Tag Archives: libertarians

Memo to the paulbots: Go away. The GOP doesn’t need you.

In a recent laughable screed published on the Fox News website in the Opinion section, a senior Reason magazine editor whose name I do not recall claimed that because Ron Paul has made supposedly large gains, the GOP will now have to reach out to his supporters, ask for their votes, and pay a price for these votes in the form of significant policy concessions on issues foreign and domestic.

What concessions does he demand?

Cutting down the US military to a force capable of defending only the US proper, withdrawing all troops from foreign countries, closing all overseas bases, terminating all defense commitments, and all aid programs, to all of America’s allies, never intervening militarily abroad, closing the Fed, legalizing drugs, and reinstating the gold standard.

He claims that these concessions would be “a small price to pay” for the votes of Ron Paul supporters.

But he’s completely wrong.

Other than closing the Fed and legalizing drugs, such concessions would amount to a HUGE, UNACCEPTABLE price to pay, as they would be detrimental for the Republic, for the conservative movement, and for the GOP.

Agreeing to cutting the US military down to a constabulary force capable of, at most, defending only US territory and nothing else would be the most disastrous concession of all, and the worst mistake that the GOP and the conservative movement could make. That, by itself, is a reason to reject the Reason magazine guy’s demands. It would mean cutting the US military down to a small size, cutting its modernization programs, and thus dramatically weakening it. But because the same kind of military capabilities useful for defending America’s allies (such air and naval superiority, missile defense, nuclear deterrence, ground superiority, tactical strike, long range strike, etc.) are also needed for defending America, there is no way to cut the military to make it unable or useless for defending allies while not making it incapable of defending America itself.

Cutting the military, especially deeply, will weaken it and make it unable to defend AMERICA as well as its allies.

There is no way that you can honestly propose to cut it and make it unable to defend America’s allies but capable of defending America itself.

Withdrawing US troops from all foreign countries where they are currently stationed, closing all (as opposed to some) overseas bases, and abandoning all defense commitments to all of America’s allies – including the most loyal ones – would be a great betrayal of them and a shot in the foot for America itself. It would leave America’s enemies (such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) free to perpetrate aggression and conquer country after country, coming ever closer to the US itself, while dramatically reducing America’s influence in the world and the world’s, as well as America’s, security.

It would also dramatically cut America’s power projection capabilities, for which overseas bases and troops stationed in them are needed. If America ever again needs, for example, to punish terrorists for attacking the US, or to prevent terrorists or a rogue state from obtaining weapons of mass murder, it will not have any overseas bases to project power from, and will have to rely on an aging, shrinking fleet of carriers, amphib ships, and strategic airlifters, plus a tiny fleet of mostly nonstealthy bombers.

Cutting off aid to programs such as Egypt and Pakistan, which are not true allies of the US, makes sense. But cutting off aid to allies such as Israel would be unjust and would undermine their security.

Foreswearing ANY military interventions abroad, as opposed to only military interventions in irrelevant countries and where the US should not take sides, is also a foolish, suicidal policy. It’s one thing to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and avoid intervening in Syria. It’s one thing to say that the US should never intervene military abroad, anywhere, under any circumstances, even if, for example, North Korea invades the South or Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Even libertarian columnist and AmSpec Associate Editor W. James Antle admits that neither a policy of intervening everywhere nor  a rigid foreswearing of any interventions anywhere is a wise policy. Promising that America would never intervene anywhere, under any circumstances, would be as foolish and suicidal as abandoning all defense commitments to all of America’s allies – it would be a license for America’s enemies and for troublemakers and thugs around the world to perpetrate aggression, conquer America’s allies, harbor terrorist organizations unpunished, develop WMDs unpunished, and make America less secure.

Adopting the gold standard would be disastrous for the US economy. It would mean tying the dollar to gold, thus producing deflation and a recession (if not a depression) and making the dollar dependent on the very volatile price of gold. If its price dips, so will the value of the dollar.

No, that would not be “a small price to pay” for Ron Paul supporters’ votes.

Nor is it necessary. As poll after poll, and as the results of all primaries conducted this year, have irrefutably proven, Paul supporters are just a small band of rabid libertarians who worship Ron Paul. And as their statements, and those of Ron Paul (who, in 2008, refused to endorse John McCain and instead endorsed the Big Government socialist 9/11 truther Cynthia McKinney), irrefutably prove, they would never vote for a Republican presidential candidate (other than Ron Paul) anyway. The GOP doesn’t need them, shouldn’t appease them, and even if it tried to, it would fail to win their votes.

But if the GOP does try to appease paulbots and does accede to their demands of the policy concessions listed above, it will antagonize and disenfranchise tens of millions of conservative voters who believe in a strong national defense, a confident foreign policy, free market economics, traditional American values, and supporting Israel, and who don’t want the GOP to be turned into a radical libertarian party in Paul’s image. This would mean losing tens of millions of voters, and as a result, losing every future Presidential and Congressional election, even if all Ron Paul supporters started voting for the GOP (which they never will).

