me, what do you think Obama’s response would be if we were attacked like we were on 9/11?

    We can look at his response to the Ft. Hood massacre. 14 US Soldiers were killed by an Islamist Terrorist who had infiltrated the US Army. Another dozen injured.

    What was Obama’s response to this mini-9/11?

    He urged “caution.” Don’t “jump to any conclusions.”

    He even chuckled at an event and gave shout-outs to the crowd, before announcing to the crowd, the sad event at Ft. Hood.

    Nearly two years later, Major Nidal Hassan has still not been prosecuted for the Ft. Hood murders. Nor, has his accomplices in Yemen been captured, or even pursued by the Obama administration.

    Something tells me that if Bush had been President when Ft. Hood happened, the response would have been significantly different.

  18. paulie Post author

    That’s funny. Obama is an isolationist/non-interventionist immediate pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq,

    Then why hasn’t he done it? He has the power to do so. It’s true that the quote in italics is funny, in a sad sort of way.

  19. Steve

    You should love O-bomb’em Mr. Dondero, he expanded the Afghan occupation and even targeted American citizens for assassination, just like a true libertarian 🙂

    And I always get a chuckle out of Republican complaints about Obama bowing to the Saudis. Perhaps hand-holding and whispering sweet thoughts in the ear like their boy Bush is the more manly response to such dictators.

  20. Michael H. Wilson

    Reading the papers this a.m. Obama wants us to get more competitive in the global marketplace. Maybe we should remind him that American taxpayers are funding the national defense of our foreign competitors.

  21. Eric Dondero

    Very easy answer: He knows that if we pull out, particularly in Afghanistan (a little less so in Iraq), we’ll see an immediate and massive blood-bath similar to what happened in 1975/75 when we pulled out of South Vietnam.

    The result:

    Over 1 million South Vietnames slaughtered by the Communists

    2 million Cambodians killed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge as a result of our pull-out and non-support for the existing Cambodian government.

    And…

    Gerald Ford, whose Watch the disastorous pull-out took place under, LOST REELECTION.

    Imagine the scenes on CNN of the Taliban executing thousands of Afghani women in soccer stadiums if we pulled out, say 6 to 12 months from now, a year before the 2012 Presidential election.

    The scenes of the Taliban taking back control of Kabul. The Pakistanis taking a chunk of Eastern Afghanistan, and Iran taking Afghanistan’s western provinces.

    It would be a foreign policy disaster equivelant to Vietnam/Cambodia combined.

    Remember Carter and the Iranian Hostage Crisis 1979?

    Who won that election in 1980, on a Strong America platform?

    Obama already has the reputation of being Carter II.

    He may be a dummy sometimes, saying crap like “57 states,” but he ain’t that dumb. Obama wants to get reelected. And a Vietnam II on TV screens in South Asia at the height of the 2012 election, is not going to benefit his reelection campaign.

  22. Michael H. Wilson

    paulie @ 22 writes; We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. While a relatively more free market in health care has existed in the past, I don’t know whether a completely free market in health care has ever existed.

    I could not agree more. I tried to get this changed last convention, but was unsuccessful. For the record from what I have read we have never had anything close to a free market in health care.

  23. Eric Dondero

    Hey Steve, we Republicans blasted Bush when he coddled to the Saudis and other Arab States. Are you friggin’ kidding me?

    Don’t you remember that whole rightwing rebellion in 2005, when Bush wanted to turn over American ports to a security firm from Dubai?

  24. langa

    Robert, I think there is a big difference between saying that the platform should be as “plumbline” as possible (which I think is true) vs. saying that you have to be in agreement with every part of the platform to join the party. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who falls within the libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart should be welcomed into the party with open arms. However, I would prefer that those people who represent the party be at least as purist as the average member of the party.

  25. Eric Dondero

    Still waiting for an answer from someone on the isolationist/non-interventionist side.

    You all say, Bush and Obama are “the same on foreign policy.”

    Fine. Bush invaded two different countries in response to the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent Islamist threats against the U.S. in 2002/03.

    Obama’s mini 9/11? Ft. Hood massacre. 14 slaughtered in Texas by an Islamist extremist, another 30 injured.

    What was Obama’s response? Did we go after the Yemenis who were behind the attack?

    Or, did he just sit on his hands hoping that the whole incident would blow over, and people would soon forget about Ft. Hood?

  26. Robert Capozzi

    l31: However, I would prefer that those people who represent the party be at least as purist as the average member of the party.

    me: I’d like the LP to be represented by people most likely to attract more people to the cause of liberty. I don’t know what “purist” means, since I consider my views to be “pure” as I assume others view their own views as “pure.” I don’t know anyone who doesn’t believe that their opinions are insincere, although it’s likely true that different people have a different take on what is appropriate to a specific situation.

    Those who believe their opinions are “pure” and others are “impure” have a daunting (I’d say impossible) task, as they would need to “prove” that their opinion is superior to others. Where I’m from, that’s otherwise known as “arrogance.”

  27. langa

    Robert, in the context of this discussion, I’m using “purist” as a synonym for what you earlier referred to as “plumbline” or what you often call NAP Absolutism. As far as saying that purists are “arrogant”, if you feel that refusing to use force to get what you want is “arrogant”, then your definition of “arrogant” is a very strange one indeed.

  28. Eric Dondero

    Re-phrase the question. Perhaps I could then get an answer.

    Many IPR posters have suggested that “Bush and Obama are the same” on foreign policy.

    Okay. Fine.

