I haven’t always picked on Republicans. In fact, I used to be one, faithfully voting for all the Republicans on the ballot to keep those evil Democrats out of office. As a conservative who had never been exposed to libertarianism, I was a Republican by default. Oh, the political ignorance of youth! . . .
I rarely criticize the Democratic Party, but not because I have anything but utter contempt for it. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic Party are well known. It is the party of liberalism, socialism, feminism, collectivism, abortion, organized labor, big government, environmentalism, affirmative action, welfare, paternalism, taxing and spending, income redistribution, and every alternative lifestyle known to man. The Democrats are evil, but they are predictably, dependably, and consistently evil. The conservatives who mistake me for a Democrat are many times warmongers who think that to oppose imperialism, militarism, war, and empire means that one is a liberal . . .
When was the last time a pro-life Republican ever expressed concern for the life of any foreigner killed by U.S. bombs and bullets? . . .
Why do I pick on Republicans? They deserve it, that’s why. America is quickly becoming a fascist police state, thanks in a great measure to Republicans and their PATRIOT ACT, Department of Homeland Security, war on terror, TSA, and war on drugs. Instead of complaining about Democratic legislation passed during the last two years, Republicans in Congress should look in the mirror."
For the full article Click Here.
Monday, January 3, 2011
An Iraq War Veteran’s Quest for the True Meaning of Liberty and Patriotism by Andrew Mason
"Going into high school in 2001, I had no idea what the future held for me. Then 9/11 happened. I had the Bushian mentality (being raised in a staunch Republican household) of "let’s go get some," and since he had said that I could either be "either with the terrorists or against the terrorists," I wanted to be against the terrorists like every other American. My motivation and will to live were at their highest they had ever been after I enlisted in the Marine Corps. I thought to myself, "I am going to make a difference in this world. I am going to fight for our freedom!" I graduated from high school a semester early in January of 2005 to attend Marine Corps Basic Training. I deployed twice to the killing fields of Iraq, and I was completely oblivious to the fact that the war was based on total lies. . . ."
For the rest of the story Click Here
For the rest of the story Click Here
Monday, December 13, 2010
Focus on the Policy, Not WikiLeaks by Ron Paul
We may never know the whole story behind the recent publication of sensitive U.S. government documents by the WikiLeaks organization, but we certainly can draw some important conclusions from the reaction of so many in government and media.
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.
Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk.
The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable: “See, we told you the world was a dangerous place,” goes the story. They claim we must prosecute – or even assassinate – those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.
We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.
December 13, 2010
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
At its core, the WikiLeaks controversy serves as a diversion from the real issue of what our foreign policy should be. But the mainstream media, along with neoconservatives from both political parties, insist on asking the wrong question. When presented with embarrassing disclosures about U.S. spying and meddling, the policy that requires so much spying and meddling is not questioned. Instead, the media focus on how so much sensitive information could have been leaked, or how authorities might prosecute the publishers of such information.
No one questions the status quo or suggests a wholesale rethinking of our foreign policy. No one suggests that the White House or the State Department should be embarrassed that the U.S. engages in spying and meddling. The only embarrassment is that it was made public. This allows ordinary people to actually know and talk about what the government does. But state secrecy is anathema to a free society. Why exactly should Americans be prevented from knowing what their government is doing in their name?
In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, however, we are in big trouble. The truth is that our foreign spying, meddling, and outright military intervention in the post–World War II era has made us less secure, not more. And we have lost countless lives and spent trillions of dollars for our trouble. Too often "official" government lies have provided justification for endless, illegal wars and hundreds of thousands of resulting deaths and casualties.
Take the recent hostilities in Korea as only one example. More than fifty years after the end of the Korean War, American taxpayers continue to spend billions for the U.S. military to defend a modern and wealthy South Korea. The continued presence of the U.S. military places American lives between the two factions. The U.S. presence only serves to prolong the conflict, further drain our empty treasury, and place our military at risk.
The neoconservative ethos, steeped in the teaching of Leo Strauss, cannot abide an America where individuals simply pursue their own happy, peaceful, prosperous lives. It cannot abide an America where society centers around family, religion, or civic and social institutions rather than an all-powerful central state. There is always an enemy to slay, whether communist or terrorist. In the neoconservative vision, a constant state of alarm must be fostered among the people to keep them focused on something greater than themselves – namely their great protector, the state. This is why the neoconservative reaction to the WikiLeaks revelations is so predictable: “See, we told you the world was a dangerous place,” goes the story. They claim we must prosecute – or even assassinate – those responsible for publishing the leaks. And we must redouble our efforts to police the world by spying and meddling better, with no more leaks.
We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.
December 13, 2010
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Why Don't Conservatives Oppose the War on Drugs? by Laurence M. Vance
In article I, section 8, of the Constitution, there are eighteen specific powers granted to Congress. We call these the enumerated powers. Everything else is reserved to the states – with or without the Tenth Amendment. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to concern itself with the nature and quantity of any substance Americans inhale or otherwise take into their body. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to prohibit drug manufacture, sale, or use. Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to ban anything. When the Progressives wanted the United States government to ban alcohol, they realized that an amendment to the Constitution was needed.
Drug prohibition is likewise incompatible with private property, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and limited government – things that conservatives claim to believe in. What happened to the conservative emphasis on families, churches, private charities, and faith-based organizations solving problems instead of looking to the federal government to solve them?
For the rest of the article Click Here
Drug prohibition is likewise incompatible with private property, individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and limited government – things that conservatives claim to believe in. What happened to the conservative emphasis on families, churches, private charities, and faith-based organizations solving problems instead of looking to the federal government to solve them?
For the rest of the article Click Here
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Am I on the Crazy Fringe? by Robert Wenzel
The ultimate horrors in Nazi Germany were, indeed, much more terrible than anything close to what has occurred so far in America. But, one should do more than only consider just the ultimate horrors of what went on in Nazi Germany. One must think about the road that was travelled by the Germans to get to that point. . . . I believe one of the most serious misunderstandings about totalitarianism is that it arrives as a full package that requires no assembly. That it is put on the people, like a winter coat. All at one time, and in full view for all to see.
The rest of the story: Click Here
The rest of the story: Click Here
Friday, November 19, 2010
Economic Implosion Sets the Blame Game in Motion by
"Do we continue burning money with entitlement programs we can’t afford? Socialists hate that question. Are we traditional conservatives empty of compassion? Not at all, but compassion is not the issue. The issue is one of means, and it’s an issue that people with their heads in Utopian clouds tend to ignore. If you can’t afford a beer, you can’t have a beer. If you can’t afford universal health care, then you can’t have universal health care. What is so difficult about this?"
For the rest of the article Click Here
For the rest of the article Click Here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)