So thus, the GOP would be shooting itself in the foot: antagonizing people who would likely cast their ballots for the GOP while appeasing people who would never vote for it.

The GOP must not do this. It must not make ANY policy concessions to Ron Paul or his supporters, and neither should Mitt Romney. It, and Mitt Romney, should avoid Ron Paul voters like the lepers that they are.

My message to the paulbots is: Go away. The GOP doesn’t need you and doesn’t want you.


The RJC’s decision to ban Ron Paul was the right decision; Goldstein and Lord are wrong about Ron Paul

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) has, for good reasons, decided to ban Ron Paul from their presidential forum/debate. Unsurprisingly, Paul and his loony supporters protested against this decision. But I was surprised to hear conservative AmSpec columnists Aaron Goldstein and Jeffrey Lord – both of whom are staunch supporters of Israel (and Lord is also, like me, a fierce critic of Ron Paul) – also criticize the RJC’s decision. That, I cannot understand.

For starters, the RJC is a private organization which has a right to invite or disinvite anyone it wants. For Goldstein and RJC to lecture it is arrogant.

Secondly, although Ron Paul, his loony supporters, and these two naive AmSpec journalist claim that Paul is being denied “a fair chance to express his views”, and Lord just wants Paul to be allowed to express them, this is not merely about a guy expressing his views. This is about inviting, or banning, a loony, fiercely ideological politician who has proven multiple times, in front of global audiences, that he is both a traitor and a loon. He’s the GOP’s counterpart of Lyndon LaRouche. He’s a politician completely blinded by his extremist ideology and his inability to compromise or cooperate with those who disagree with him some of the time. He’s a vile, despicable, morally repugnant traitor who has actively work to gut the US military and imperil the US, while blaming all of the world’s evil on the US and accusing America of “militarism”. This is the guy who has condemned the assassinations of OBL and Al-Awlaki and would’ve never conducted them. This is the guy who would dump all of America’s allies and withdraw from all mutual defense treaties and alliances, thus eliminating America’s credibility. This is the guy who is to the far left of Barack Obama and most other Democrats on foreign and defense policies. And he’s supposed to be given a platform by the RJC?

The RJC’s answer, quite rightly, was not just “no”, it was “HELL NO!”

Julian Assange is a false hero. No wonder why Libertarians like him.

Libertarians (who, like Assange, hate America), have been portraying Julian Assange as a hero, and his cause as the cause of free speech. They’re mistaken.

Free speech is the right to freely preach and publish YOUR OWN opinions, claims, products, and documents – not those of other people. Even if you discount laws protecting classified information (which was classified for good reasons), there is still copyright law. In no civilized country in the world are you allowed, under any circumstances, to publish other people’s products and documents without the express permission of the author, unless they’ve relinquished copyright or have themselves slated the speicfic products or documents to be published.

In no civilized country in the world are you allowed to publish someone else’s bills, checks, account balance sheets, or private documents. No one except the recipient of a letter is authorized to publish it. There are many people sitting in prisons around the world right now for violation of this legal principle.

As for “secrecy laws”, former SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld refuted this argument on Nov. 30th, 2010, when he wrote on FB: “I was an original co-sponsor of the FOIA in 1966. There is a legal, appropriate way for declassifying information. It is not Wikileaks.”

What Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning have done is not “fight for free speech”, merely a casual crime, motivated by anti-Americanism, i.e. racism.

Also, I would like to note that:

1) Why the media hoopla about it? What is so extraordinary about these cable docs? The only thing I found out from them, and didn’t know earlier, was that much fewer people have died in Iraq and Afghanistan than what some leftist organizations claimed.

2) These documents are of dubious credibility. They’ve evidently been selected to fit a pre-established goal (to harm Western democracies, including the US), so why wouldn’t they have been doctored or even falsified? They cannot be compared with the original docs. Wikileaks has, to date, published NOTHING that would harm China, NK, Iran, Russia, Cuba, or Venezuela. Wikileaks clearly sympathizes with these countries, and is probably even financed by one of them.

3) Wikileaks is clearly a mere tool for some much more influential player. It has supposedly uploaded thousands of documents on the Net. Do you guys even realize how much time and bandwith it takes to upload any document onto the Net, even a simple picture? I once ran a primitive website about American military aircraft. Uploading a single large picture of a fighterplane took several minutes. Uploading thousands of documents onto the Net during a period of just 4-5 months is too big a task for a small band of crazy hackers. This had to be done by a much bigger, better-financed group.

4) Julian Assange is guilty. Unless he runs away like his fellow anti-American rapist Roman Polanski, he will be tried in Sweden by fair, impartial court, not by a kangaroo court in his beloved Russia, China, NK, or Iran.

5) The Army JAG Corps has charged Manning with “aiding the enemy” under Art. #104 of the UCMJ, but has requested only lifetime inprisonment, not the death penalty. It’s wrong. Manning has leaked thousands of cables to a foreign group led by a guy who hates the US, a group probably sponsored by countries hostile to the US. Thus, he deserves the death penalty.