    We’ve had two major terrorist attacks on the United States in the last 9 years – September 11, and Ft. Hood.

    (Numerous other smaller attacks, like the Islamist Beltway Sniper, the attack at the Little Rock, AR Military Recruiting ctr., ect…)

    Bush responded to 9/11 by attacks on two Muslim countries.

    Obama responded to Ft. Hood by, well, um…., actually…

    Doing nothing.

    Could someone kindly explain again how it is that Bush and Obama are “the same”?

  29. paulie Post author

    if we pull out, particularly in Afghanistan (a little less so in Iraq), we?ll see an immediate and massive blood-bath similar to what happened in 1975/75 when we pulled out of South Vietnam.

    If “we” don’t pull out, we’ll see a continued bloodbath (2 million or so dead from war-related violence, starvation and disease in Iraq since 1991; how many raped, tortured, imprisoned, made homeless, maimed, bereaved? How many in Afghanistan?) and the same “graveyard of empires” effect that wars in Central Asia have had on hubristic inaders from Alexander the Great through the British and Soviet empires and many in between. A land war in Asia is a fool’s errand, as any student of military history knows.

    Obama already has the reputation of being Carter II.

    He’s far better known far and wide as Bush III. In fact, I think it may explain the “mystery” of his so-called “missing birth certificate.” He’s not just like George W. Bush. He actually is George W. Bush!


    Some of us thought, during Dubai-ya Bush’s court-appointed reign of error, that there was a high chance he would call off the pretense of elections entirely, and use some (possibly engineered) tragic event to stay in office under “emergency” martial law — the better to avoid war crimes prosecution.

    But, I think he stumbled on something even more clever: he went to Mexico, got a tan and some plastic surgery, dropped the fake hillbilly accent and phony dumb cowboy act, and made his way around the pesky problem of the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution by being elected under a fake name: Barack Obama.

    Not only does this explain why his policies are so seamlessly continuous from one term to the next, but it solves the mystery of the “missing” birth certificate that is constantly brought up by the birther nuts – even though he was obviously in fact born in the US. It’s just that he was not born as Barack Obama, but as George W. Bush, son of George H. W. Bush.

    Sure, I know how absurd and far-fetched this may sound to some, but can anyone provide a better hypothesis to fit all the observed facts? :-P

  30. paulie Post author

    I’d like the LP to be represented by people most likely to attract more people to the cause of liberty. I don’t know what “purist” means, since I consider my views to be “pure” as I assume others view their own views as “pure.”

    Taking that statement literally, it is likewise impossible to define the “cause of liberty,” is it not?

  31. paulie Post author

    You all say, Bush and Obama are “the same on foreign policy.”

    Fine. Bush invaded two different countries in response to the attacks of 9/11 and the subsequent Islamist threats against the U.S. in 2002/03.

    Bush invaded two countries that didn’t carry out the 9/11 attacks and cracked down on the civil liberties of Americans and foreigners alike who did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. Obama has continued, and exacerbated, all those invasions/occupations and crackdowns. They are the same.

  32. Eric Dondero

    So, I am to assume then, you were perfectly fine with the slaughter of 1 million South Vietnamese by the Communists, and another 2 million Cambodians under the Communist Pol Pot regime, right?

    Can I get you on record with a simple, “Yes”?

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    And, if you provide no answer, or just deflect, I just might be tempted to let everyone know about your “less-than-kosher” occupational activities in a certain northeastern state.

  33. Eric Dondero

    Iraq “had nothing to do with 9/11” – Leftist Lie, promulgated by the ultra-liberal America-hating media.

    Two words:

    Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam.

    Actually, a third:

    Ayman Al-Zarcawi

  34. Eric Dondero

    Did I hear you correctly. Did you just say that Mullah Omar and the Taliban in Afghanistan had “nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11”?

    Whew! That’s a biggie.

    Can I also get you on record, confirming that you just indeed said precisely that?

    Your cooperation would be most appreciated. Of course, if you deflect, or choose not to answer the question, there’s always that little “incident” up in a certain little far northern town that starts with an ‘F’ I could expose to the public.

    You wouldn’t want that now would ya?

  35. Eric Dondero

    Bush “cracked down on civil liberties of Americans…” Really? I assume you’re talking of the Patriot Act.

    Tell me, since when have Middle Eastern college students from Saudi Arabia, who have overstayed their Visas, and are looking up plans for dirty bombs on taxpayer-subsidized public library computers, considered to be “American citizens”?

  36. Eric Dondero

    You know, it’s awfully funny how some people who have problems with Visas, and citizenship status, always seem to be the ones who are the first to defend the rights of foreigners here in the United States, even if those foreigners are committing seditious acts against our Nation.

    I’m of the opinion, that people who are not really Americans and may not necessarily have – well – ahem – let’s just be polite and say, “all their necessary paperwork in order – shouldn’t be the ones who criticize those of us who were actually born in this country, and are 100% red, white and blue, AMERICAN CITIZENS.

    (And some of us even served in the United States Military to boot – pun intended.)

  37. JT

    We get it, Dondero. Bush was terrific for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and cracking down on civil liberties, while Obama is terrible for continuing those Bush-era policies because of Ft. Hood–which is obviously a mini 9/11–and not attacking Yemen. Your argument is a good one. Now get lost.

  38. paulie Post author

    Dondero is lying again. I entered the US legally as a refugee (officially) from the USSR, and became a US Citizen in 1986.

  39. paulie Post author

    Bush “cracked down on civil liberties of Americans…” Really?

    Truly.

    Massive program of warrantless wiretapping and domestic espionage. Continued under Obama.

    Torture. Continued under Obama.

    Secret prisons. Continued under Obama.

    Military show trials without the normal rights of defendants. Continued under Obama.

    Indefinite detention without charges or legal representation. Continued under Obama.

    The theory that the president and administration is above the law and outside the control of courts. Continued under Obama.

    The domestic use of the military in law enforcement. Continued under Obama.

    Use of infiltrators and surveillance, harassment and arrests of peaceful domestic dissenters. Continued under Obama.

    Obama added the “legal theory” that his gang can lawfully assassinate American citizens.

    The only question is, do we call him Bush Jr or Bush III?

  40. Robert Capozzi

    l35: As far as saying that purists are “arrogant”, if you feel that refusing to use force to get what you want is “arrogant”, then your definition of “arrogant” is a very strange one indeed.

    me: Not using force in one’s personal life sounds virtuous to me. Whether a social order can exist without some force is a VERY open question, at least for me. It’s certainly an interesting construct and wonderful grist for science-fiction-type speculation.

  41. paulie Post author

    Did I hear you correctly. Did you just say that Mullah Omar and the Taliban in Afghanistan had “nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11??

    They asked for evidence that Bin-Ladin was involved before handing over a guest in their country to a foreign power. The US, or any nation, would have done the same.

    “incident” up in a certain little far northern town that starts with an ‘F’

    No idea what town that would be. If you mean fraud in Oregon in 2001 when I had a relapse, that’s old news.

  42. paulie Post author

    So, I am to assume then, you were perfectly fine with the slaughter of 1 million South Vietnamese by the Communists, and another 2 million Cambodians under the Communist Pol Pot regime, right?

    Of course not.

    I also don’t think it is the proper duty of American citizens to pay for policing the world.

    Besides being completely ineffective at preserving world peace, it is over time turning this country into a broke garrison state devoid of civil liberties. Overseas, it is only causing an ever worsening cycle of violence, terrorism and counter-terrorism.

    And, if you provide no answer, or just deflect, I just might be tempted to let everyone know about your “less-than-kosher” occupational activities in a certain northeastern state.

    You must mean northwestern. Otherwise, you must mean some lie you made up or are passing along.

    Resorting to ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the weakness of your case.

  43. paulie Post author

    not attacking Yemen

    Actually, the US has been carrying out a (not so) secret war in Yemen. Google wikileaks Yemen.

  44. Erectile Dysfunction

    It is disappointing when you open a bottle of wine to only find that it has gone sour. I found just such a bottle today a fine a nice common Binger St. Rochuskapelle Spatlese form Traben Trarbach. A 20 year old vintage [sigh]. A tablespoon of sugar, olive oil, a roasted head of garlic, some herbs, salt and pepper gave me an amazing salad dressing. Sour Grapes are good for something

    ED @40: “So, I am to assume then, you were perfectly fine with the slaughter of 1 million South Vietnamese by the Communists, and another 2 million Cambodians under the Communist Pol Pot regime, right?”

    I will take a stab at this since you seem bent on threatening Paulie if he doesn’t answer the way you demand.

    I am not OK with one single South Vietnamese, Loatian, Burman, Chinese, Korean or any other person slaughtered by communists, fascists, neo-conservatives or any other war mongering ideology. The place of a persons birth just has nothing to do with whether it is OK to kill them.

    However, I also do not have the authority to use the nations self-defense assets to play in other people’s sandboxes no matter how noble the cause is.

    For anyone that is ready to fight and die for the good people of Cambodia or Afghanistan,, might I suggest hopping a flight and volunteering for a freedom militia or legitimate freedom spreading security force in that part of the world. Volunteering other people’s children to fight and die for your favorite foreign wars is not a noble cause.

  45. Eric Dondero

    No JT, Bush wasn’t “terrific” for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, he was quite the wimp, for ONLY ATTACKING IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.

    I remember 9/11 like it was yesterday. I remember weeks and weeks after that, and still Bush didn’t respond.

    It took him 6 friggin weeks SIX WEEKS to launch attacks on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

    He should’ve launched the B-52 within 48 hours.

    And why just stop at Iraq and Afghanistan?

    14 of the Hijackers were Saudi Arabians! Another 3 of them were Jordanians. And 3 including Mousowi, were from Egypt. We didn’t do jackshit in retaliation to those three Nations.

    Bush was wimpy for his half-ass “tough” response to 9/11. Still, in comparison, Obama is an outright traitor Islamist-symapathizer.

  46. Eric Dondero

    And Paulie, even if you are a legal citizen of the United States, still does not make you an American.

    Your views are wholly and completely Anti-American. You are a leftwing America-hating infiltrator in our Country.

    And I note, you never served in the US Military, which many fine young immigrant men from Mexico and Central America do first, in order to obtain their citizenship.

    Did you or did you not serve in the US Military?

  47. Eric Dondero

    Paulie, how would you know what the “proper role” of us AMERICANS should be?

    You’re not an American. You’re just some dude who scammed our system and wiggled his way into our country.

    There is nothing at all American about you. You are the complete polar opposite of an American.

    And incidentally, we Americans here in the United States believe in free and open, AND HONEST elections. We don’t commit election fraud.

    Just because you come from some pissant country where people steal elections and forge signatures, and make up names, and collect signatures for initiatives in states that require witnesses, doesn’t mean that you can get away with it here in the United States of America.

    We REAL AMERICANS are watching you…

  48. Eric Dondero

    No Paulie, I’m not talkiing about Oregon. Everyone knows, or at least they should know, that you forged signatures in Oregon for a petition drive a few years ago.

    Nope. Not talking of that specific instance.

    Talking about some rather recent.

    Let’s just say some booze was involved. And maybe a promise made to a certain someone with some booze. And a big fair in a certain town in a far northern State.

    Hint: The Moose are at Play.

  49. paulie Post author

    ED @52 Good answer, although as you can see I am not the least bit intimidated.

    Different ED @ 57 I have no clue what you are talking about. None whatsoever.

  50. paulie Post author

    Hey Paulie, I never accused you of being an “illegal alien.”

    Yes you have, explicitly in the past and implicitly above in #44. If you need past references of where you explicitly lied about me being allegedly an “illegal alien” I can provide them.

    Are you hiding something, maybe?

    Nope. But you must be, since you feel the need to resort to ad hominem attacks and false insinuations. Must be the weakness of your positions.

  51. Observer

    Dondero, maybe nobody’s answering your questions because they’ve been answered by us over and over again. You’re one of those Republicans who won’t listen.

    Obama and Bush are the same. Get used to it.

  52. paulie Post author

    And Paulie, even if you are a legal citizen of the United States, still does not make you an American.

    There’s no ifs about it.

    Your views are wholly and completely Anti-American. You are a leftwing America-hating infiltrator in our Country.

    Ad hominem, and bullshit. It is your views which are not in the spirit this country is supposed to embody. Mine are the logical conclusion of the ideas behind the American Revolution. You are a reich wing apologist for corporatist-fascist military industrial complex scum who are leeching off this country and thus a traitor to the spirit of America. America was built on a healthy amount of distrust for all government, including our own. You can call that leftist or rightist, or whatever. I call it liberty.

    And I note, you never served in the US Military, which many fine young immigrant men from Mexico and Central America do first, in order to obtain their citizenship.

    Did you or did you not serve in the US Military?

    Are you asking a question or making a statement? The answer is that I did serve as a civilian military contractor in actual warzone, where bullets were fired at me as a target and other people that I was working with were actually shot.

    On the other hand, your claim to being a combat veteran rests on being abroad a ship in the Persian Gulf during the same time frame as another ship was accidentally hit by a missile fired by a regime that the US was arming at that same time. Your ship went on alert and you soiled your dungarees. That’s about it as far as any actual “combat” experience you claim.

    It’s not too late to reenlist ED, and if the US military won’t take you, the Israeli Defense Forces, US civilian military contractors or the French Foreign Legion will.

    Me, I’ve had enough of war, having seen the real thing.

  53. paulie Post author

    Dondero, maybe nobody’s answering your questions

    All of his actual questions have been answered in this very thread.

  54. LibertarianGirl

    P_America was built on a healthy amount of distrust for all government, including our own. You can call that leftist or rightist, or whatever. I call it liberty.

    me_well said , stealing for my FB page

  55. Red Phillips

    I sometimes think that Dondero is actually paid by some non-interventionist somewhere to make the most hysterical and over-the-top case for interventionism possible so as to discredit the cause. If so, I think it is working. ED is like a Freeper on steroids.

    Eric, the “Islamist” problem in Europe is a demographic one, not a military one, and it is the result of many European countries’ insane immigration policies and their failure to procreate at replacement rates. To imagine that there is some sort of military solution to this problem, instead of an immigration solution, is absurd.

    If you were King how would you solve Europe’s demographic problem with the US military? This should be interesting.

  56. Gains

    If the defense of X people in X country is perceived as noble and right enough to send 50,000 troops at it, I think that the best test of public perception is if you can get 50,000 volunteers, and funding for your fight without using coercion or fraud.

    Using the US military does not meet that test in my book.

    I do not want to see Israel, Japan, Iraq, the EU, Afghanistan, South Korea or any of the scores of “US protectorates” dropped on their head. We do need to reshape our relationship in the world theater and that is not going to happen by apologizing for or justifying our imperialistic position. Being the Policeman of the World is just not healthy for a free society nor for the world.

  57. paulie Post author

    @ 65 Thanks!

    @ 66 While we disagree about (im)migration, there is still much to agree with in what you say.

    The European Union has more people and money than the US. Why should the US be defending Europe?

    @67

    If the defense of X people in X country is perceived as noble and right enough to send 50,000 troops at it, I think that the best test of public perception is if you can get 50,000 volunteers, and funding for your fight without using coercion or fraud.

    Using the US military does not meet that test in my book.

    And

    We do need to reshape our relationship in the world theater and that is not going to happen by apologizing for or justifying our imperialistic position. Being the Policeman of the World is just not healthy for a free society nor for the world.

    Well said.

  58. Andy

    “Talking about some rather recent.

    Let’s just say some booze was involved. And maybe a promise made to a certain someone with some booze. And a big fair in a certain town in a far northern State.

    Hint: The Moose are at Play.”

    I’ve got no clue about which you are speaking, and Paul worked with me on his last few petition drives.

  59. Andy

    “Eric Dondero // Jan 26, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    Paulie, how would you know what the ‘proper role’ of us AMERICANS should be?”

    Because he’s got reading comprehension skills and has read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    “You’re not an American. You’re just some dude who scammed our system and wiggled his way into our country.”

    Nope, he and his family were legal immigrants and he was in fact naturalized as an American citizen. I’ve actually seen his naturalization papers.

    “There is nothing at all American about you. You are the complete polar opposite of an American.”

    He believes in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, that makes him as American as anybody.

    “And incidentally, we Americans here in the United States believe in free and open, AND HONEST election.”

