Will Obama Shun Perpetual War?

By Steve Chapman

Midway through his inaugural address, Barack Obama proclaimed, "A decade of war is now ending." A cynical listener might respond: "And a new decade of war is about to begin." Obama sounded pacific notes Monday. But it will be a huge surprise if he can get through four years without going to war.

Military force should not be a frequent recourse for our leaders. For the first century or so of the republic, it wasn't. Leaving aside the intermittent war against the Indians, wars were few and widely spaced.

Beginning with World War II, though, American presidents grew much more inclined to send our forces to fight in faraway places. The "Vietnam syndrome" supposedly cured that impulse. But it didn't last. Since 1989, University of Chicago scholar John Mearsheimer notes, we have been at war in two out of every three years. We are, in his words, "addicted to war."

Being engaged in combat is the norm. Peace is not really peace -- it's just a term we use for that brief interval between invasions.

Obama has a chance to break that pattern, and in his address, he gave hints he might like to. "We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war," he said. "We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully."

Hawks regard those as fighting words. The editors of National Review insisted that "it is clear neither that a decade of war is now ending -- not in Iraq or Afghanistan, to say nothing of Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, or Mali...

Read more.

Source: Townhall

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…

(Read more)

Source: A Blogging Spot

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

Your golden opportunity NOW to bring Ron Paul supporters into the LP

Dear fellow Libertarian,

A lot of former Libertarian Party members have campaigned for Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination for President.

Thousands of potential LP supporters have campaigned for Ron Paul’s nomination.

We have a huge opportunity before us to get them to join, and rejoin, the Libertarian Party. And we need your help now.

The gallant efforts of Ron Paul supporters to clinch the 2012 Republican nomination for president will soon come to an end – at the Republican Presidential Nominating Convention in Tampa, Florida at the end of August.

As Ron Paul himself has said, he will likely fall short of the delegates he needs to win the GOP nomination.

When it’s over, where will his supporters go?

God forbid they go to Republican Mitt Romney, Democrat Barrack Obama or any of the many “conservative” or “liberal” organizations that give lip service to liberty – while working to destroy it.

We have an opportunity to attract these true Ron Paul, liberty supporters to the Libertarian Party. But we must act today.

Several Ron Paul events are planned for August 24-26th in Tampa in conjunction with a major rally organized by Ron Paul himself on Sunday, August 26th, just before the GOP convention which begins on the following Monday.

The Libertarian Party has an opportunity to have a presence at these rallies.  Our presidential nominee, Governor Gary Johnson, is already booked to speak at one on Saturday.

We want LP advertisements, banners and promotional materials at booths, on stage, and everywhere we can get them at these festivals. We want additional LP speakers so that everyone who attends hears the message that the Libertarian Party is the place for them to be.

To do this we must buy a sponsorship package and commit to participate. But the window for this opportunity may close any time in the next few days. Which is why we must raise funds and commit to buying a sponsorship immediately.

This will be a golden opportunity for the LP to get our message out and show Ron Paul supporters that, should he not win the GOP nomination, the Libertarian Party is the bar-none, highest leverage, best way possible to keep the flame of liberty alive right through the General Election in November - and beyond.

The Libertarian Party is the only party that for forty years:

·         has fought to end the Federal Reserve and reckless fiscal policy

·         has fought to draw down high taxes and high government spending

·         has fought to get the U.S. out of foreign wars

·         has fought to end the destructive War on Drugs

·         has cleared the mine field and made it safe for others to stand up for the right of consenting adults to marry whomever they choose.

·         has fought against the Patriot Act and other infringements of civil liberties.

Ron Paul supporters have embraced these ideals and goals – ones that the LP has been fighting for since Day One, forty years ago.

The establishment parties and their candidates give lip service to these ideals – but they betray their supporters when it comes to casting votes.

Why they need us – and we need them

Whereas Ron Paul supporters have taken the battle for liberty inside the GOP establishment, the Libertarian Party has been the all-important outside competitive threat that helped to make their success possible.

Without outside competition, the GOP has no reason to listen to liberty candidates and Ron Paul supporters within their own ranks.

Just like the free market, competition is the essential element that makes change possible.

