On the evening of Sept. 16, 2009, I was invited to a function for Rand Paul’s U.S. Senate campaign at the headquarters of Americans for Tax Reform.

I had been invited by a friend of mine via Facebook who was a passionate supporter of Ron Paul. Within minutes of arriving, I saw Rep. Paul enter the room, followed by an entourage of several college students.

I immediately walked up to Paul and introduced myself, and Paul smiled at me and shook my hand. I told him that I had always wanted to ask him a question, and that it was a hypothetical question, but I would appreciate his answer nonetheless. Paul smiled, and welcomed the question. At this point there were about 15 people surrounding us, listening.

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

(more…)

First, let me say that I respect Ron Paul a great deal. More often than not, he’s fundamentally right on the pressing issues of today and I believe that the modern political landscape is a better place because of him. Over the current president, I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.

That being said, regarding his online clan of “libertarian” followers… eeesh. Here’s a recent tweet that I received from one of his followers after I so much as barely criticized Dr. Paul’s foreign policy ideas;

“Hey neocon, how the h*** can you justify our costly empire overseas? Only Ron Paul will stop this!!”

Come again, dummy?

Listen, their heart is in the right place but here’s the concept that many of the younger, supposedly anti-establishment, self-professed “libertarians” can’t seem to grasp; by it’s very definition and historical precedent, an empire isn’t a costly endeavor. It’s a profitable one. Be it the Roman, Ottoman or English, all of these tyrannical government’s built their empire in order to expand their territory and reap the bountiful spoils of war.

The reason the United States supposed “empire” expanding abroad is so costly would be because it in fact is no empire at all. The United States boldly walks in through the front door of these countries, provides unprecedented aid and/or overthrows their evil governments in an attempt to rightfully give power back to its citizens, after which we ask for nothing more than the land needed to bury the bodies of those who died to provide them with that privilege.

Now is that a legitimate role of government? Should we really be playing “hero” to the world? Say! Now that’s a meaningful dialogue that deserves a spirited discussion!

(more…)

Lost in the pre and post-election analysis out of Massachusetts has been the major policy differences between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown over foreign policy and defense.  The issue garnered some attention briefly during their final debate, when Coakley erred saying terrorists “were gone from Afghanistan.”  But then the attentions of the media quickly turned back to the health care debate.

In campaigning with Brown in the final days, Rudy Giuliani mapped out the battle lines: “This election will send a signal, and a very dramatic one, that we are going in the wrong direction on terrorism, and we need to change it, and change it now.”  Giuliani added: Scott’s background in the military speaks volumes about his understanding of what we face.  And frankly his opponent’s ignorance about the issues facing us is astounding.”

From the start candidate Brown was unequivocal on defense matters.  A 30-year Veteran of the National Guard, still serving as a lt. colonel, Brown unashamedly backed the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.    It’s notable that not once did he seek to separate himself from the Bush foreign policy agenda.

(more…)

It’s almost hard to believe but Wednesday, January 20 marks exactly one year since President Bush left the White House.

During his last public ceremony as commander in chief, he was booed by thousands of Americans who simutaneously cheered for Barack Obama as he was sworn into office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Except for a June 17 speech in Erie, Pennsylvania in which Bush defended his policies and criticized Obama’s, the former president has been remarkably silent about his successor. He has not fired back at Obama despite the new administration inappropriately blaming Bush for all of their failures.

One year after taking office however, Obama has done a total reversal on his isolationist, non-interventionist foreign policy, and is now pushing President Bush’s neo-conservative philosophy as a justification for starting a new war in Afghanistan. What the Democratic Party once criticized as an over-simplified good vs. evil argument has become the cornerstone of Obama’s reasoning.

(more…)