    So does Paul.

    “Just because you come from some pissant country where people steal elections”

    I don’t think that I’d call Russia a pissant country. It is one of the major countries in this world.

    Also, the election process in this country is not exactly fair.

    “and collect signatures for initiatives in states that require witnesses,”

    This is a ridiculous comment. Just about everyone who has worked as a petitioner and has worked in a lot of states has worked in a state that has an out-of-state petition circulator ban, INCLUDING ERIC DONDERO.

    Out-of-state petition circulator bans are unconstitutional and have been thrown out in court in several states. Unfortunately there are a few states that still have them where they have yet to be challenged.

  60. Andy

    “And I note, you never served in the US Military, which many fine young immigrant men from Mexico and Central America do first, in order to obtain their citizenship.

    Did you or did you not serve in the US Military?”

    What in the hell does serving in the US military have to do with whether or not one is an American citizen?

    A person is an American citizen if they were:

    1) Born in the USA.

    2) Went through the Naturalization process as set up by Congress.

    Paul was not born in the USA, but he did go through the Naturalization process, so therefore, he’s an American citizen.

  61. Michael H. Wilson

    Dondero you were asking about my credentials the other day. Here’s a clue. I’m a navy brat who then spent four years in the service.

    I am also totally opposed to the welfare state and regularly complain to those in elected office about having to pay taxes to defend those nations who are quite capable of defending themselves. You may want to ask yourself why American workers are paying taxes to defend those we are expected to compete against in a global marketplace. You may also want to ask yourself how much this is actually how much this cost in dollars and cents each year.

  62. Andy

    Eric Dondero said: “Your cooperation would be most appreciated. Of course, if you deflect, or choose not to answer the question, there’s always that little ‘incident’ up in a certain little far northern town that starts with an ‘F’ I could expose to the public.”

    I don’t know what the “F” Eric Dondero is talking about, and I think that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.

  63. Gains

    A couple of thoughts regarding citizenship:

    Myself, I have found that naturalized citizens often have a much better understanding of liberty than natural born citizens. They have a more conscious stake in that hope and they made a giant leap of faith in embracing Team Freedom USA. Natural born citizens seem more prone to taking freedom for granted and/or to conflating right with privilege.

    I find it sickening that people think that the American Way is so weak that immigrants threaten it. If there are any traitors to the American Way, it is those who would accuse others of treachery based on where they were born. I perceive nothing in the American Way that is based on race, creed, color, religion, schooling, parents, first language or whether some random person born to privilege likes you or not.

    The limited Paulie that I have been exposed to via IPR personifies many of the character traits I find most admirable in citizens of all stripes:

    1. A belief in personal liberty and responsibility that transcends and conversely defines government.

    2. A willingness to labor in the civic institutions that are the engine of democratic process in our republic.

    3. Tireless volunteer work in forums that encourage and enable political communication. That commication medium is the bedrock of a healthy democratic republic.

    4. Unwavering and fairness in discussions and moderation in those realms.

    5. The patience of a saint and tolerance of people that are not like him. I have never once heard him assert that a solution to a problem needs to involve forcing another person’s actions.

    If you ask me, a free and just society needs as many Paulies as it can get.

    I am completely uninterested in any accusations made in IPR, they are all bullshit until I verify them myself based on a real need and I routinely ridicule people who take them seriously.

    I am disturbed by people who think that they can win a public argument by apparent blackmail. I am horrified that there are people that would do so openly. It feels like they are attempting to cow everyone including me from disagreeing with them. I, for one, do not like feeling threatened.

  64. Eric Dondero

    Whoa, Andy, did I just hear you say that you and Paulie are committing civil disobedience in those States that require witnesses, by not using witnesses.

    Oh my gosh. Dude, you just went on record in a public forum.

    This post will be archived.

    You do realize that anyone from that certain “Moose-running northeastern State,” including someone from the Secretary of State’s office could be reading this.

    And I also understant that that particular “boozed up person” has had similar problems with the SOS office and potential allegations of election fraud in the past.

  65. Eric Dondero

    Hmmn, it seems that my posts are now getting deleted here at IPR.

    Very interesting.

    Challenge the editors of this website and you get Censored. Nice.

  66. Eric Dondero

    Paulie, Andy, go ahead and censor my posts. Feel free. Go right ahead.

    I have many, many other websites that I am a contributor too, and if I want, I could gladly spill the beans about y’all’s “questionable signature gathering” activities to other outlets.

    But censoring me, you’re just pissing me off even more.

    You fascist bastards.

  67. paulie Post author

    @79 False, we used witnesses in states that required witnesses.

    Additionally, Andy later registered as an official resident in Maine and by that same logic I could have as well, since I had no other residence at the time and was there for several months.

    You are barking up the wrong tree, and you are in the wrong thread for this discussion. If you wish to pursue this tangent you may only do so in the open thread for discussion of petitioners

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/08/thread-for-discussion-on-petitioners/

    That thread was set up so petitioner controversies would not drown out unrelated discussions on IPR.

  68. paulie Post author

    @ 80 No one is censoring you.

    You may have had a comment accidentally go into the automated spam filter. If you asked nicely, instead of jumping to conclusions and leveling accusations, I may have fished it out for you.

    However, coincidentally, we do have a policy that excessive discussion of a few select subjects that keep drowning out other discussions is not allowed on other threads at IPR. Special threads have been set up so that those interested in those issues may still freely discuss them.

  69. Eric Dondero

    He “later registered…” Just what exactly constitutes “later.” Be specific.

    The incident in question, which I witnessed with my own two eyes, and would be more than happy to swear too in a court of law, happened less than 2 weeks after you both were using a witness. A witness who happens to be quite a respectable and well-known Republican in said state, one who would be quite a reliable witness in court, as well.

    I seriously doubt that at the time you and Andy were collecting signatures at that event, Andy had already registered to vote.

    This is something that could be easily checked of course.

    Are you saying “Yes,” Andy was registered to vote at the time of that event? Let’s get you on record in a public forum.

    Again, I wouldn’t be so adament on this, if # 1 the both of you scumbags weren’t also trying to destroy my country with your far leftist extremist America-hating views.

    You are the enemy of freedom, and the enemy of America. And you should be treated as such.

  70. paulie Post author

    You are free to ask your question in the appropriate thread. Any further discussion of petitioner controversies in this thread will be treated as spam.

    You are asking the wrong questions, but you are free to ask them…in the appropriate thread.

  71. MaineRepublican

    i witnessed with eric andy and paulie in maine and in this case eric is completely correct.

  72. paulie Post author

    MR, Andy, Eric et al:

    This tangent is no longer welcome in this thread. I am deleting your last comment, but you are free to post it again in

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/01/thread-for-discussion-on-petitioners-2/

    I have already re-posted several replies from Andy there and deleted them here.

    Any further comments on the petitioner controversy topics in this and other unrelated threads will be subject to deletion with or without any notice by any and all IPR writers.

  73. Steven R Linnabary

    Guess I’m coming into this conversation a bit late, but here are some pics of Dondero’s “manly” Bush with Saudi royalty:

    http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

    (scroll down for more pics)

    I’m not sure what being in the military has to do with anything, but since Eric brought it up, I did serve in the USMC a few years back.

    The first “libertarian” bumpersticker I ever saw was on the back door of a USMC APC “It’s hard enough supporting one government, let alone Thieu”. I didn’t know of anyone in at the same time I was that supported that insane war, INCLUDING our CO, who told us repeatedly that “Marines don’t make policy, we carry it out”.

    Eric is correct about one thing, that the incoming Communist regime was ruthless in their treatment of US collaborators. But that should not be on the American conscience as much as our own atrocities…My Lai comes to mind.

    PEACE

  74. Military Occupation Is Not "Defense"

    Michael Wilson: “Maybe we should remind him that American taxpayers are funding the national defense of our foreign competitors.

    Only if you’re referring to direct financial aid, such as Israel receives.

    American taxpayers fund the military occupation of Arab, European, and Asian nations.

    U.S. troops stationed in Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia take their order from the U.S., and can at any time turn their guns on the host nation. It’s not defense; it’s occupation.

    This is one reason Israel doesn’t want U.S. troops “defending” them. They know that real defense requires that you hold the gun, rather than some foreigner holding it for you.

  75. Timothy Yung

    @53
    I finally found someone who would be a worse president than Joseph Stalin Lieberman. You would have us invade the entire world because there are Al-Qaeda cells everywhere. We barely have enough troops for Afghanistan and Iraq under your foreign policy we would have to draft the entire adult population. Ron Paul did not make a mistake firing you, he made the mistake of hiring you. You and your pal Sonny Landham should run together for the 2012 election.

  76. paulie Post author

    http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/01/re-education-and-welfare-queens-of.html

    Re-educating the Welfare Queens of the Warfare State

    Ironically, our country’s massive military budget, which bankrolls the welfare queens of the warfare state, must  be ranked among the greatest threats to our national security.  The budgetary black hole that is the Pentagon absorbs nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars every year.  To his credit, at least one newly-elected Tea Party backed Republican lawmaker has come out in support of cuts to the warfare state.  From the New York Times:

    Representative Chris Gibson, a Tea Party-endorsed freshman Republican and a retired Army colonel from New York’s Hudson River Valley, made it clear that no part of the Pentagon’s $550 billion budget — some $700 billion including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — was immune. “This deficit that we have threatens our very way of life, and everything needs to be on the table,” Mr. Gibson told William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, who testified at the hearing along with Gen. Peter J. Chiarelli, the vice chief of staff of the Army, and other service vice chiefs. 

    The response of those who advocate for the welfare queens of the warfare state reveals their patronizing and condescending attitude toward anyone who openly advocates removing their snouts from the public trough.  It sounds like they may even sponsor a number of re-education camps.  The article continues:

    [Republican head of the House Armed Services Committee] Mr. McKeon, for one, is concerned, and has quietly been meeting with the new members — a number have no experience in government — to educate them on national security. One Congressional staff member who closely monitors the military said, “While McKeon would say that all members are entitled to advocate for positions they want to advocate, what he has been doing is working to educate new members on what the threats are, and why we need the defense budget close to where it is.” [Emphasis added] . . .

    Mr. McKeon, who represents a California district that is home to major defense contractors, was the single biggest recipient in the House of campaign contributions from military aerospace companies and their employees.

    Clearly, it is militarists such as McKeon who need to be taught a lesson.  A recent New York Times poll found that 55% of Americans support cuts to military spending.  Given a choice between cutting military spending, Social Security or Medicare, 55% of respondents favored cutting military spending, compared with only 21% who named Medicare and 13% who named Social Security.  In fact, support for cutting military spending led the way across partisan lines, including 66% of Democrats, 55% of Independents and 42% of Republicans.  Of course, it is highly unusual to find leadership on this issue from the representatives of the global warfare and corporate welfare state in the Democratic and Republican parties.  Fortunately, for that we need only look to the Libertarians and the Greens.  From the Libertarian Party’s response to the State of the Union address:

    Tonight we heard from President Barack Obama and a response from Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. President Obama says he wants a freeze in non-security, discretionary spending. In the unlikely event that happens, it won’t really matter, because to make a real dent in the deficit, it’s necessary to cut spending on the military and entitlements. The president promised big government in the past, and he delivered. I expect more of the same.

    However, Obama has truly been a hypocrite on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a candidate, he promised to end them. Tonight we heard more hollow promises. The fact is, as president, he has kept those wars going, and has greatly escalated the war in Afghanistan. As a percentage of GDP, military spending is higher now than it was during any year of the George W. Bush administration.

    Unlike President Obama, Libertarians would bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, and reduce the military budget. On the Republican side, I found Congressman Paul Ryan’s hypocrisy appalling . . . 

    From the Green Party’s response to the State of the Union address:

    The White House and Congress can reduce the deficit drastically by ending the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, cutting military spending and the number of US bases on foreign soil, and taxing the wealthy so that they pay their fair share. Future meltdowns can be averted by breaking up the “too big to fail” financial firms into smaller locally-based companies. The Green Party’s goal of a decentralized economy, based on Main Street rather the Wall Street, will restore economic stability and security to the US.

  77. paulie Post author

    @ 96 Of the quoted section of the Green response, I agree with most of it, except the “taxing the wealthy.” However, in a sense, I could even agree that they should “pay their fair share” – of zero coercive taxation on anyone. Jesus used that same ironic sense when He said “render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s,” begging the question, what is rightfully Cesar’s? Answer: Nothing.

    And, of course, I would prefer that the “too big to fail” companies be broken up by market forces, not by the “even bigger” monopoly government. Luckily, I think that is exactly what market forces would do if given a true free rein.

    The choice presented in the NY Times poll is not a good one. It makes it sound like a case of lifeboat ethics. In truth, just as the cause of national security is served best by cutting the military, the causes that social spending is supposedly designed to address are best served by cutting social spending as much as possible as well. Completing the third leg of the tripod, the cause of a more moral society is best served by keeping the inherently immoral violence-based monopoly of government out of it.

    In short, we would be a safer, more equitable and more ethical society if the bumbling monopolists stopped trying to make us all those things with such rigor.

    -Paulie

  78. Michael H. Wilson

    All of us each week should be writing our senators, congresscritters editors of the local papers, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and the White House demanding that the troops be brought home.

    We need a major effort across all of the alternative parties and among independent voters.

    Make it clear that the government is taxing us to subsidize those who compete against us in the global marketplace and I am sure others can come up with other points to make. I have to go.

  79. FYI! [More Don Lake]

    gee, REAL anti war sentiments? And it is Michael H. Wilson making the comments! Yet it is Doctor George Phillies whom has contended for years that the LP is the one and only American ‘Peace Party’!

  80. paulie Post author

    REAL anti war sentiments? And it is Michael H. Wilson making the comments!

    Yep, and he’s a Libertarian, too.

  81. paulie Post author

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance224.html

    The Twenty-Year War in Iraq

    by Laurence M. Vance

    The current war in Iraq – now near the end of its seventh year – did not really begin on March 20, 2003, when George W. Bush ordered the United States military to invade Iraq. It actually began twenty years ago on January 17, 1991, when another Bush, George H.W., ordered the United States military to invade Iraq the first time.

    After getting a green light from the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, who told Saddam Hussein: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America,” Hussein invaded Kuwait, on August 2, 1990. But even after John Kelly, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress that the “United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq,” Bush the elder sent 500,000 U.S. troops to that caldron known as the Middle East.

    After imposing sanctions on Iraq in August, the United Nations in November set a date of midnight on January 16 as the deadline for Iraq to withdraw its troops from Kuwait. Congress – ignoring the Constitution and refusing to issue a declaration of war – issued a resolution authorizing the president to use military force against Iraq, “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678.” The vote was 52-47 in the Senate and 250-183 in the House. Only two Republicans in the Senate and three in the House voted against the resolution.

    When Iraq failed to withdraw its troops from Kuwait by the deadline, the United States commenced bombing as Operation Desert Shield turned into Operation Desert Storm. The 88,500 tons of bombs dropped widely destroyed both military and civilian infrastructure. The U.S. ground assault, Operation Desert Sabre, begin on February 24. A cease-fire was declared four days later. For the United States, there were 148 battle deaths and 145 non-battle deaths. This means that 293 Americans did die for the emir of Kuwait. Among the dead U.S. soldiers were 15 women and 35 killed by “friendly fire.” The first American casualty of the war, LCDR Scott Speicher, was actually the last of the U.S. military dead to be identified, and just a couple of years ago.

    Tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers were also killed, plus several thousand Iraqi and Kuwaiti civilians. The current war in Iraq is but a delayed campaign in the war against Iraq. During the intermission there were tensions, threats, missile strikes, enforcement of no-fly zones, bombing raids, brutal sanctions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, infamously said to be “worth it” by U.S. ambassador to the UN (and later Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright, and a continued presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which inflamed the Muslim world, created terrorists, and led to the attacks of 9/11.

    So, what should the United States have done when one autocratic Muslim state (Iraq) invaded another autocratic Muslim state (Kuwait)? The answer is the same no matter what country invades, bombs, attacks, or threatens another country – absolutely nothing.