The Libertarian Party threat limits what Democrats and Republicans can get away with. We force them to listen to the liberty factions within their own parties.

The notable successes that Ron Paul supporters have achieved this year – winning a majority of Republican delegates in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota and Louisiana and winning key positions in Republican states committees such as in Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, Colorado and Massachusetts, to name a few – would not have been possible without the Libertarian Party.

Without the possibility that LP candidates could spoil an election for a Democrat who promises to stay out of war – and then escalates war – the Democrats will continue to keep us at war. Barrack Obama’s partial withdrawal from Iraq may never have occurred without the LP.

Without the possibility that LP candidates could spoil an election for a Republican who promises to cut taxes and spending – who then raises them both - the Republicans will spend us into oblivion. The fact that real spending cuts are finally being talked about may never have happened without the LP.

The competitive threat of the Libertarian Party is one of the biggest forces to stop outright tyranny in the United States today.

Ron Paul supporters need to know this. They need to understand this dynamic – lest they get swept away by forces within the Democrat and Republican parties that are trying to scare them into voting for the “lesser of two evils."

Ron Paul supporters need the Libertarian Party. And the Libertarian Party needs them.

We need this vital energy, this rising tide of supporters and voters, to grow the LP and grow that outside competitive threat until the day comes when we can reverse today’s Big Government. End wars. Dramatically cut government spending and taxes. Restore civil liberties.

We need to be at these festivals. We need a wide and unmistakable presence that gets our message across to every Ron Paul supporter who attends -- and to the wide range of media that will be covering these festivals.

Will you help?

We need to raise $20,000 immediately to buy a sponsorship package, create materials for this event, get speakers there and to advertise.

The more we raise, the greater our presence will be, and the more Ron Paul supporters we can attract.

But we cannot wait. We must commit ASAP to our participation in these events, or our opportunity for a sponsorship will be lost. We need your donation today.

Would you please make your most generous donation right now?

We need one $5,000 donor. Will you be this person?

We need five $1,000 donors. Could you please help today?

We need twenty $250 donors. Will you be one?

And we need forty $125 donors. Will you be one of forty $125 donors?

Every donation of any size will help.

Please donate now to the Libertarian Party here and write “Tampa Ron Paul events” in the “Comment” box at the bottom of this form.

Let the R3VOLution CONTINUE – and let it energize the Libertarian Party in 2012!

With your help, we’ll take liberty to the General Election and make the Libertarian Party a driving force in politics for years to come.

Please donate today.

Yours in liberty,

Carla Howell
Executive Director
National Libertarian Party

Rand Paul on Romney and Unconstitutional Wars

Writes Senator Rand Paul at National Review:

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

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

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

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

I don’t believe any fair look at my record will show blind partisanship — or partisanship of any kind. I have worked with Senate Democrats on civil liberties, and the House Black Caucus on the drug war. I have fought alongside the ACLU on civil liberties, and at times, I have fought all by myself on federalism issues.

I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy. I am afraid if that chokehold is not released quickly, our country may quickly follow Europe into destruction. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is a difference between the two candidates on economic issues is simply not looking or not being honest with their assessments.

Where I don’t know if there is as much of a difference as I would like is foreign policy.

Let’s first be clear: President Obama was elected on a platform of ending wars, yet he has opposed every effort made by me and others in the Senate to do that. He opposed my resolution to end the Iraq War. He has refused my urgings to end the war in Afghanistan more quickly. He started another war in Libya, and this time went further into unconstitutional territory than previous presidents by not even seeking Congressional approval whatsoever.

I opposed him when he did that. Anyone who believes President Obama is less aggressive internationally than his predecessors is mistaken.

I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy. But I do know that I must oppose the most recent statements made by Mitt Romney in which he says he, as president, could take us to war unilaterally with Iran, without any approval from Congress. His exact words were:

I can assure you if I’m president, the Iranians will have no question but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage, therefore, if I’m president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.

This is a misreading of the role of the president and Congress in declaring war.

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president… 

Even if the president believes he has such authority, the War Powers Act goes on to require the president to seek congressional approval within 60 days of conflict.

No president is above the law or above the Constitution…

I will hold accountable and oppose any actions from any president, Republican or Democrat, if he declares war without congressional consent.

Read the entire column

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter