Friday, July 20, 2012

Neoconservative Fallacies in Aggressive Foreign Policy (part 2)

By Zach Foster, resident writer of A Blogging Spot

Al Qaeda certainly needed to be punished for the horrific 9/11 terror attacks and much of the world agreed, but having hundreds of military bases in over a hundred countries didn’t stop the attacks from occurring.  Furthermore, invading Iraq plus getting involved in Libya, Syria, and central Africa isn’t doing much for national security. Both parties in government like spending more money than they take in and both started or got our country involved in wars we didn’t need to fight. Anyone is free to ask any Iraq or Afghan war veteran if he or she really think the Iraqis or Afghans will figure out and embrace democracy and human rights anytime soon, and the response will most likely be “No.”

Many neoconservatives attempt to justify the Iraq and Afghan wars (as well as the African sideshows) by comparing them to the First Barbary War or to World War II.  Their logic is faulty at best as the nature of the centuries-past conflict differs greatly.  The First Barbary War (1801-1805) was initiated after semi-independent sultans of the Ottoman Empire’s buffer states had been authorizing pirates to kidnap…

Source: A Blogging Spot

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus Statement on Tragic Shooting in Colorado

July 20, 2012

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrible tragedy and with their families. We are shocked by these senseless acts, and we cannot imagine the pain and grief of the victims’ families and across Colorado. We pray for comfort for the grieving and healing for the wounded. Our hearts break for all those whose lives have been shaken by these unthinkable events.”– RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.

President Obama on the shooting in Aurora, Colorado

This morning, President Obama addressed the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, calling on the country to stand with those who have been touched by the tragedy:

 [Even] as we learn how this happened and who's responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. Such violence, such evil is senseless. It's beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.  The people we lost in Aurora loved and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.

Earlier today, the President spoke with both the mayor of Aurora, Steve Hogan, and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper -- and pledged the full support of federal law enforcement to aid the investigation.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Neoconservative Fallacies in Aggressive Foreign Policy

By Zach Foster, resident writer of A Blogging Spot

Many neoconservative Republicans enjoy using the same amount of straw man arguments and slippery slopes that leftists use against the GOP’s libertarian/Constitutionalist faction.  Their methods are often the same while only the content of their rhetoric differs.  One of the neoconservatives’ main criticisms of the liberty faction is the fallacious slippery slope that not having American military bases all over the world will lead to constant terror attacks against the homeland and possible invasions by foreign armies.

Many neoconservatives who most fanatically support a foreign policy of imperialism under the euphemism of Pax Americana will tout their own military service from a bygone era, most often occurring during a time of peace.  Discussions with actual combat veterans reveal that those who fought in America’s wars tend to be warier of an aggressive foreign policy, being fully conscious of the possibility that the beloved country for which they fought and bled may begin to resemble the aggressive evils they fought against.

Neoconservatives with veteran status often attempt to…  (Read more)

Source: A Blogging Spot

Ron Paul, Conservatives and the War on Drugs

I’ve often argued that for every supposedly “controversial” position Ron Paul holds amongst Republicans, you can find some of the most iconic names in the conservative movement agreeing with Dr. Paul on these issues. Russell Kirk (the man most responsible for “conservative” becoming a popular term) agreed with Ron Paul on foreign policy and even concepts like “blowback.” Jack Kemp and Robert Novak were both opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning, just as Paul was. It’s no secret that Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul share very similar foreign policy views. Toward the end of his life, Buckley was essentially calling Bush’s foreign policy liberal. Today, George Will is perhaps as fierce a critic of our mindless ongoing presence in Afghanistan as Paul.

Foreign policy is an issue many conventional conservatives have taken issue with Ron Paul on, despite the fact that some of conservatism’s most famous figures have agreed with Paul on the issue.

The same is true of the War on Drugs.

Ron Paul is right when he says that the federal War on Drugs has been an abysmal failure. William F. Buckley and National Review were right when they said the same thing in 1996. Milton Friedman was right when he said the same thing in 1972 when President Nixon created the federal War on Drugs.

Despite having some major conservative intellectual backup on this issue, changing conservatives’ minds about it will likely not happen overnight. As Dr. Paul said about raising awareness about the Federal Reserve issue yesterday “I’d like to say that we’re on the verge of total victory — we’re not. We’re on an incremental victory” the same will be true of progress made on failed federal drug prohibition.

Reports The Hill today:

A bipartisan group of House members has proposed legislation that would make it easier for people to defend themselves in federal cases for possessing marijuana, if they can show that they are using marijuana for medical purposes in line with relevant state laws.

The Hill headline emphasizes that this legislation was co-sponsored by Ron Paul and Barney Frank. No surprise there. The more significant part of the story is Paul’s Republican co-sponsors:

Other Republicans on the bill are Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).

Amash and Rohrabacher are not moderate Republicans, but strong conservatives. True, this is only three conservative Republicans promoting a bill that merely protects medical marijuana patients. But it is three more (or at least two more) Republicans than you would have seen taking such a stance before Ron Paul became a household name.

Recent polls have shown that more Americans than ever are fed up with the failed War on Drugs, with 18-29 years olds comprising the most irritated portion of the populace. These are the same young people who now flock to Ron Paul and his message.

I see an opportunity in the years to come for more conservatives to take a stand on what will increasingly become the winning side of this battle–ending the federal War on Drugs, standing up for states’ rights on substance laws, and getting rid of what is essentially modern day Prohibition.

Ron Paul will be leaving Congress at the end of this term. But on this issue, as will be the case with so many other issues, many Americans–including conservative Republicans–will look back knowing that Ron Paul was right.

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter