There is a lot to be observed from this election, and I would like to make light of some of these statistics. First of all, Romney’s victory is of little surprise as it is a border state to his home state of Massachusetts, not to mention the location of one of his summer homes. In comparison to his 2008 second place finish in New Hampshire, Romney made a lot more progress in the last four years than he did in Iowa. Romney took 75,546 votes in 2008 compared to his 2012 victory with 95,669 votes.

All in all Romney pulled 20,123 more votes than in 2008 which seems pretty impressive and pessimistic to the authentic Conservative movement, but all in all it’s not that bad. In 2008 Ron Paul’s 5th place finish in New Hampshire earned him only 18,308 votes, compare that to his finish yesterday with 55,455 votes. I would say the statistics are in the favor of liberty! In four years Paul took in 37,147 more votes, more than tripling his support in four years time. Looking at these numbers in percentages you will find that Romney saw an increase of 26.6% and Paul saw an increase of about 302%…again the tide is clearly coming in favor on liberty!

Lastly I would also like to point out that Rick Santorum’s 5th place finish proves further the point that Adam and I made on our last talk show that Rick Santorum finished 2nd place in Iowa because he was simply the flavor of the month. The only thing we were wrong about was the fact that his flavor only lasted for a day instead of a full month.

So all in all what we can take away from Iowa and New Hampshire is that there are only two consistent front runners. I predict that ultimately this election will come down to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Conservatives will have to choose between a RINO who was the grandfather of ObamaCare, or a principled conservative with the most consistent voting record on decreasing the size and scope of government. Who will you choose?

And expect the worst attacks to come from Republicans.

Let’s cut the crap. The GOP establishment’s main beef with Ron Paul is his foreign policy. This ideological chasm is the subtext to most attacks on Paul from the right. To their credit, some of Paul’s critics are man (or woman) enough to confront the congressman on this subject directly. Paul welcomes these challenges and wants his fellow Republicans to debate what a true conservative foreign policy should look like. But the members of the Republican establishment do not want any such discussion. In fact, they fear it. Most of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders subscribe primarily to a neoconservative foreign policy — the reflexively pro-war, world-police dogma that has been the dominant view in the Republican Party for at least a decade. When Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was asked by David Gregory on “Meet the Press” in October, “Would you describe yourself as a neoconservative then?” Cain replied: “I’m not sure what you mean by neoconservative … I’m not familiar with the neoconservative movement.” Cain was being honest — he simply knew how most Republicans viewed foreign policy and generally agreed with them. What was this “neoconservatism” Gregory spoke of? Said Cain: “I’m a conservative, yes. Neoconservative — labels sometimes put you in a box.”

“Neoconservative” certainly is a label that puts you in a box. The prefix alone invites curiosity (which is why neoconservatives don’t like it) and the term itself suggests that it represents something different from plain old conservatism (which is why neoconservatives really don’t like it). Neoconservative Max Boot outlined the ideology in 2002: “Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad … [The] agenda is known as ‘neoconservatism,’ though a more accurate term might be ‘hard Wilsonianism’ …” Of President Bush’s “hard Wilsonianism,” columnist George Will and National Review founder William F. Buckley said the following during an exchange in 2005:

BUCKLEY: It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative …The fact that a significant part of Ron Paul’s campaign has been to constantly point out distinctions between how past conservative Republicans have approached foreign policy and the current neoconservative approach that dominates the GOP irritates those who’ve spent their careers trying to blur these distinctions. Wrote the neoconservatives’ intellectual godfather Irving Kristol in 2003:

One can say that the historical task and political purpose of neoconservatism would seem to be this: to convert the Republican Party, and American conservatism in general, against their respective wills …

That Herman Cain had never heard of neoconservatism until his interview with Gregory is a testament to the neoconservatives’ success. That Paul might now be “converting” the GOP back toward a more sober or traditionally conservative foreign policy threatens that success.

Here is where the hypocrisy makes its appearance. The GOP, who proudly claim to support not only fiscal conservatism but personal responsibility, are the cheerleaders supporting increased unconstitutional government “charity” to foreigners in the country of Israel. Their excuses vary, but the fact remains: they are ideologically inconsistent to support using taxpayer dollars to help fund the Israeli military and government, yet attack the idea of spending money on a government-run health insurance program at home. Let’s examine some of the similarities between these two handout schemes:

#1: Both Israeli foreign aid and Obamacare are examples of government charity. There is no authority in the US Constitution for either. It is as unfair and immoral to force the taxpayer to pay for their neighbor’s health care expenses as it is to force them to pay to equip the Israeli military or boost the Israeli economy.

#2: Republicans ask: “what will Israel do without our financial assistance?” Similarly, the Democrats ask: “what will the poor do without healthcare?” These politicians are asking the same question: “if the working taxpayers of America don’t fork over their hard-earned money so I can waste it on unconstitutional handout programs, how will I get reelected?”

#3: Special interest groups and lobbyists dominate both viewpoints.

AIPAC, “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby”, makes sure that politicians who support their goals get big campaign contributions, whereas those who are viewed as “hostile” can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to their political opponents. The leadership is made up of Jewish-Americans who care more about the land of their ancestors than America, and fundamentalist Christians who have let their love of Israel overpower the message of Christ. The whole organization tends to put the interests of Israel before the USA. Former CIA director Michael Scheuer has labeled people with this mindset “Israel Firsters” as opposed to the America Firsters of the 1940′s.

Then there are the multitudes of left-wing groups who support Obamacare, many with funding from big wig members of the Democrat Party like George Soros, Peter Lewis and Ted Turner. Among these groups are MoveOn.org, Health Care for America NOW! and Center for American Progress.

Both causes have their lobbyists who, by injection of cash and political promises, guarantee that taxpayer dollars will be used to further their agendas.

#4: This is perhaps the most important one – WE’RE BROKE! We’re borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and the idea that we can continue vast welfarism at home or abroad is insane! If we don’t stop this out of control spending on our own volition now, there will be a time in the not so distant future that we will be forced to stop – when our economy and currency collapse.

In conclusion, I want to make a final point regarding the US-Israel relationship. Just because I say we should stop giving money to Israel (and every other country for that matter) does NOT mean I am an anti-semite or that I am anti-Israel. No more than it means a Republican opposed to Obamacare wants a young man without health insurance to die. When Republicans lower themselves to these Democrat-like mudslinging accusations of anti-semitism, they do a great disservice, especially to the conservative movement.

I purpose that we be friendly to Israel, talk and trade with them, wish them the best, allow them to have sovereignty and MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. The part of our “pro-Israel foreign policy” that isn’t talked about is the fact that Israel has to ask us for permission to do various things, especially in relation to military action. I say let them make their own decisions, some will be good and some will be bad, but they are not an American territory, they should be able to make decisions for themselves that don’t always have to benefit us. As conservative author Russell Kirk said, “Not seldom has it seemed as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States.” Kirk was right, it’s time we reverse our backwards policy and worry about our own problems, of which there are many.

Last night at the 9/22 Florida FoxNews/Google Debate, Huntsman did a wonderful thing in confronting the war-mongering neo-con, Rick Santorum. The issue over which the confrontation took form was the one about which Santorum is most passionate – our military operations in the middle east. Specifically, the argument was over Afghanistan. Huntsman started by saying that with our weak economy we are not projecting the goodness of our country. No real disagreement from Santorum there, but then Huntsman went on to his second point saying, “after 10 years of fighting the War on Terror, people are ready to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. This country has given its all…”

Immediately, Santorum began shaking his head in disagreement. Santorum lives in a fantasy world where we can spend unlimited amounts of cash and troops lives on our adventurism, fighting wars for foreigners “freedom” from one regime or another just to have a new dictator installed after our mission is complete.

In his response, the former senator said, “Just because our economy is sick, doesn’t mean our country is sick and it doesn’t mean our values are sick and we are going to stand up for those values…to assure that our country is safe.” This is a ridiculous statement – the economy is the lifeblood of a country, when it is sick, we are sick. Of course he had to bring “values” into the discussion. What “values” have to do with it, I’m not quite sure. Is one of our “values” to “make the world safe for democracy” as the socialist-in-chief Woodrow Wilson wanted? I think not, try the Constitution Rick. There is no discussion of “values” or fighting wars for foreign countries, and those wars do not make us any safer!

Santorum finished by saying, “We should be fighting wars to win, not politics.” I challenge Rick to define “win.” We’ve been there 10 years and achieved a ton of objectives (many of which were not originally in the game plan) what is there left to do? Santorum will be happy only when we militarily protect other countries borders, arrange their elections and lay and collect taxes – HE WANTS A UNITED STATES EMPIRE! But EMPIRES ALWAYS FALL!

Wake up and smell the coffee Rick, it’s time we rejuvenate our country and start following the Constitution and the words of our founders again, and the only way to do that is to bring the troops home to their families (now there’s a “family value” I can get behind), let them spend their salaries here in the US thereby helping the economy. Have them police the USA/Mexico border to prevent illegal immigration rather than policing the border of Afghanistan/Pakistan as they are currently doing.

Gov. Huntsman completed his point by saying, “Only Pakistan can save Pakistan; only Afghanistan can save Afghanistan; I want America to save America.” Game. Set. Match.

Once again, kudos to Jon Huntsman, we don’t agree with him on everything, but as we always say, when someone does something right we will applaud them for it, even if we disagree on other issues.

Watch a video of the exchange between Huntsman and Santorum:

Naturally, television news shows are spending considerable time interviewing survivors of the victims of the attack. The sentence that caught my attention was a woman from Shanksville, Pennsylvania who insisted that the crash site of Flight 93 was sacred ground, and should be respected as a memorial to the 40 people who died in that crash. I mean no disrespect to any of the 9/11 victims, but let’s put these fatalities into perspective. After the Battle of Gettysburg there were 8,900 dead, and 22,000 wounded. After the Civil War there were 212,000 soldiers killed in action, and 625,000 total fatalities. How much more sacred is the ground they died on? Shouldn’t we reflect on their deaths with similar significance? Abraham Lincoln famously said, “But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.”

It is unnecessary to point out the we cannot bring the dead back to life, but it behooves us to do whatever we can to make sure that the victims of 9/11 did not die in vain. If they could, those who perished might well tell us that Liberty is no longer their problem. Only those of us capable of taking a breath – and thinking clearly – can change the future for ourselves and our children’s children. What exactly might we be expected to do?

I would recommend that we support an independent, in-depth investigation into what REALLY happened ten years ago. The 9-11 truth movement continues to grow as more and more people recognize that the official story repeated ad-naseum by the main stream media is filled with flaws and inconsistencies. We should assiduously follow the evidence until we uncover the cold, unvarnished truth, even if we discover that certain members of our own government were knowlegable, or even complicit in planning the attack. The most important scene from the movie V for Vendetta is when the police chief calls his partner into the office and asks, “If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred thousand people… would you really want to know?”

It wouldn’t be the first time that the American government lied to its citizens. They lied about the sinking of the Lusitania to lure us into World War I. FDR orchestrated the attack on Pearl Harbor to trick Americans to support World War II. The government has lied about subjecting soldiers to radiation and other hazarous substances in experiments to determine the effects on the human body. In fact, the federal government has lied about so many things that I personally consider any information from Washington D.C. a lie – unless it can be proved otherwise.

For a list of additional suggestions that you or your Liberty organization can do, simply download a copy of the Articles of Freedom which were created in November of 2009 in St. Charles, Illinois by Continental Congress 2009. I am disappointed that this valiant effort by dedicated patriots from forty-eight of the states has been largely ignored by the general public. Being the eternal optimist, I suggest that it’s not too late to start. Each section contains recommended civic actions by the people. If you want to do more than simply remember the tragedy, I encourage you to join with others to take action against the police state we live in, so that future generations will not be required to remember the next dramatic attack on our cherished way of life.

If not now, then when? If not you, then who?

When I die, Liberty is no longer my problem.

Unless this is the first time you’ve read my writing, you know that I’m not invoking these images for simply prurient motives. I am hoping to draw your attention to the irrefutable law of survival demonstrated moments later in the movie. As a terrified Jon Voight is belted to a tree across his throat, he notices his guide and mentor (Burt Reynolds) standing at the river with his powerful hunting bow pulled to full draw. The audience takes a collective gasp as the evil mountain man is struck through the heart by an arrow, and dramatically breathes his last. The relief they feel that the danger is over is soon replaced by an overwhelming sense of societal guilt, played skillfully by Ronny Cox (Drew). The following script excerpt concludes with the topic of this newsletter in highlight.

Drew: Now you listen, Lewis. I don’t know what you got in mind, but if you try to conceal this body, you’re settin’ yourself up for a murder charge. Now that much law I do know! This ain’t one of your f—-’ games. You killed somebody. There he is!

Lewis: I see him, Drew. That’s right, I killed somebody. But you’re wrong if you don’t see this as a game…Dammit, we can get out of this thing without any questions asked. We get connected up with that body and the law, this thing gonna be hangin’ over us the rest of our lives. We gotta get rid of that guy!…Anywhere, everywhere, nowhere.

Drew: How do you know that other guy hasn’t already gone for the police?

Lewis: And what in the hell is he gonna tell ‘em, Drew, what he did to Bobby?

Drew: Now why couldn’t he go get some other mountain men? Now why isn’t he gonna do that? You look around you, Lewis. He could be out there anywhere, watchin’ us right now. We ain’t gonna be so god-damned hard to follow draggin’ a corpse.

Lewis: You let me worry about that, Drew. You let me take care of that. You know what’s gonna be here? Right here? A lake – as far as you can see hundreds of feet deep. Hundreds of feet deep. Did you ever look out over a lake, think about something buried underneath it? Buried underneath it. Man, that’s about as buried as you can get.

Drew: Well, I am tellin’ you, Lewis, I don’t want any part of it.

Lewis: Well, you are part of it!

Drew: IT IS A MATTER OF THE LAW!

Lewis: The law? Ha! The law?! What law?! Where’s the law, Drew? Huh?

Most people consider themselves law abiding, but what law? The law that pretended to justify the Holocaust? The 23,000 laws that pretend to place conditions on my right to keep and bear arms? The pretended laws perpetrated by Homeland Security and the TSA? What laws are you willing to follow? Are there any laws that you refuse to follow?

The type of law demonstrated in this memorable scene is the law of survival. When the discussion remains philosophical, everyone agrees that violent force can be used legitimately to defend your own life. Far more equivocation (ie. whimpering) happens when people are forced to confront this issue in real life – or even in a dramatic movie. Though few people are willing to exercise their right to survival and self-defense, it remains a universal motivation for all living creatures.

Of course, very few people would ever find themselves canoeing down a rural river into a primative, sexual ambush, therefore the chances of requiring excellent archery skills is infinitesimally small. But there are more realistic dangers in the common, urban lifestyle that most people take for granted. The Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that it is against the law to defend yourself against renegade police officers in the Hoosier State. (Read my previous article, Indiana’s Surpremely Arrogant Court) I insist that Indiana has as much authority to overrule your right to self-defense, as they do to exempt themselves from the law of gravity. However, if we are to live in a civilized and peaceful society, where marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat are just hobbies, we must come to a common understanding of what legitimate, justifiable law actually is.

I now direct your attention to Fredric Bastiat’s The Law
Written in 1850, The Law, in my opinion, is the best and most succinct explanation of what legitimate law should be. Starting with the “obvious” (in quotes because nothing is obvious), he states, “We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.” This fundamental precept is clearly NOT obvious to the rulers and politicians who assiduously pass legislation to steal our property and violate our unalienable rights.

Bastiat logically concludes that “If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force – for the same reason – cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty,or property of individuals or groups.”

I cannot urge you too strongly to READ THIS BOOK!, but perhaps you’ll listen to Walter E. Williams who wrote the foreword to this printing of the book. He says, “After reading the book I was convinced that a liberal-arts education without an encounter with Bastiat is incomplete. Reading Bastiat made me keenly aware of all the time wasted, along with the frustrations of going down one blind alley after another, organizing my philosophy of life. The Law did not produce a philosophical conversion for me as much as it created order in my thinking about liberty and just human conduct.”

For those of you supporting Ron Paul’s campaign, these are the very principles that he courageously defends every time he steps up to the microphone. If Ron Paul is your hero, you should not consider yourself a true supporter if you haven’t read The Law.

Trailer parks are like bait to tornados, they are cheese to the tornadoes mousetrap.

Seems like there would be money to be made in a trailer anchor that you can drop whenever you move in and will hold you in place at storm time while the rest of your neighbors are on a 3 hour tour.

Insurance companies are always holding their breathe during destructive weather because it may mean they actually have to pay off the insurance claim as opposed to their usual MO which is take premiums and make sure there is no scenario where they have to pay out.

Remember they came up with the “act of God” disclaimer to relieve themselves of culpability if their clients are damaged by bad weather. “Hey we would love to cover your costs on this loss of your home but it was an act of God! Apparently God didn’t want you to have a house! Who are we to argue with the Creators sovereignty?”

Why do people blame God for destruction anyway? Why isn’t it an act of Satan? If you don’t believe in God, chalk it up to bad luck, or the odds caught up to you. If you do believe in God then you have to believe in satan, and since he is the evil one, perhaps it’s his fault?

Of course if you insist on blaming bad weather on God, then do you blame good weather on Him as well? Do you wake up in the morning to a pleasant day , look outside and say “THIS is an act of God?” I pray there will be help to those who have lost their dwelling and am saddened by losses for sure. I only hope that since the majority of the time we aren’t destroyed by rogue weather we take a moment and thank God for His providence. Every day we are alive and healthy, THAT is an act of God.

Even though the deal between President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t feature any significant reform or real cuts — it will actually increase the national debt by $7 trillion — the Democrats still find it Draconian, while many Republicans oppose it, believing it doesn’t reduce spending enough. Most of the 2012 Republican presidential candidates have said they do not support the deal. Even an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney doesn’t support it.

But does anyone really believe that the TARP-defending Romney would’ve been denouncing a deal like this during the last election cycle? And does anyone really believe Speaker Boehner would have showed a hint of resistance to raising the debt ceiling if the Tea Party wasn’t around?

For decades, so-called conservative Republicans have been content to tinker with the status quo, but for most conservatives during any era, simply diddling with leviathan has never been enough. In defying the British Empire, the Founding Fathers were bold revolutionaries. Barry Goldwater did not want to fix big government; he wanted to dismantle it. Ronald Reagan did not look to solve problems through government; he saw government as the problem.

American conservatives, however successful or unsuccessful, have always possessed a certain slash-and-burn temperament toward the state, in much the same way statists have always recklessly gouged and gored taxpaying citizens. That today’s conservatives are somehow more “extreme” is usually just a misconception, but it also comes down to basic math: As government growth and debt reaches historic heights, so has the resistance to it.

The Daily Beast’s Peter Beinart recognizes this conservative dynamic: “The 2010 elections brought to Congress a group of Republicans theologically committed to cutting government. And they have proved more committed, or perhaps just more reckless, than anyone else in Washington.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd makes a similar, but more negative, observation: “The maniacal Tea Party freshmen are trying to burn down the House they were elected to serve in. It turns out they wanted to come inside to get a blueprint of the historic building to sabotage it.”

Beinart and Dowd are correct that many Republican freshman represent a more radical breed of conservative, but these congressional leaders are only “new” or “radical” in that they are actually conservative. Before the age of the Tea Party, milquetoast Republicans like Romney and Boehner could get away with calling themselves conservative. Now both Romney and Boehner must bend over backward to try to prove that they’re somehow really conservative while constantly fearing that the GOP base isn’t buying it.

Revolution and radicalism, real or perceived, has never been incompatible with traditional conservatism, and while the ends do not always justify the means, they can help define them. The 18th-century English statesman and conservative hero Edmund Burke denounced the French Revolution because it sought to change the very nature of man, but he supported the American Revolution because he believed the “rebels” simply wanted to preserve the historic nature of the colonies and its institutions. For Burke, the French Revolution was a threat to tradition and ordered liberty, but the American Revolution was conservative precisely because it sought to preserve the colonists’ political and cultural inheritance.

Today’s conservative revolution — of which the recent debt ceiling debate is but the latest skirmish — is now blamed on a rowdy band of Capitol Hill Tea Partiers who are constantly urged to moderate their principles and tone down their temperament. This is nonsense. Dowd is correct in her belief that the freshmen Republicans are “maniacs” but only in the sense that they want to rescue a once-Constitutional republic from the dominant big-government consensus beloved by liberals. The Left, and much of the establishment Right, considers post-New Deal America sacrosanct and finds it bizarre that some Republicans dare feel the same way about the Constitution.

Time is on the Tea Party’s side, at least for now. Writes Beinart: “Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering … the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes ever real, [and] it was the emergence of the Tea Party as the most powerful grassroots pressure group in America that laid the groundwork for Sunday night’s deal.”

Obama and Boehner’s recent debt “deal” may be a joke, but the Tea Party’s influence is not. Saying the Tea Party is too extreme is like saying prime rib is too delicious or Natalie Portman is too pretty. What conservatives have been doing as of late isn’t crazy — it’s working. They should keep doing more of it.

fraud – noun – deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

It is probable that most of the subscribers to this newsletter have borrowed money to purchase a house at least once. For decades this process has been a crucial step in achieving the American Dream. The path to a home with a white picket fence has always started by filling out paperwork at the bank. As common as this practice is, I suspect that less than 0.001% of the population is aware of the fraud involved in this process.

As a young computer genius fresh out of college, I got a job at the Zion, Illinois nuclear plant located near the Wisconsin border on the edge of Lake Michigan. The nuclear operators I worked with were five to ten years older than I was, and many of them had started families, and were looking for a house to call a home. They asked me to run a computer program that would calculate mortgage payments given the loan amount, the interest percentage, and the number of years for the loan. The first time I ran the program I was certain that I had entered the specifications incorrectly because the total payment to the bank totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars. Much to my surprise, the second printout generated exactly the same answers. (I know from personal experience that computers do exactly as they are instructed.)

That was my very first indication that our banking system is based on fraud. When I purchased my own home several years later, my realtor explained that the buyer, seller, and realtor all make money on the transaction. The seller makes a profit by selling at a higher price than they paid, the buyer reduces their tax obligation and builds equity, and the realtor makes a profit by earning a percentage of the transaction. I knew it was impossible for everyone to make a profit, but I wouldn’t have been able to explain why that was true at the time.

An even greater fraud has been perpetrated during the last decade as banks have granted loans to people who have no chance of keeping up with the payments. Many families live in fear of being evicted from their homes even though they are doing their best to meet their financial obligations.

The only weapon against fraud is the truth. My friend, Randy Kelton from RULE OF LAW RADIO, is helping people to challenge the banks, and to remain in their homes until after all legal remedies can be exhausted. His REMEDIES IN REAL ESTATE website is the first place to begin your research if you are interested. If you’d like more details, you may call me at 512-461-0995 and I would be happy to give you an overview of the process. There are no guarantees of success, however even postponing the inevitable can be a huge benefit. If you have any comments, questions, or personal experience on this issue, please feel free to leave them here.

When I die, Liberty is no longer my problem.

Such was the case at the Wall Street Journal last week which published an editorial entitled: “The Kucinich Republicans: The House GOP turns isolationist on Libya and war powers.” The “Kucinich Republicans” were the 87 GOP House members who supported liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich’s bill forcing a withdrawal of American troops from Libya within 15 days. What made these House Republicans “isolationist,” according to the WSJ, is that they now undermine the President by challenging his constitutional war powers and questioning his authority according to the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973.
The WSJ makes the case that American presidents have long committed troops or taken military action without Congressional approval. It also makes the case that these same presidents and many on Capitol Hill today consider the War Powers Resolution Act unconstitutional. Said Sen. John McCain: “No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So I don’t feel bound by any deadline.” Asks columnist George Will: “Oh? No law is actually a law if presidents and senators do not ‘recognize’ it?”

Will makes a good point. Many Americans and a few in Congress believe the Internal Revenue Service is unconstitutional. Similarly, many also believe the same is true concerning Obamacare. What might happen if the people or their elected officials simply decide not to ‘recognize’ the legality of either?

The entire purpose of the House of Representatives is that the “people,” through their elected representatives, should act as a counterbalance to the Senate and Executive branch, as outlined in the Constitution. The entire overall purpose of our Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government; and it explicitly vests to the president the power of how to wage war—to Congress, when to wage it. Obama now does both while completely ignoring Congress. The inability of so many of our leaders to recognize and respect this important constitutional distinction is indicative of their routine recklessness. That the WSJ considers the historical precedent of routine recklessness justification for virtually unlimited Executive war powers, also suggests that the supposedly conservative newspaper now considers the Constitution itself a moot point.

But if the WSJ finds challenging the constitutionality of Obama’s actions in Libya absurd because it also finds the Constitution absurd—perhaps even more ridiculous is calling House Republicans who challenge this war president “isolationist.”

To my knowledge, there are no genuine isolationists—those who would build an economic, diplomatic and perhaps literal wall around this country—in modern American politics. There are leaders on Capitol Hill who are regularly called “isolationist,” much like there are those in Washington who are called “racist”—but you will find few if any elected officials who truly fit the traditional definition of these terms.

This is particularly true of the charge leveled by the WSJ at the 87 House Republicans who voted to withdraw troops from Libya. Most Americans do not understand why we are in Libya. Many leaders in both parties can’t understand why we’re in Libya. President Obama cannot give the American people a straight answer as to what interest the US has in Libya.

But who is enthusiastic about the war in Libya? “Obama Republicans” like Sen. McCain. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find an American military intervention overseas in the last few decades that McCain and similar-minded Republicans and Democrats were not enthusiastic about. Because of such consistent bipartisan champions of hyper-interventionism, the US now has arguably the most expansive and globally involved foreign policy in history. We also have a historical debt to match it.

The notion that questioning the wisdom of this foreign policy status quo is “isolationist”—something even outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates says needs serious reassessment—is a rejection of any discernible definition of that term. That the WSJ considers Republicans who question our war in Libya isolationist—a curious situation that not only a majority of Americans but the entire world looks upon with bewilderment—should really disqualify that newspaper from ever using the term again.

There isn’t a political trend or movement in this country currently that even remotely approaches genuine isolationism—but the extreme opposite of what that term actually means is treated as a matter of fact and finality in Washington every day. Indeed, if we were to take the WSJ’s definition seriously almost every other nation on earth could be considered isolationist. And calling Washington leaders who now insist on limiting the President’s power through fidelity to the Constitution “isolationist,” makes about as much sense as calling a devout husband a “bad lover” for refusing to share his passion with scores of women.

Wrote Kucinich bill co-sponsor Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) in his response to the Wall Street Journal editorial: “The Constitution is not a list of suggestions; it is the law of the land.” To the extent that this President or any other is forced to obey this nation’s laws, will also be the extent to which he is prevented from taking America to war needlessly in other lands.

Make no mistake: This is precisely what the political establishment fears most—and it will make any argument or disobey any law necessary to protect the unlimited power to which Washington has become so accustomed.

Last week, President Obama significantly out-Bushed Bush: We killed Osama Bin Laden. Judging by their top priority for most of the last decade, it would seem that most Republicans will now vote for Obama in 2012. Sure, Bush doubled the size of government and the debt. Big deal—we were fighting a War on Terror. Sure, it’s true that Obama is now tripling the size of government and our debt. But so what—President Obama just killed the world’s top terrorist! “Obama kept us safe” might even be enough to carry the president through the next election.

The mindless war rhetoric the GOP cultivated during the Bush years might just be the Democrats’ best election weapon. Just let possible GOP presidential contenders Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney try to bash Obama for only fighting three Middle Eastern wars instead of four (the neoconservatives are dying for a war with Iran). Just try to let Republicans bash Obama for “apologizing” for America, whatever the hell that means. It’s bumper sticker time, baby: “Obama killed Osama!” What’s “weak” about that? How many terrorists have Newt or Mitt killed?

Heading into 2012, could domestic policy once again take a backseat to foreign policy? After all, the “official” estimate for what it cost to kill Bin Laden from 9/11 to last week is $1.28 trillion. This is basically the dollar difference between Bush’s national debt and Obama’s. It seems that “freedom isn’t free”: It cost $1.28 trillion. This is only slightly more than the supposed “official” cost of Obamacare.

The truth is we could have captured or killed Osama Bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and other Al-Qaeda leaders for significantly less money, without invading Iraq or staying in Afghanistan for a decade, and most importantly, without losing so many American soldiers. Bin Laden was assassinated using military intelligence and a handful of highly trained soldiers, or as columnist George Will noted: “bin Laden was brought down by intelligence gathering that more resembles excellent police work than a military operation… the enormous military footprint in Afghanistan, next door to bin Laden’s Pakistan refuge, seems especially disproportionate in the wake of his elimination by a small cadre of specialists.”

There is a difference between the very real, if often overblown, war on Islamic terrorism in which we find ourselves, and the War on Terror narrative, in which virtually any foreign policy misadventure can be rationalized by invoking 9/11. But with the mastermind behind 9/11 dead, the question for America is now this: Is it time to come home? And if the death of Bin Laden is not the time, when will that time be?

The death of Bin Laden is a reason for all Americans to celebrate—and the celebration certainly cuts across party lines. But at precisely the moment many Americans and a majority of the Republican Party seem most concerned about the size of government and deficit spending, many conservatives are using the death of Bin Laden to vindicate Bush, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, “enhanced interrogation” and all the rest. This takes us right back to the Bush era contradiction of supposedly being for limited government while supporting leaders who consider it unlimited. “Getting back to the Constitution,” as the Tea Party now demands, is going to be awfully hard while simultaneously defending a president who arguably did more violence to the Constitution than any other.

In the wake of Osama’s death, Republicans have been quick to point out that Obama basically continued Bush’s entire national security agenda, and he did. In fact, he expanded it. But Obama has also carried out and expanded Bush’s domestic agenda. This is not a coincidence. Big government abroad is impossible without big government at home, and both presidents have been unsurprisingly consistent in their statism.

On both domestic and foreign policy, America desperately needs a cost/benefit analysis, not simply a blind defense of cost during a time of national jubilation. The death of America’s top enemy—and the way in which we achieved it—should encourage national reflection and hopefully a major reassessment of what this country can realistically achieve militarily. We should also begin to consider what we can afford and what we cannot.

All Americans should be happy we finally got Bin Laden. No American should be happy with the amount of money we’ve wasted and the number of lives we’ve sacrificed to do so, precisely because most of it wasn’t necessary to get Osama.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security, which means neither Bush or Obama have kept this country safe. Now is not the time to forget it.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

sophistication: character, ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education, worldly experience,

How many times have I watched people in foreign countries burning the American flag as they riot in the streets? I cautiously pity these people, consoled only by the fact that they remain thousands of miles away from where I live. They have little or no education, evidenced by the fact that they joyously celebrate the death or downfall of their enemies. How is that any different from the mobs of flag waving Americans, cheering and celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden? Many singing our national anthem so far off key, I doubt they could carry a tune if it was in a bucket. Before I realized why everyone was cheering, I wondered which sporting event I had missed. I knew that the World Series and Super Bowl were behind us, but my complete lack of interest in sports left me wondering which team was claiming a championship, and in which sport. I remain sick to my stomach knowing that this is how Americans respond to the death of an enemy.

Everyone knows my reputation regarding the Second Amendment, and nobody with an IQ over 50 would doubt my willingness to defend myself if the circumstances required it. What would the jury conclude if they saw a videotape of me whooping and hollering in celebration over the body of an intruder that I had “double tapped” a few moments before? (I was not impressed when Diane Sawyer used this term as if it were some highly advanced military technique.) How could I claim extreme duress, insisting that I was in fear of my life, as I stand over my conquest quipping, “No, don’t get up. I’ll call the ambulance”, as if I were in a Hollywood movie? War is hell. Death is permanent. No sane and rational person celebrates either one. I don’t deny that killing someone before they kill you is occasionally necessary, but expressing anything but regret that it was necessary is sick and twisted.

The United States used to be the pinnacle of education, historically number one in both math and science worldwide. We now outsource any job that requires the least bit of thinking. The people behind the cash register at fast food restaurants are unable to correctly calculate the cost of your food, or the amount of change you should get. As a nation we are obsessed with Michael Jackson, Dancing with the Stars, and the self-destruction of Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan. How many days am I going to have to watch the pagentry of the royal wedding which glorifies the upper echelon of a primitive class system. “All men are created equal” my ass!

Why did I waste my time doing homework, visiting museums, and going to college when most of the people I meet are not smart enough to engage in any conversation above the sixth grade level? Many high school seniors are functionally illiterate, using Crayolas to color inside the lines while I attempt to talk to them about civics and the Constitution. It makes me crazy when I am criticized by people who confuse THEN and THAN, or don’t know the difference between THERE, THEY’RE and THEIR.

I don’t know for sure that Bin Laden was responsible for the attack on September 11th. My only evidence comes from the government by way of the Lame Stream Media, which doesn’t come anywhere close to scientific proof in my book. I’m not one hundred percent convinced that Bin Laden is even dead. The only thing I’ve seen on television is a jittery video with something that looks like blood on the floor, and a report that his body has already been buried at sea. The only thing I am certain of is that America is in rapid decline, and that the empire built around it will soon collapse for the same reasons that the Roman and Greek empires no longer exist. The rotted away from the inside.

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

So, hopefully, is America. For the last decade, virtually our entire Middle Eastern policy revolved around 9/11. This was true for both critics and champions of American foreign policy. If war opponents dared to ask what the Iraq War had to do with Osama or Al-Qaeda, war proponents would simply reply, “Do you remember 9/11?” In the same year we invaded Iraq, country singer Darryl Worley’s 2003 hit song “Have You Forgotten” expressed this sentiment: “Some say this country’s just out looking for a fight, well, after 9/11 man I’d have to say that’s right… You say we shouldn’t worry ’bout bin Laden… Have you forgotten?”

Though few Americans were saying they weren’t worried “’bout bin Laden” after 9/11, the extent to which US foreign policy was actually in pursuit of Al-Qaeda and its leader was hotly contested. The decision to invade Afghanistan in 2001 to rout the Taliban, for example, was popular with Americans because it seemed logical, and not surprisingly, it also received international support. The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was initially popular with Americans but received very little international support, primarily because it was not logical precisely because it didn’t seem related to 9/11. A decade later, the US occupation in both countries is not popular internationally, is opposed by both countries’ governments and citizens, and both wars are unpopular with the American people precisely because they no longer make any sense.

What does any of this have to do, today, with 9/11? Are these wars unpopular because America has forgotten 9/11—or because Americans fail to see what they have to do with 9/11?

Government officials now say there are less than 100 Al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan where we have 100,000 troops. We now know Saddam Hussein had nothing to with Bin Laden and yet 50,000 troops remain in Iraq. Prominent hawks like Sen. John McCain are calling for more intervention in Libya and relatively new hawks like Sen. Marco Rubio want to see stronger U.S. action in Syria. Both senators also believe we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. None of this has anything to do with fighting Al-Qaeda.

Have McCain, Rubio and their Republican ilk forgotten 9/11? Have the Democratic hawks who agree with them forgotten 9/11? Republicans said “Bush kept us safe.” This week did Obama “keep us safe?” Does this partisan assertion even make sense?

The intentionally vague rhetoric of the War on Terror has often contradicted the logistical realities of any practical war we might wage against actual terrorists. For example, after 9/11 Texas Congressman Ron Paul introduced legislation resurrecting the constitutionally-based policy of “Marque and Reprisal” in which Congress could authorize small, covert forces to go after Al-Qaeda leaders and members directly. Paul argued that full scale wars of invasion and occupation would not and could not be effective against a group like Al-Qaeda and would only incite greater hatred against the US. Paul’s critics said he was being naïve in his suggestion and in his opposition to larger military action.

Yet bin Laden was killed using precisely the sort of small military contingency Paul said would be most effective in the wake of 9/11. Ironically, government officials now admit they fear Al-Qaeda might retaliate over bin Laden’s death. But what has inspired more terrorists to take up arms against the U.S.—thousands of civilian casualties and enduring resentment due to two long wars of occupation? Or the recent death of bin Laden? Should we be more worried about retaliation from the relatively small Al-Qaeda, or an entire region of Muslims who’ve become more sympathetic to radical jihad due mostly to our constant military involvement in their countries?

In 2002, National Review’s Jonah Goldberg approved of using 9/11 as an excuse for an open-ended and ill-defined foreign policy: “The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.”

We now know it made virtually no sense.

The death of bin Laden is not the end of any and all terrorist threats, but it should be the end of the so-called War on Terror—an intellectually bankrupt and dangerous narrative that has only served to justify detrimental military actions by invoking America’s worst terrorist attack. In 2003 country singer Worley asked of war critics, “Have You Forgotten?” Sunday night, Milwaukee Bucks basketball player Chris Douglas-Roberts asked on Twitter if we’ve forgotten that: “It took 919,967 deaths to kill that one guy. … It took 10 years & 2 Wars to kill that…guy. It cost us (USA) roughly $1,188,263,000,000 to kill that guy.”

It didn’t have to cost that many lives or dollars to kill Osama Bin Laden. To the extent that it did reminds us just how much we lost focus on the actual enemy.

Most Americans will never forget 9/11. Yet their government seems to have forgotten a long time ago.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

Although I am not much of a conspiracy theorist I do not just right off every “conspiracy”, I do not trust the government any further than I can throw them. I am and always have been a strong advocate for the philosophy of question all authority. I live by that motto, I even question the authority of my closest friends and allies in the cause of liberty. Sometimes I believe that the people I agree with the most from time to time are the most full of crap. I encourage all of my listeners subscribers and friends to even question the authority I put out. I want people to uncover every leaf and roll back every stone in a constant quest for truth.

Just this week the White House revealed what is said to be the Presidents birth certificate. I try to stay clear of bias opinions, so rather than tuning into Donald Trump or watching the presidents speech, first I went to whitehouse.gov and viewed the document for myself. The first thing I noticed is that the new document reads, “Certificate of Live Birth” which many in the Birther movement claim to be a document that can be acquired after the fact and not actually the birth certificate. They claim that a Certificate of Live Birth is not a valid form of ID if you were applying for a passport. And when applying for a passport not just any id is required, you need a birth certificate. But I digress…

Lastly I noticed that the name was listed as Barack Hussein Obama II. Now please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was originally told back in 2008 that Obama’s actual name was Barry Saetoro. Which is why Rush Limbaugh and other talking heads frequently refer to the president as Barry. I was under the impression that Barry had his name legally changed to Barack sometime after visiting Pakistan…which all goes along the lines of the joke, “Why did Barack Obama change his name from Barry to Barack? Because he felt that Barry sounded too American.”

Some interesting observations, I think you all would agree, regardless of your stance on the issue, I wrote of them recently in a Facebook blurb and was chastised for even bringing up the topic. Ironically I have never take a firm stance on either side of this issue, even this very blog is nothing more than simply observations. Not once have I accused the President of not being a Natural Born Citizen.

I have very mixed opinions on this topic, part of me thinks that if there was anything to this theory the Clinton machine would have dug this information up long ago to defeat Obama in the primaries, after all the Clinton’s are the poster children for dirty politics. On the other hand I think Obama’s silence on the subject and the family’s stories that don’t all add up create some wide spread confusion. Heck even Barack Obama’s stories don’t all jive in 100% unison. It has often been said, “it is always best to tell the truth because then you only have to remember one story.”

Back in 2008 Obama posted a copy of his “birth certificate” on his website after critics accused it of being invalid since it was a “certificate of live birth” and not a birth certificate, Obama gave a speech saying, “My critics said I wasn’t born in Hawaii so I showed them my birth certificate and they still won’t shut up.” Now two years later Obama is essentially saying, ‘Okay so you were right the birth certificate I released in 2008 wasn’t authentic, so now I am going to show you my real, long form birth certificate. Now lets please change the subject.’

I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds like the story is changing. First he said, “I already released it now shut up” now he’s saying, “Fine, does this one make you happy?”

Again when telling the truth you only have one story to remember. But the point in me posting this blog is not to prove one way or another that Obama is or isn’t a natural born citizen, or that he is or isn’t constitutionally eligible to be president. I think this is an aimless endeavor to talk about, even being the strict Constitutionalist as I am I still think the people who focus all of their time on the issue are just pissing into the wind.

Not long ago Judge Napolitano was interviewing Congressman Jim Clyburn from South Carolina, and asked him where in the Constitution does it giver authorization to the federal government to manage healthcare and Clyburn readily admitted, “Judge, most of what we do down here is not authorized by the Constitution.”

So I ask you now, what purpose would it serve to reveal that Obama is not constitutionally permissible to be president? If it was determined to be a valid argument and later proven that he was born in Kenya, what difference would it make? Let me tell you what would happen, it would blend into the sea of unconstitutional government and become as much of a non-issue as it was before Obama even decided to run and before any of us had ever heard of the man. If our government is corrupt enough to allow a man to sit in the oval office for this long with his finger on the red button then they are corrupt enough to let the man slide. We need to stop alienating ourselves and wasting our time on such poppycock and get back to educating people on the basics. We need to get back to empowering the individual focusing them on their sovereign unalienable rights that are under constant assault by every form of government and by all political stripes.

During the 2008 election, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said that our constant military intervention in the Arab world was the primary motivation behind terrorist acts like 9/11. Why did Paul say this? Because Osama Bin Laden said it. Because the 9/11 Commission report said it. Because CIA intelligence said it, even inventing the term “blowback” precisely to describe it. Yet, when Paul explained this, fellow candidate and eventual Republican nominee John McCain excoriated the Texas congressman and suggested that he was indirectly giving aid and comfort to the enemy, Al-Qaeda.

Yet last week, McCain gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Directly.

Yes, it seems that the man who once ran for president portraying himself as being “tough” on terrorists now supports Al-Qaeda. This is not a joke.

The literal truth of this proposition, which admittedly seems outlandish on its face, hinges upon the question of whether the people McCain now explicitly supports are indeed Al-Qaeda. Consider the following.

When McCain flew to Libya last week to give his support to rebel leaders fighting against the Gaddafi regime, the Senator said: “I have met with these brave fighters, and they are not Al-Qaeda… To the contrary: They are Libyan patriots who want to liberate their nation. We should help them do it.”

McCain met with Libyan rebel leaders and concluded that they are not Al-Qaeda. But there remains a problem. Who is saying that these people are Al-Qaeda? Libyan rebel leaders.

Admitting to having received support from Al-Qaeda, the UK Telegraph reported of Libyan rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi last month: “Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters ‘are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,’ but added that the ‘members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

If it is true that Mr. McCain has a better grasp on who-is and who-is-not Al-Qaeda than Libyan rebel leaders, then the Senator is innocent in his new alliance. But if it is true that Libyan rebel leaders have a better grasp of who makes up their ranks than an Arizona senator: John McCain supports Al-Qaeda.

Those who might call this duplicitous or an intellectual stretch have short memories. In fact, there is more solid evidence linking McCain to Al-Qaeda than there was for linking Saddam Hussein to that organization.

In December 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney said that it was “pretty well confirmed” that there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. In 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had said there was “bulletproof evidence” of ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Making his case for war in 2003, President George W. Bush said in his State of the Union address: “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda.” In 2004, Bush would reconfirm his position: “The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.”

Bush’s 2004 statement was in reaction to the recently released 9/11 Commission Report which declared: “to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.” The report’s findings were supported by the CIA, FBI, the National Security Council and virtually the entire intelligence community.

By 2006, Bush would admit: “First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.” At a later press conference, Bush was asked by a reporter “What did Iraq have to do with the attack on the World Trade Center?” The president replied: “Nothing.”

Compare the Bush administration’s evidence of a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and the evidence for a link between John McCain and Al-Qaeda. The Telegraph reported that US and British government sources said Al-Hasidi “was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG… Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military’s West Point academy has said the two share an ‘increasingly co-operative relationship…’ Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion…” A headline in the Telegraph on Saturday read: “al-Qaeda among Libya rebels, Nato chief fears.”

Who says there is evidence of a link between the Libyan rebels and Al-Qaeda? US and British intelligence, NATO leaders, and the Libyan rebels themselves. Who says there is not a link? John McCain, who calls the rebels “heroes.”

McCain again proves the old saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter:” Far from delineating good vs. evil, the Senator’s Libyan trip shows how the often contradictory intelligence concerning US allies and enemies allows our government to spin our foreign policy narrative in whatever direction suits them best.

Along with warning of the dangers of blowback, Congressman Paul also noted in 2008 that constantly intervening in the incestuous tempest that is the Muslim world—in which today’s allies become tomorrow’s enemies and vice versa—more often hurts us than it helps. McCain snidely dismissed Paul’s point, deriding him as an “isolationist.”

If this is true, then it is also true that John McCain is now a terrorist. As George W. Bush put it after 9/11: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

Billionaire, reality TV star and possible 2012 presidential contender Donald Trump has been saying many things as of late, as his mix of Obama-bashing and Birtherism continue to excite a portion of the Republican base. But despite much silliness, Trump actually has said something vitally important: “George Bush gave us Barack Obama… If it weren’t for George Bush, we wouldn’t have Barack Obama. So I’m not thrilled with George Bush.”

For conservatives, this is unquestionably the most important message to remember heading into 2012.

While most conservatives will now admit to not being “thrilled” with Bush, not all of them are necessarily prepared to reject him and his legacy primarily because for eight long years the Right was completely immersed in defending his administration. Conservatives blindly defended arguably the biggest big government Republican president in history because they were so wrapped up in also blindly defending arguably the worst foreign policy blunder in American history—the Iraq War. Bush told us he was a “compassionate conservative.” We now know he was not conservative in any tangible sense, compassionate or otherwise. Bush also told us Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States, that Iraq was complicit in 9/11 and sold his war accordingly. Thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and an almost decade-long war later, we now know none of this was true. Indeed, to still say that Iraq was “worth it,” is to say that virtually any war our government concocts would be “worth it” too.

Still, too many conservatives, whether out of ignorance, embarrassment or both, are not willing to admit these glaring truths. Take for example bestselling author and nationally syndicated talk radio host Mark Levin. Lately, Levin has rightly and effectively been denouncing Trump for his many past liberal positions, questionable political associations with the likes of Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer among others, not to mention additional hypocrisies. Levin wants his conservative audience to see Trump for who he really is, and understandably so.

But part of Levin’s critique of Trump shows the radio host for who he really is: “Chump’ was calling Bush ‘evil’ and demanded his impeachment because of the Iraq war and in the middle of that war. He said Bush lied to get us into Iraq. His comments were vile and outrageous, not unlike the America-hating leftists who sought to undermine our armed forces there… Chump attacked Bush over Iraq because if you were a big-mouth, attention-seeking liberal, it was the thing to do.”

If Levin believes opposing the Iraq War and being critical of Bush was the liberal “thing to do,” it follows that defending that war and the president who waged it was the conservative “thing to do,” and for most of the Right it undoubtedly was. But just because something is the “thing to do,” does this make it the right (or Right) thing to do? Is part of being a conservative simply to follow the crowd, stick your head in the sand and never admit mistakes?

Blindly following Bush and supporting his war was not the “thing to do” for all conservatives. When Pat Buchanan helped found The American Conservative magazine in 2002—to which, in full disclosure, I am a contributor—it was primarily to give voice to conservative opposition to the Iraq War. Along with Robert Novak, Ron Paul and a minority of other notable conservatives, Buchanan and his magazine declared loudly that invading Iraq was a bad idea, the administration’s reasons for war were questionable at best, and to believe the conflict would be a “cakewalk” lasting only a “few weeks” was naïve. Many conservatives at that time—like Levin—thought asking such questions undermined our troops while The American Conservative insisted that “supporting the troops” necessarily meant questioning any administration that might put them in harm’s way.

In contrast to The American Conservative, the much older and established conservative publication National Review—to which Levin is a frequent contributor—came out in strong support of Bush and the Iraq war. But that magazine’s founder, the late William F. Buckley would say in 2006: “One cannot doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.” On Bush’s foreign policy performance Buckley said “If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” Buckley would add, “I think Mr. Bush faces a singular problem best defined, I think, as the absence of effective conservative ideology… with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending… And in respect of foreign policy, incapable of bringing together such forces as apparently were necessary to conclude the Iraq challenge… There will be no legacy for Mr. Bush.”

In 2006, Buckley discounted Bush’s conservative credentials, declared the Iraq war a failure and even suggested that the president’s performance made him unworthy of his office. Did the National Review founder say this as an “America-hating leftist” who wanted to “undermine our armed forces” because it was the liberal “thing to do?” Or was he simply a conservative willing to reflect on the obviously tragic situation at hand?

So long as conservatives still defend Bush and his legacy, even if Obama is defeated in 2012, we can expect a Republican Party that will also remain just as tolerant of big government at home and probably—again—in the name of implementing big government abroad, no matter how expensive or foolish it becomes. Dismantling big government in a manner in line with what the Tea Party now demands necessarily means rejecting Obama and Bush—including their wars, of which we can no longer afford and increasingly make less sense. It’s not hard to imagine what Buckley would think today of Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and Libya. Even as a minority voice on the Right, The American Conservative has said opposing these mindless foreign interventions is the conservative “thing to do” since the very beginning.

So who was right about Bush? The American Conservative or National Review? Was William F. Buckley a liberal for denouncing Bush and the Iraq War? Is Mark Levin a conservative for defending both? Donald Trump is absolutely right that a President Obama would not have been possible without Bush—Obama would not be able to triple the size of government if Bush hadn’t first doubled it, and Obama would be less able to rationalize preventive wars if Bush hadn’t given him the blueprint.

In recognizing these self-evident truths, it should be remembered that Mark Levin is absolutely right when he says that Donald Trump is not a conservative. But neither is anyone who still defends George W. Bush.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

Be still, my heart! The Federal government will cease to function? Although many people are worried about this, I’m worried that sometime in the future the government will start up again. If it is any consolation, the last time the government closed its doors, nobody noticed. I know that more than 50% of the population works for the government, and they will raise a tumultuous clamor that they’ll starve without a job. The truth is, they don’t actually do any work, unless you are referring to the innumerable ways these people make our lives miserable. I agree that many of these people will starve without a paycheck, but I’m not terribly concerned about that. I am more concerned about the less than 50% of the population that slaves and sweats to pay their taxes so the economically bloated bureaucrats can live large at our expense. In nature, this type of creature is called a parasite.

Dictionary.com says a parasite is “a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.” If that doesn’t describe the people in government, I suspect you and I are talking different languages. Having studied science I only know two ways to stop the parasite: kill the parasite, or kill the host the parasite is living off of. The reason Congress is considering a government shutdown is because those of us who have been supporting it with a constant flow of cash are completely broke. We have no more to give, so the government has no more to take. A pity, that, don’t you think?

My concern for the government, or those who suck off the gravy train it represents are not my concern. What DOES concern me is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence that most people have never heard, or are quick to overlook. It says, “whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise;” The Founding Fathers knew that politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. When a king abdicates a throne, there is an immediate scramble to find someone to fill it. History has never recorded a single instance where the people decided not to replace the king. One of the unfortunate truths about human interaction is that somebody always wants to be in control. That is why anarchy, although an interesting and possibly desirable absolute, will never, ever happen. EVER.

In America, We the People are the source of all political power. We invented state governments by giving them limited control over a small percentage of our lives. The state governments created the federal government by giving it a small percentage of the limited power that they themselves possessed. Over two centuries, because We the People lacked the wisdom and desire to constrain the federal parasite, it has grown so huge that it is difficult to imagine a single part of our lives that it doesn’t hope to control. The parasite is now bigger than the host it feeds off of. Unfortunately, this parasite will not die when the host dies. The only real choice we have is what kind of government will take over when this American government closes up shop.

My readers are too young to remember the Great Depression… an oxymoron if I ever heard one. Fortunately we have Wikipediato shed some historic light on the subject. “The New Deal is a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as President of the United States, which lasted from 1933 to 1937. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the “3 Rs”: relief, recovery, and reform. That is, relief for the unemployed and poor; recovery of the economy to normal levels; and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.”

Here’s my take on the Great Depression. The stock market crash of 1929 was deliberately caused. The Federal Reserve, only sixteen years old at the time, dramatically contracted the money supply, causing nearly all economic activity in the United States to come to a stand-still. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a socialist who believed that the government should take care of its citizens. When FDR was elected President, he encouraged Congress to pass several pieces of legislation collectively known as “The New Deal”. He successfully introduced socialism into this country, but only because Americans were suffering through the depression at the time. No rational human being willingly gives up control of their own life unless they are afraid they are about to lose it.

There are millions of Americans who will soon repeat history because they are too ignorant to have studied it. With the profligate government spending, including multiple trillions in bailouts and stimulus packages, the United States is about to plunge into an economic nightmare that even our grandparents could never imagine. Yes, the government may close its doors for now, but if history is any indication, “good, patriotic Americans” will be begging for a communist form of government to save them from the troubles of the moment. Gone forever will be the rugged spirit of independence that founded this country. Gone forever will be the individual freedom necessary for anyone to pursue happiness of any kind. That is precisely what happened in Germany when they begged Hitler to deliver them from the economic problems they faced.

I don’t believe this is simply “wild-eyed, radical” opinion. Norman Thomas , a six-time candidate for the Socialist Party of America, reportedly said, “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

Syndicated columnist George Will is an exception to the Washington rule. When he was asked by ABC’s This Week host Christiane Amanpour if he believed Obama’s bombing of Libya was the “right thing to do,” Will replied: “I do not. We have intervened in a tribal society, in a civil war. And we have taken sides in that civil war on behalf of a people we do not know or understand, for the purpose—not a vow, but inexorably our purpose—of creating a political vacuum by decapitating the government. Into that vacuum, what will flow we do not know and cannot know.”

Will is right, and it is typically unforeseen circumstances that perpetuate the excuses for perpetual war. US forces remain in Iraq today precisely because we fear what kind of regime might arise in our absence—yet there was very little discussion of this important issue before the invasion. After taking the fight to the Taliban in 2001 as payback for 9/11, we remain in that country a decade later out of fear of a resurgent Taliban. Much of the discussion concerning Afghanistan today is whether we can ever leave due to this eternal concern. Similarly, instead of benefitting in the long term from Obama’s shortsighted military action in Libya, there is far more potential that America will now be involved in yet another prolonged Middle Eastern war.

The open-ended and inexplicably optimistic manner in which we began our intervention in Libya reeks of past American foreign policy blunders. Noted Will on This Week:

There is no limiting principle in what we’ve done. If we are to protect people who are under assault… we are not only logically committed to helping them, we are inciting them to rise in expectation. The mission creep began here… before the mission began, because we had a means not suited to the end. The means is a no-fly zone that will not affect the end which is obviously regime change.

If the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have not given us regimes preferable and stable enough to allow the US to exit, how will simply enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya force Gadhafi out? Even if it could, what kind of regime will replace him? How easy will it be? Always eager for any and every new war, were the neoconservatives in the Bush administration who assured us that Iraq would be a “cakewalk” and that US troops would be greeted as “liberators” really that idealistic? Or were they willingly duplicitous in their efforts to establish a permanent US presence in that country; something they had vocally desired throughout Bill Clinton’s presidency? The same neoconservatives are now claiming that America’s new war will also be user friendly, or as Charles Krauthammer said of Libya on FOX News a day before the bombing: “The terrain is uniquely favorable. We’re the greatest naval power ever. It’s all happening on the coast. The Qaddafi forces are all exposed. It’s a desert. There is nowhere to hide. If we can succeed anywhere, it would be there.”

Though excited by it and characteristically supportive of it, Libya is not a neocon production. This is Obama’s war and that of the liberal internationalists in his Cabinet and his party who have always differed little in their foreign policy from hawkish Republicans. Reluctant to get bogged down in any new conflicts, Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned against enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya. Not sharing Gates’s reluctance, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped shepherd the deal.

If Obama first rose to political prominence due to his early antiwar, anti-Bush rhetoric, his performance since becoming president—staying in Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan, extending the Patriot Act, maintaining Guantanamo—has been nothing short of a Bush redux. Declared candidate Obama in 2007: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” But what imminent threat did Gadhafi present to the US? President Obama has shown the same infidelity to the Constitution as his predecessor and now with Libya, he has once again exhibited the same foreign policy insanity. As with Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not farfetched to assume that in the years to come we will all be wondering how we got involved in the Libyan War. It’s also not farfetched to assume that we will still be wondering how or when we might get out of it.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

But mainstream defenders of America’s economic status quo can rest easy. Washington’s political establishment has nothing to fear from the Republican Party. Though good at talking the conservative talk, when it comes to actually walking the walk, the GOP remains as handicapped as ever.

Just ask the man The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart recently described as the “walkiest” of Tea Party Republicans, Sen. Rand Paul. Paul rejected the budget proposals of both parties last week, pointing out that the Democratic plan features a $1.6 trillion deficit while the Republican plan includes a $1.5. trillion deficit.

While Democrats, predictably and laughably, could only come up with $4 billion in budget cuts, Republicans, whose Pledge to America during the midterm election promised to slash spending by $100 billion, could only come up with $57 billion in cuts. To put this in perspective, recently deposed Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak received more than $60 billion from the United States during his reign. To further put this in perspective, when Sen. Paul proposed we cut foreign aid last month, critics, including most Republicans, dismissed his proposal and pointed out that what America spends on foreign aid is too small to substantively address our debt.

Now many of these same Republicans expect grassroots conservatives to be satisfied with a paltry $57 billion in cuts. Paul isn’t completely alone. Joined by Mike Lee of Utah and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Paul was one of only three Republican senators to reject the GOP’s budget plan as being so weak it means virtually nothing. Not surprisingly, Paul, Lee and DeMint make up the Tea Party Caucus in the Senate, a group Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who rode the Tea Party wave into office, says he will not join, fearing that the movement could be co-opted by the Washington establishment. Not surprisingly, Rubio voted for the Republicans’ weak budget plan last week.

In Rubio’s defense, this is what Republicans typically do. For decades Republican politicians have used conservative rhetoric to win elections but come to Washington, D.C., to spend as much as the Democrats. Critics on both the Left and Right who say the Tea Party represents a radical departure from plain, old vanilla “conservatism” are correct; so-called conservative Republicans haven’t accomplished anything conservative for decades. For the Tea Party to mean business, it must deviate dramatically from the Republican status quo, and given the weight of our debt and the radical growth of government, any Tea Party-worthy proposals must be comparably radical in the opposite direction. How radical? Paul has proposed $500 billion in cuts, which, as he explained on the Senate floor this week, still isn’t drastic enough:

“I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts, and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right … $500 billion is a third of one year’s problem. Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough … So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough. You must cut more.”

Despite their rhetoric, the vast majority of Republicans are wholly unwilling to do anything to substantively address our big government woes, including some who’ve carried the Tea Party banner. The chasm between voters’ desires and the establishment’s will remains as wide as ever, reflecting the same disconnect that has long frustrated Americans from across the ideological spectrum.

Any real conservative movement would be up in arms that more Republicans didn’t join Paul, Lee, and DeMint in rejecting the GOP’s joke of a budget. But American “conservatism” has confused partisanship for principle for so long that talk radio finds more value in complaining about the First Lady’s travel schedule or worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood than discussing the fiscal terrorists in this country and in both parties who continue to hold America’s children and grandchildren hostage.

The Senate Republicans who voted for the GOP budget proposal proved once again that they are not the revolutionaries they pretend to be. They are liars. And the Tea Party must not forget it.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

Naturally the United States government spin on this merger is simply to improve economic relations with our neighbors to the north. The EUT report says, “The shock and uproar in Canada over their Prime Minister’s, Steven Harper, signing away their sovereignty to the United States is unprecedented, but the same cannot be said of the American people who, according to Canada’s National Post, have not been allowed to know about it” (emphasis mine) “The United States announcement of this “merger” between these two North American Nations was made February 4th by a posting on the WhiteHouse.Gov website.”

Isn’t that wonderful? How often do you go to the White House website to find out whether or not your President has tried to merge your country with nearby socialist governments? Probably never.

This news is even more disturbing when combined with the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (with no legitimate authority to do so, of course) has claimed that all of the territory within 100 miles of our border is a “Constitution Free Zone”. I can’t make this stuff up! I’ve never taken drugs, and I mostly given up alcohol since college.

I have no idea how we’re going to save this country. I’m not even sure how many Americans WANT to save this country. The collectivists have slowly boiled the frog, and now we are too numb to jump out of the water. If anyone has any recommnedations on what we can do, I’d sure love to hear them.

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

US v. BVNH Case # 5:09-CR-00027
Tomorrow, March 7, 2011, an epic battle begins in Federal District Court. BVNH – one lone stubborn individual American vs. the might and fright of the US government – was charged with counterfeiting (Sec 485 and 486) after the FBI confiscated over 9 TONS of gold, silver, platinum and copper over three years ago. The lines are clearly drawn between an individual’s freedom, to come up with creative ways, such as barter to deal with government mismanagement of our economy and its continued nullification of our Constitution. Verdict expected within 30 days.

When I was growing up, I always wished that I could meet and talk with the Founding Fathers. What fascinating conversations those would be. Intelligent men who also had the courage of their convictions. They put those beliefs into action, even when it posed a direct ecomomic and physical threat. Although Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were gone long before I arrived, my life is filled with personal friends who have the same type of courage and integrity as any of the Founding Fathers.

My good friend, Bernard Von NotHaus is in Federal Court as we speak, defending his right (and ours) to exchange our work and talent for real value. Many of you have read G. Edward Griffin’s expose’ about the Federal Reserve. (If you haven’t read CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND, make sure you purchase and read it immediately! It will change your life.) When Edward suggested that Bernard create his own currency to compete with the Federal Reserve, Bernard – a long time monetary architect – did exactly that.

In 1998 the Liberty Dollar was born, and people began to realize that the price of silver does not go up. In reality, it is the value of the dollar (aka Federal Reserve Note) that goes down. For over 10 years Bernard and the Liberty Dollar have been waking people up to the fact that when the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, the resulting inflation is a deceptive theft of your purchasing power. In December of 2007, the FBI and Department of Injustice raided the Liberty Dollar headquarters in Evansville, Indiana and stole millions of dollars of silver, gold, and platinum. (My radio program is archived on the internet. You can listen to my November 16th interview with Bernard 48 hours after the raid.)

The government has finally taken Bernard to trial, because – according to the Federal government – worthless, fiat paper is real money, whereas actual silver is counterfeit. I’m told that Bernard has an excellent lawyer and a rock solid defense strategy, but I am still worried. My limited contact with our criminal court system has taught me that TRUTH and JUSTICE are the two things absolutely forbidden in the courtroom. I know Bernard personally, and I vouch for his honesty and integrity. The only thing he has done “wrong” is to challenge the government’s assumption that they have absolute power over our lives. I have been warning people about the approach of the totalitarian police state. If Bernard is convicted of these trumped up charges, then you’ll know that the police state has arrived.

Do not worry about Bernard if he goes to jail. He knows the risk of defending Liberty, and he stands firm. Worry about yourself, because you will eventually be a target of a government that is out of control. Just like the German population cowering in fear during the Holocaust. Even if you weren’t Jewish, you felt helpless to correct the situation. America is no longer “land of the free” because we ceased to be “home of the brave” many, many years ago.

Readers are encouraged to leave messages for Bernard as comments to this article. I will do what I can to forward your best wishes to him during the trial. I’m sure he would welcome the moral support. Better yet, I strongly encourage you to attend the trial located at:
200 W Broad St # 100
Statesville, NC 28677-5258
(704) 883-1000

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

“Making the chicken run” is what Rhodesians used to say about neighbors who packed up and got out during the ’60s and ’70s, before the place became Zimbabwe. It was considered “unpatriotic” to leave Rhodesia. But it was genuinely idiotic not to do so.

The person who eMailed this article to me gave a subject titled “Too depressing — Don’t Read This”. Naturally, I began to read the eMail immediately because I’m brave and knowledgeable about politics and ecomonics, and therefore could simply ignore the warning, much the way doctors and nurses ignore the “Authorize Personnel” signs at the hospital. Unfortunately my bravery and knowledge were not sufficient to prevent me from being depressed. If you chose to read the article before you began to read my comments about the article, you probably share my sentiments.

Mr. Casey writes, “Nothing is certain, but the odds are high that the US is going into a time of troubles at least as bad as any experienced in any advanced country in the last century. I hate saying things like that, if only because it sounds outrageous and inflammatory and can create a credibility gap.”

I understand, and agree completely. I’ve been warning people about an economic collapse since at least 1997, and I still have people telling me that I’m exaggerating. “The government would never allow the economy to collapse! That’s why they created the Federal Reserve.” I’m still not sure how to interact with people like that. It would be like warning people to rush to the lifeboats even before the Titanic hits the iceberg. Even after they struck the iceberg, many aboard the Titanic refused to believe that anything was seriously wrong. Needless to say, those people comprise most of the one who didn’t survive.

“Within the next 24 months, the dollar is likely to start losing value rapidly and noticeably. – And that will be just the start of the trouble. – But it has the potential, at least in relative terms to be more serious in the US than it was in Argentina, Brazil, Serbia, Russia, Mozambique or Zimbabwe.. [because] people in those countries knew they couldn’t trust their government and acted accordingly, even in contravention of the law, by accumulating assets elsewhere. So there was a significant pool of capital available for rebuilding. Americans, on the other hand, tend to be much more insular, law-abiding and trusting in their government. When they lose their US assets, they’ll have lost everything.”

The Boy Scout motto is “Be Prepared”. There is a significant difference between being prepared and not being prepared. The car accident may be inevitable, but you’ll be much better off if you wear a seatbelt and have airbags installed. If you don’t, you’ll never have to worry about paying for car insurance again. The economic collapse is inevitable, and now it has become immient. If you don’t move your wealth to tangible assets (silver, gold, commodities) now, then you don’t have an economic seat belt or a politcal life boat to improve your chances of survival.

“So here’s another prediction. Riding the economic and social disorder, these new Praetorians, oriented as they are toward professional paranoia and the “national security” state, are going to become truly virulent. They’re going to use the continuing economic crisis to increase their power, like it or not. The American people will demand it, since they are so degraded that they really do prefer the appearance of security to the prospect of having to take personal responsibility.”

In my Constitution class I suggest that Americans have lost any sense of responsibility. Instead of being responsible for their children’s education, parents send their offspring to government indoctrination centers. Instead of saving for retirement, most people are dependant on government social security. A woman spills hot coffee in her lap, so she sues McDonalds – and the jury awards her a multi-million dollar settlement. (I’m told that verdict was eventually reversed.) The stubbornly independent and totally self-sufficient work ethic so prominent throughout America’s history is gone. The unions have held companies and corporations hostage for years (not that I’m a big fan of corporations), and now the union workers in Wisconsin are screaming bloody murder because the government wants to balance the budget rather than continue the gravy train they’ve grown used to. Overall, the near future doesn’t look good.

I want to thank Doug Casey for his literary talent. When he describes our coming hardship, at least he is clever about it. “I expect what we’re looking at is going to be much more serious than any past crisis, partly because America has already evaporated, like the morning haze on a hot summer’s day. You’re not in Kansas anymore. Kansas isn’t in Kansas anymore.”

Michael Badnarik is a Constitutional scholar, former talk show host, 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate, author, speaker and contributor to The Conservative Declaration Blog. More information about Michael can be found at his website www.constitutionpreservation.org

There are many problems with American politics but “extremism” is not one of them. For all the mainstream media’s criticism of the Tea Party being too “extreme” or the GOP supposedly adopting the movement’s “radical” rhetoric and actions, Republicans couldn’t even muster the votes to pass $100 billion in budget cuts recently, a proposal so modest as to essentially mean nothing. In fact, the worst extremists continue to be Democrats and their Republican allies who continue to spend money at breakneck speed. Indeed, if basic math and common sense have any bearing on the definition, it is our economic status quo that is truly extreme, and the brave few who dare to seriously challenge it who are the most sober.

The same has been true in Wisconsin, where citizens now march in the streets protesting Governor Scott Walker’s attempts to rein in spending. And things are getting nasty. Writes Rich Noyes and Scott Whitlock at the Wall Street Journal:

“Over the past several days, the liberal demonstrations in Wisconsin (bolstered by the national Democratic Party and President Obama’s Organizing for America group) have included signs just as inflammatory as the ones that bothered the networks during the health care debate, including several showing Governor Scott Walker as Adolph Hitler. Others have likened Walker to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (‘Scott Stalin’) and recently deposed Egyptian autocrat Hosni Mubarak (‘Walker = Mubarak’). Another protest sign drew a cross-hairs over a picture of Governor Walker’s head, with the caption ‘Don’t Retreat, Reload; Repeal Walker’ — an obvious parallel to a Facebook map posted by Sarah Palin last year, although that much-criticized graphic placed the target sights on maps of congressional districts, not any politician’s face.”

Of course the same Left that tried to say that the tragic shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was somehow inspired by Palin’s fairly innocent PAC ads is now curiously silent concerning similar behavior exhibited by the protesters in Wisconsin. Criticizing the Left’s attacks on Palin in the wake of the Giffords shooting, I wrote in January:

In attacking Palin’s midterm election television commercials in which a bull’s-eye graphic was placed over vulnerable swing-state districts, her critics ignored the fact that ‘targeting’ politicians for electoral defeat has never been considered controversial nor has it been viewed as being beyond the pale. This is conventional political speech used by both parties for ages.

The protesters in Wisconsin who now use gun rhetoric or place target-style graphics over Gov. Walker’s face are being no less irresponsible than Palin was with her ads. Again, “targeting” politicians in general has always been fairly conventional American political speech. The Wisconsin protesters who compare the governor to German, Russian and Middle Eastern dictators are being absurd of course, but it should be clear by now that their hyperbolic assertions are fairly conventional aspects of any popular protest in the United States, Left or Right. Antiwar demonstrators used to compare President Bush to dictators, some Tea Partiers now do the same with Obama and of course, we now see the same comparisons in Wisconsin. This says more about the emotional nature of mass protest than the unique shortcomings of any of these specific movements.

But this is something most liberals will not confess. As much as New York Times columnists Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich bemoan the “incivility” of the Tea Party, or how much the evening line-up at MSNBC might harp on the grassroots Right’s “extremism,” basically the same behavior is ignored when displayed by mobs the Left happens to agree with. Liberals no doubt consider the Wisconsin protesters righteous. But if those protesters were Tea Partiers, the same Left would’ve been calling them racist from the get-go.

If liberals now give the Wisconsin protesters the benefit of the doubt because they basically share their ideology and even their rage, the same is true of the relationship between conservatives and the Tea Party, where though not all right-wingers might approve of the Tea Party’s methods or rhetoric—most certainly understand where the movement’s coming from. Who is truly “extreme” is merely a matter of perspective. Massive debt has inspired mass protests from both right-wingers who want to slash the debt and now left-wingers who basically want to sustain and protect it, creating an “extreme” tension that will likely endure for the foreseeable future. And that both Left and Right typically consider only the other side “extreme” merely indicates that the outspoken behavior of all involved now fits comfortably within the mainstream of American politics.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

The reasons for the current protests in Wisconsin are somewhat complex but ultimately represent the need to address an unsustainable status quo versus a deep, although understandable, attachment to it.

Naturally, union workers don’t want their salaries or their benefits reduced, just like those in the private sector don’t like it when they are downsized, fall victim to budget cuts, or are outright fired. However, changing circumstances often mean that, well, circumstances have to change. And such realignments are almost always controversial, even when they make the most sense. This is particularly the case when reform targets longstanding assumptions or deeply held, status-quo attachments.

Virtually every story you read about Sen. Rand Paul’s plan to cut foreign aid mentions Israel first and foremost. Never mind that Paul has proposed that we cut all foreign aid, which includes every single country we currently subsidize. Never mind that Paul points out that although we give $3 billion to Israel annually, we also inexplicably give about $6 billion to countries that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state. Never mind that Paul has said explicitly that he is a friend of Israel.

Yet Paul’s fairly budget-conscious points haven’t even been considered. In fact, these commonsensical proposals are often obfuscated due to the establishment’s focus on Israel. Senate Democrats wrote Paul a letter stating that his plan would “weaken the decades-long bipartisan consensus on U.S. support for Israel,” while Sen. Jim DeMint, who is usually a reliable fiscal hawk and generally an ally of Paul, responded that it would be a “real mistake to suggest we might reduce support to Israel.” Sen. Lindsey Graham took it a step further, saying that Paul’s proposal would be adopted, “Over [his] dead body.”

At The Washington Post, neoconservative columnist Jennifer Rubin tried to calm everyone down, reassuring readers that “Paul is outside the mainstream of elected leaders and the American public.” But Rubin is only half right. Paul is certainly outside the mainstream of those who consider Israel’s most-favored-welfare-queen-nation status sacrosanct. But is the American public as attached to foreign aid as the political class? A Reuters poll in January showed that 73 percent of Americans support eliminating all foreign aid, which is exactly what Paul now proposes, despite his critics’ fixation on Israel.

As many conservatives now look at the protesters in Wisconsin as the sort of folks who are simply not willing to accept current, dire economic realities, the same sort of protests have been on full display by Washington’s political class in their mostly emotional response to Paul’s proposal. Paul is simply saying that much like Wisconsin’s budget problem, America’s budget problems now dictate that the status quo has to change, including ending the insane practice of borrowing money from China simply to subsidize other nations, and, yes, by God, Israel is one of those nations. Paul isn’t “against” Israel any more than Wisconsin’s governor is against teachers and government workers.

The irony here is that Israel probably needs our help the least. According to The American Conservative’s Philip Giraldi, “Considering that Israel is one of the wealthiest countries in the world (with a per capita income at the same level as Great Britain) and is alleged to be going through an economic boom, there is little justification for continuing the largesse … The argument that Israel needs the money to maintain its military edge is also a red herring as Tel Aviv currently enjoys complete military superiority in all areas over all of its potential opponents. It also has the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal.”

In 1988 when conservative giant Russell Kirk said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation that it often appears that “eminent neoconservatives [have mistaken] Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States,” he was simply noting the same long-established, sometimes nonsensical financial and political attachments to Israel that Paul now confronts. This is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and it is Paul’s critics who are being completely unreasonable. That these critics represent the “mainstream” should give Americans a pretty good indication of why this country is in the shape it’s in.

As in Wisconsin, reversing America’s course will require attacking sacred cows. In the face of massive debt, we must now ask, “Should we support every other nation first and America second or America first and other nations second?” Unlike his critics, at least Rand Paul has taken the correct stand.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

In the 1980’s the United States funded Iraq’s Saddam Hussein yet considered Palestine’s Yasser Arafat and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi terrorists. And they were. But so was Saddam, who at that time was terrorizing his own people, gassing Iraqi Kurds while receiving America’s financial and political support. In the 1990’s, the US declared Hussein a menace and we apparently changed our mind about Arafat, who was even invited to the White House to shake hands with Bill Clinton. In the 2000’s George W. Bush went back to calling Arafat a terrorist, went to war with Saddam, who we also began calling a terrorist, but made amends with Gaddafi by taking Libya off our official list of state sponsors of terror and sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to shake Gaddafi’s hand. Mind you, this is the same Libyan dictator that Ronald Reagan once called the “mad dog of the Middle East” and who was responsible for blowing up an airplane full of American school kids over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988.

If the above history of the US’s overseas alliances and antagonisms sounds nonsensical or perhaps even immoral, that’s because, well, it is. Welcome to American foreign policy.

Like Egypt before it a few weeks ago, as Libya descends into chaos the eyes of the world now look to America to see what we will do. Why? Because the rest of the world is accustomed to the US always doing something. In fact, no matter how much our constant involvement becomes obviously counterproductive or our actions come back to haunt us in the most damaging ways imaginable, the so called “experts” in Washington, DC continue to tell us we must still be involved heavily in the Middle East and around the globe, funding dictators and supporting terrorists, while also toppling the same dictators and fighting the same terrorists, as determined by which decade we find ourselves in or which president sits in the White House. For example, in the 1980’s it was the official policy of the State Department to encourage radical jihad in Afghanistan to undermine the Soviets. Today, we find ourselves in a decade long war in Afghanistan fighting against the same radical jihadists we once encouraged and helped fund. Such insanity is what our leaders continue to advocate as a reasonable and necessary foreign policy. To suggest that we should just give up these ever-changing entanglements as a practical matter is disparaged as “isolationist” and therefore unfathomable, the experts tell us.

The term “isolationism” is much like the word “racism,” in that it is an accusatory term designed specifically to shut down debate before it begins. As the Tea Party is well aware, if you question Obama you are “racist.” Likewise, if you question US foreign policy you are an “isolationist.” Nobody wants to attempt to reason with a racist or an
isolationist, and indeed to criticize our insane foreign policy is the quickest way to invite this discussion-ending disparagement. Luckily, at least at the moment, a majority of Americans don’t appear to be as insane as their rulers. According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, his most recent data reveals that “most Americans (67%) say the United States should leave the situation in the Arab countries alone. Just 17% say the United States should get more directly involved in the political situation there, but another 17% are not sure.” A Reuters poll in January produced similar results, showing that 73% of Americans support eliminating all foreign aid.

So are Americans now “isolationist?” Or in being somewhat isolated from the special interests and entrenched, status quo politics that dominates Washington, do Americans see our involvement in foreign affairs in more clear and common-sense terms than our political class is even capable of?

The very notion that it is somehow “isolationist” to not endlessly support dictators and terrorists throughout the Middle East with financial, political and even military aid is to say that virtually every other nation on earth is also “isolationist.” It also ignores the fact that America is not a normal nation, or at least hasn’t been for a long time. In fact, in terms of its scope alone, US foreign policy is arguably the most abnormal in history. Not even the empires of Rome and Great Britain assumed that virtually any conflict around the globe necessarily affected the interests of Romans or Brits. The second edition of the “Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy” (2001) described this new, almost perverse concept of America’s “national interest” as the definition was being expanded even during the Vietnam era:

“By the 1960s the American national interest was being defined so globally that hardly a sparrow could fall anywhere on earth without the U.S. government wanting to know why, to know whether the sparrow had jumped or been pushed, and, if pushed, to know whether the pusher wore scarlet plumage. Somewhere or other, sooner or later, the United States was bound to find itself defending a regime so weak, corrupt, or unpopular… as to be indefensible at any reasonable cost.”

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

As evidenced by Iraq, American foreign policy seems to be that dictators are good so long as they’re our dictators and democracy is good so long as it’s our kind of democracy, and those who consistently push for U.S. foreign intervention will argue for either accordingly.

With America’s support for Hussein sufficiently far enough in the past, in the early 2000s neoconservatives successfully crafted a “freedom” narrative in order to get the American people to allow them to get their way in Iraq. In his second inaugural address, President George W. Bush even pledged to end “tyranny around the world” as part of a “freedom agenda.”

In regards to the recent turmoil in Egypt, this narrative has become a bit more complicated for neocons. The Jewish daily Forward noted, “After once uniting to support regime change in Iraq through an American military invasion, neoconservatives are now divided as they face the prospect of a regime change in Egypt driven by popular internal forces out of America’s control.”

America’s control, indeed. Many on both the Left and Right who opposed the invasion of Iraq knew that the neoconservatives were simply using 9/11 as an excuse to start a war they’d been aching for as far back as the Clinton administration. All the talk about spreading freedom and democracy in Iraq was just that — talk. As many in the loop at that time can now attest, high-ranking Bush officials were trying to somehow link Hussein to the 9/11 attacks days after the World Trade Center fell. Establishing a permanent U.S. foothold in Iraq has been the goal since day one, and any talk about WMDs or yellow cake uranium or bringing democracy to the Middle East was just the rhetoric that was needed to get the American people to sign on.

In the case of Egypt, the U.S. has long had a foothold there, and his name is Hosni Mubarak. While some neocons sided with the protesters, many sided with Mubarak, including Bush luminaries John Bolton and Dick Cheney. They have argued that an Islamic regime might arise if Egyptians are allowed to vote for their leaders. This may very well be the case. The same Bush administration that once promoted free and fair elections for Palestine immediately withdrew its support for such a democracy the moment those voters chose Hamas. And we are told we must stay in Afghanistan indefinitely lest the Afghans turn the country back over to the Taliban.

The primary difference between Iraq and Egypt is this: You can’t give people democracy. They have to fight for it themselves, something the founders of our own republic knew all too well. This type of genuine, democratic revolution is exactly what’s happening in Egypt today, and every neocon who now thumps his chest about the rise of an Egypt-based “caliphate” movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood probably knows he’s being every bit as deceptive as when they were pitching freedom and democracy in Iraq. The hypocrisy is glaring. But there is a point to be made even amongst the mostly nonsensical, Islamophobic hyperbole: Real democracy in the Middle East will often result in a significant part of the population choosing precisely the type of Islamic state we supposedly want to discourage. This is no doubt as true in Egypt today as it has always been in Iraq.

The larger and more important question should be why should the United States even have to fear Islamic states? What has changed so drastically since the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s when we were more worried about communists than Muslims? Has Islam become radical only recently? Has this ominous caliphate plan only recently been discovered? Or has our foreign policy in that part of the world significantly changed? For the past three decades it’s hard to imagine how America could have been more involved in either Iraq or Egypt, or for that matter, most of the Middle East.

The same “democracy” we wanted to bestow upon Iraq is now being discouraged in Egypt by many of those who once were the most enthusiastic about spreading freedom. In the future, the neoconservatives should be more careful about what they wish for. They just might get it.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

When you try to explain to liberals that instead of helping the poor, the welfare state has mostly subsidized poverty, most don’t want to hear it. The very idea that we should change our policies is anathema to those who consider the welfare state an entrenched and unalterable facet of American government. To such ideologues, pointing out the obvious damage wrought by welfare does little to dissuade them from defending it at all costs. And so the status quo continues on, generation after generation, dollar after dollar, unexamined, unchallenged, and undisturbed.

The same is true of the welfare we give to other countries in the form of foreign aid. If constant financial intervention by our government has created a dependent class domestically, the dollars we dole out to other nations has produced a similar dependence. Like public assistance, sometimes the welfare we give to other governments does little to actually promote our interests, and, in fact, often hurts those interests.

The current turmoil in Egypt is a primary example of this. According to The American Conservative’s Michael Brendan Dougherty, “The fact, rarely mentioned this past week, is that the United States sends over $800 million in direct economic aid to Egypt along with $1.3 billion a year in military aid. The guns being used to beat protestors this week were bought with American tax dollars.”

Writing for Commentary, neoconservative Max Boot makes a similar observation. “For decades, Egypt has been one of the largest recipients of American foreign aid, and [Egyptian President] Mubarak has been one of our closest allies in the Middle East,” Boot says. “Egyptian officers have been educated in the United States, its forces are equipped with American weapons, and they regularly conduct exercises with American troops.”

Due to our constant foreign aid and intervention in Egypt’s affairs, Boot adds, “We have a large say, whether we want it or not.”

Whether the United States should want to have a “say,” large or small or nonexistent, in the affairs of other nations is something that has been debated since this country’s inception. Today, America’s presence, whether military, political, financial, or even ideological, is readily recognized and accepted in so many areas of the world that it is rarely questioned. Just like the fact that we’ve had a welfare state for so long that many can’t fathom an America without it, our well-established warfare state, which includes the foreign financial and military aid that accompanies it, simply remains part of an unexamined, unchallenged, and undisturbed foreign policy permanence.

Given this, what exactly can or should the U.S. say about the unrest in Egypt? Should President Obama support Mubarak, a dictator our government has supported since his reign began 30 years ago, despite the fact that Egypt’s citizens now rebel against him? Should we endorse the rebellion? Will this even be possible given that many predict that a new and perhaps radical Islamic regime might arise? When Egyptians or the leaders of any future administrations of that country express anger at the United States for helping prop up Mubarak, are we going to pretend that these people simply “hate our freedom” or recall our complicity in the matter? Will we remember, as Dougherty points out, that “the guns being used to beat protestors this week were bought with American tax dollars?” What, if anything, can we do to prevent or reduce the further possibility of increasing anti-American sentiment in Egypt?

In retrospect, would America have been better off if we had never become so intimately involved with Egypt’s affairs? Would it not have been preferable for Egypt’s troubles to be little more than a blip on the nightly news as opposed to an international crisis laid at our doorstep?

Yet to argue against foreign aid and intervention, whether with liberal internationalists or neoconservative-minded Republicans, invites accusations of isolationism or worse. To such ideologues, pointing out the damage caused by our interventionist policies does little to dissuade them from defending such actions.

Given the events of the past weeks, few would now take a wholly positive view of America’s policies toward Egypt and Mubarak, yet it’s still hard to imagine our leaders offering significantly different policies, while still insisting that anyone who dares question the conventional wisdom is naïve or illogical.

Conservatives understand that government intervention in the form of taxation, regulation, and even public assistance gives rise to unintended consequences and affects citizens’ behavior in multiple ways. Yet we should also understand that the same is true of government intervention abroad. Egypt’s example illustrates the danger and shortsightedness of involving ourselves in every international conflict. That nation’s troubles are now ours, but only because we’ve made them so.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

State of the Union speeches are sort of like listening to cheating husbands apologize to their wives. Not only are we told that any past mistakes are yesterday’s news and the worst is behind us, but in an effort to show how things will be different we are given a laundry list of promises that paint a rosier future. Nobody paints rhetorically better than Obama and the smooth talking president’s oratory skills were on full display this week-just as they likely will be next year when things won’t have substantively changed one bit.

The most significant change Tuesday night was to be found not in Obama’s speech but in the Republican rebuttal to it. Congressman Paul Ryan is considered a rising star within the GOP due mostly to his image as a budget-cutting maven, a philosophy gaining traction across the nation and certainly within the Republican Party. Ryan was tapped precisely for this reason and his speech was dedicated almost exclusively to economic matters. Ryan made a plea for fiscal restraint and a pitch for limited government. He warned that America’s growing debt was unsustainable and that a day of reckoning may be upon us. Many said Ryan’s speech was “gloom and doom” compared to Obama’s. Others said the congressman was too vague and perhaps, in some ways, he was.

But one thing is certain: Ryan’s speech was definitively conservative — something that has been noticeably absent from the Republican Party for quite some time.

If today, House Majority Leader John Boehner talks about cutting government spending it wasn’t long ago that he was embracing it wholly under a Republican brand. So was the rest of his party. During the George W. Bush years, the size of government and the accompanying debt doubled, something most conservatives barely noticed-and often encouraged-due to the party’s almost singular fixation on foreign policy. The greatest “threat” to our republic, we were told ad nauseam, was terrorism in the form of “Islamofascism,” with conservatives often using Cold War-reminiscent language to address what has always been a significant, yet certainly much less menacing threat, given Al-Qaeda’s size and capabilities compared to the Soviet Union.

It’s not that conservatives have necessarily changed their minds or seriously rethought the issue of radical Islam, only that they’ve switched obsessions. If a few years ago, any amount of spending was justified in the name of war, today spending itself is considered the primary threat. If Dick Cheney once said that “deficits don’t matter,” today’s Republicans are quick to proclaim that deficits are all that matter, and that even Cheney’s pet project of global military dominance might be on the chopping block.

The Tea Party has certainly not displaced the War Party, of either Cheney or Obama, but based almost exclusively on economics the grassroots Right has posed perhaps the most significant challenge to the neoconservative hawks who’ve dominated popular conservative opinion for some time. Reflecting this shift, Yahoo News reported this week that “Tea partiers say defense in mix for budget cuts.” Read the front page of the New York Times on Thursday “G.O.P. Splits Over Plans to Cut Defense Budget.” Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo noted these headlines: “More Conservatives Are Questioning the Afghanistan War” (Politics Daily), “America Has Reached Point of No Return, Reagan Budget Chief Warns” (Raw Story), and “Grover Norquist Decries Lack of Conservative Debate on Afghanistan.” Writes Raimondo: “as the American empire goes into foreclosure, and a decade of constant war has brought us no closer to ‘victory,’ those who want to limit the power and expense of government are finally beginning to wake up to the war racket. The idea that we could be the world’s policeman and still keep the reality as well as the form of a constitutional republic was always an illusion, and the veil is lifted from the eyes of grassroots conservatives at last…”

Adds Raimondo: “Reality has finally caught up with the conservative movement…”

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. Hunter also served as a campaign assistant to Sen. Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, during the midterm election. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com

How much of the Department of Education has to do with actual education? How much of the Department of Agriculture has to do with actual agriculture? How much of the Department of Health and Human Services has to do with either actual health or human services? Most conservatives would agree that despite any arguable good they might do, these and other federal agencies epitomize the sort of inefficient, self-serving and special interest-laden mass bureaucracies characteristic of big government. Most conservatives are highly suspicious of such departments’ functions and even necessity, mocking liberals who reflexively defend them as fools whose blind faith in government knows no bounds.

But when it comes to the Department of Defense it is conservatives who are often the most foolish, exhibiting something worse than a mere blind faith in government: The Pentagon has become their church.

And apparently that department’s collection plate is never full. Today, we spend more on so-called “defense” than at any time since World War II, Pentagon spending accounts for nearly half of the entire federal budget and the United States spends more on military-related matters than every other nation on earth combined. Still, many conservatives have illogically accused President Obama of trying to “weaken” national defense. In dollar terms this is entirely false, or as the Washington Post reports: “after adjusting for inflation, the most expensive defense budget in more than 60 years belongs to President Obama.”

Like virtually every other federal department, the Department of Defense has become yet another inefficient, self-serving and special interest-laden mass bureaucracy, which not only characterizes big government—but the expense of which dwarfs almost every other department conservatives regularly target. Just like most of the Department of Education’s functions have less to do with actually educating America’s children and more to do with serving teachers unions and other special interests, most of the Defense Department’s functions have less to do with actual defense and more to do with serving special government, corporate or ideological interests.

Fifty years ago this week, President Dwight Eisenhower warned about this trend, something he saw coming to fruition in his own time. Said Eisenhower to the nation in his televised farewell address, January 17, 1961:

“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry … We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions … We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience.”

A new experience indeed. Many Americans today can’t imagine how our school system existed before the Department of Education, yet this department wasn’t created until 1979. Similarly, Americans can’t imagine a time before there was a “permanent armaments industry of vast proportions” and simply assume the monstrous military bureaucracy we endure today is part of a necessary and proper defense. Not only is this not true, but it wasn’t even the case as early as 1961. Noted Eisenhower: “Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.”

Eisenhower warned: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Of course, the military-industrial-complex is with us today in full force. If conservatives were to apply the same skepticism toward the Pentagon they do every other government department, they might ask: Is it necessary to have troops stationed at 750 bases in 170 nations around the world? Has the Iraq war been worth the cost? Is continuing to engage in Afghanistan in our best interest? Does the limited threat posed by potential terrorists justify the unlimited amount we currently spend? Does invading and occupying nations for decades do anything to actually reduce this threat? Does this do much to encourage the threat? How much of our military spending even targets the threat? Reports the Washington Post: “The challenges posed by terrorism, cyber-threats and military buildups by potential adversaries clearly play a role in shaping our national security strategy and defense budget. But so do competing government priorities in the face of limited resources, political and bureaucratic interests, and the influence of the defense industry. At times, these issues overwhelm security concerns.”

So-called “defense” spending is the big government conservatives tend to love, and the degree to which they refuse to ask questions about foreign policy or wholly trust Washington leaders with such policy, is indicative of conservatives’ comfort with this particular brand of statism.

In the same way that so many on the Left consider the post-New Deal state an integral part of liberal identity, many on the Right have come to consider support for the military-industrial complex inherently conservative, often conflating the plight of “the troops” with the agenda of a military bureaucracy that regularly abuses our soldiers. Naturally, most military personnel or those who identify with that culture, need to believe the tasks they are assigned serve some greater good, particularly given the sacrifice they might be asked to make. That our government might often put America’s soldiers in harm’s way for questionable or unjustifiable reasons is tough to fathom-so conservatives simply don’t consider it.

In preferring to remain in the dark, conservatives substitute patriotic slogans and jingoism for trenchant national security analysis. In this state of willful ignorance, our foreign policy becomes sacrosanct and militarism becomes orthodoxy-giving the Department of Defense carte blanche and with it, unchallenged and unparalleled government power.

Jack Hunter, also known as the Southern Avenger, is a conservative radio host and political commentator from South Carolina. He is known for often providing commentary from both conservative and libertarian viewpoints, which has led to criticism from both the mainstream left and the mainstream right. More information about Jack can be found at his website: www.southernavenger.com