    It is not the purpose of the U.S. government to be the policeman, security guard, mediator, and babysitter of the world. The preamble to the Constitution mentions providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity,” not to the tired, poor, huddled masses, and wretched refuse on distant shores.

    The United States should be a beacon of liberty, leading the world by example, and not intervening or meddling in the affairs of other countries – for any reason. Not isolationism, of course, but in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none,” yet doing “what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace and prosperity.”

    And as I have maintained over and over again, the U.S. military should be engaged exclusively in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not attacking, invading, or occupying them. The U.S. military should be limited to defending the United States, securing U.S. borders, guarding U.S. shores, patrolling U.S. coasts, and enforcing no-fly zones over U.S. skies instead of defending, securing, guarding, patrolling, and enforcing in other countries. To do otherwise is to pervert the purpose of the military.

    The world is full of evil, and conflicts between peoples have existed since the beginning of time. The United States has neither the responsibility nor the resources to resolve every conflict and stamp out all the evil in the world. Any American concerned about oppression, human rights violations, sectarian violence, ill treatment of women, forced labor, child labor, persecution, genocide, famine, natural disasters, or injustice anywhere in the world is perfectly free to contribute his own money to or go and fight on behalf of some particular cause. Just don’t expect U.S. taxpayers to foot the bill for and U.S. soldiers to die for your cause.

    Freeing Kuwait from Iraq – even if “only” 293 Americans died, even if Saddam Hussein had been deposed, even if it hadn’t resulted in brutal sanctions, even if it hadn’t led to another war, and even if it had ensured the free flow of oil at market prices – was not worth one cent from the U.S. treasury or one drop of blood from an American soldier.

    January 17, 2011

    Laurence M. Vance

  82. Country Crammer

    Timothy Yung // Jan 27, 2011 at 5:22 am

    @53
    I finally found someone who would be a worse president than Joseph Stalin Lieberman. You would have us invade the entire world because there are Al-Qaeda cells everywhere. We barely have enough troops for Afghanistan and Iraq under your foreign policy we would have to draft the entire adult population. Ron Paul did not make a mistake firing you, he made the mistake of hiring you. You and your pal Sonny Landham should run together for the 2012 election.

    Well said! And completely correct.

  83. Pingback: Libertarian Party Monday Message: Teleprompters! | Independent Political Report

  84. paulie Post author

    http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/02/03/tens-of-thousands-of-patriot-act-violations-against-americans/

    February 3, 2011 at 8:56 pm by jclifford

    A coalition in Congress is now working to extend the worst abuses of the Patriot Act for not just one year, but two and a half years, well into the next presidential term. If the people behind the legislation to ignore the intended sunset of the Patriot Act, it means that, once again, we could have a Republican President as bad as, or even worse than, George W. Bush – with the powers of the Patriot Act at his or her disposal.

    Imagine Sarah Palin with the powers of the Patriot Act – massive government surveillance, including gigantic electronic dragnets and sneak and peek search power to enter our homes and places of work with practically no judicial restraint. Do you think she wouldn’t use the power – and abuse it?

    George W. Bush abused the powers of the Patriot Act in a massive Big Brother system set up to snoop in on the private lives of peaceful, law-abiding American citizens. That fact is shown quite clearly by a new report by the Electronic Frontier foundation.

    EFF looked through 2,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit – the federal government tried to keep these documents secret and assured Americans that nothing funny was going on. After EFF had a look at these documents, here’s what they concluded:

    • They found that the FBI admitted to more than 7,000 violations of the law and regulations that were supposed to keep American safe from excessive, politically-motivated spying using Patriot Act powers. These violations took place over a 7-year period – 1,000 illegal abuses of the Patriot Act’s spying powers every year.
    • The EFF also found, however, that the FBI had regularly failed to report its abuses of the Patriot Act spying powers. Given the rate of the FBI’s failure to report Patriot Act abuses, the EFF estimates that something like 40,000 actual abuses of the Big Brother spying powers took place.

      Consider that in the context of what’s NOT considered a Patriot Act abuse. Not counted among these 40,000 illegal abuses of the Patriot Act were government seizures of private communications and information from millions of America. Not counted were government break-ins to Americans’ homes without a search warrant. Not counted were Big Brother wiretaps on Americans not even suspected of any crime. No, the 40,000 illegal abuses of the Patriot Act were in addition to that.

      These 40,000 abuses are cases in which the federal government didn’t even try to go along with the minimal requirements of the Patriot Act. What’s more, the EFF found that America’s telecommunications corporations helped the FBI violate the law in about one third of the cases revealed so far.

      Put this together with the revelation two years ago that only 0.4 percent of Patriot Act spying efforts using sneak and peek searches had anything at all to do even with allegations of terrorist plots – and that’s among the legal sneak and peek operations that the FBI reported on instead of covering up!

      Recently, the Republicans have begun to talk about the Constitution – but only in terms of health care reform. When it comes to Fourth Amendment protection of Americans’ right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, Republicans are silent. But ask someone to buy health insurance, and all of a sudden they’re outraged.

      Let’s get it together, people. If you’re worried about Big Government abuse of power, it’s not health care reform you ought to be trying to repeal – it’s the abusive Patriot Act.

      Step 1: Call your U.S. Representatives and your two U.S. Senators, and tell them that you want them to vote against the extension of abusive Patriot Act spying powers. The telephone number is: (202) 224-3121.

      Step 2: Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper asking for the sunset of the Patriot Act to be respected.

    Well, actually, “ask” someone (who can’t afford it, in many cases) to buy medical insurance, and of course they’re outraged, as well they should be. But other than that, the author is quite correct.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *