It is all a great start, in [...]]]> I was reading Rep. Ron Paul’s plan to restore his interpretation of constitutional law to the nation had he been elected president in 2008. He wants to massively curtail the federal bureaucracy, reduce or eliminate several cabinet departments, not just agencies, and slash spending on foreign interventions.

It is all a great start, in my book. Part of the plan is to begin “the orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.” I was surprised to learn how pivotal that would be for Paul to carry out the rest of his agenda. He believes that he can divert 50 percent of the savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to offset reductions in entitlement programs, and the other half of the military savings would go to pay down the debt. Both would be politically difficult to manage, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But before that could be done, troops would have to start coming home. It is an interesting thought experiment of what would happen.

Don’t beat me up too bad, but it is plausible (I stress “plausible”) more troops could have occupied Iraq and Afghanistan at the end of Paul’s first four years in the White House.

The foreign combattants in those countries might react to a planned withdraw with an escalation in the degree and tally of attacks. The purpose of the 9/11 attacks, as I understand it, was to lure American troops to the Middle East like how the Soviet Union lured into Afghanistan and subsequently into bankruptcy. If the number of attacks did increase and Paul continued course for withdraw, high-ranking generals and any Pentagon and CIA holdovers might threaten to resign out of protest for “cutting and running.” The families of killed soldiers would blanket the news and say that their husbands and sons had died in vain. I hope that Paul would stick to his principles, but he has yielded to political pressure even this past election cycle by agreeing to support Republican congressional incumbents in Texas. If he were elected with only a popular vote of around 40 percent, congressional opposition might be able to secure the two-thirds vote necessary to over ride any presidential vetoes.

Of course, if Paul were elected, other pro-liberty candidates would probably be in office to help. But how much support could he expect if he couldn’t keep his first priority and reduce the overseas empire. Even if a strict interpreter of the constitution like Paul were elected, I don’t know how much support he could expect from long-time government expansionists. The landslide election of Barrack Obama hasn’t won over any staunch Republicans even though he is carrying out George W. Bush’s nearly identical foreign policy. They have become more partisan.

I also suppose that Paul could refuse congresses demands to deploy more troops. Would the “champion of the constitution” defy the legislation of the House and the senate? I don’t know, but it would be an interesting constitutional test.

In a recent statement, Rand Paul said that terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison, many of whom have been ordered released on a lack of evidence, do not [...]]]> Kentucky senatorial candidate Rand Paul, the son of 2008 Republican presidential contender Ron Paul, is not as principled as his father, it appears.

In a recent statement, Rand Paul said that terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison, many of whom have been ordered released on a lack of evidence, do not deserve simple civil rights, saying “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution. These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

With all the negligence and shameful acts at these prisons, it is hard to interpret Paul’s assumption of guilt as anything but pandering to the torture wing of the Republican Party. For example, in the case of Chinese-born Huzaifa Parhat, the government’s evidence was so flimsy that the most damning proof it could produce was that while fleeing from the religious persecution of his home country, he had camped at the same village as another suspected terrorist who had no relationship with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That was grounds to hold him as an enemy combatant for nearly seven years. He was released in June along with three others worshipers who simply sought religious freedom.

I really wish this was my only nugget of contention with Paul. Bizarrely, he also calls for a declaration of war and continued presence in Afghanistan. Elsewhere on his site, he says he supports a law mandating English be used on documents and contracts and wants to build electric border fences patrolled by helicopters. He says that “illegal” immigrants should be punished for breaking a law they had not part in constructing, yet he does not support upholding the constitution and prosecuting the Bush administration for cases of admitted torture. What we see here is a repeated pattern that foreigners should be denied their liberties and any civil protections under the constitution, but the ruling elite are given a pass when the highest law of the land explicitly calls for the president to “faithfully execute” the law. He is caving to the party line. In essence, he is a neo-con on these fundamental issues.

If you ask me, it’s becoming more and more clear that even leading Ron Paul Republicans refuse to acknowledge they do not own other people’s bodies.

My question for the senator is about the power to tax.

I understand that no one has the right as an individual to use force or the threat of force [...]]]> About four weeks ago, I sent a brief letter to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) about the taxing power of the federal government. I wrote:

My question for the senator is about the power to tax.

I understand that no one has the right as an individual to use force or the threat of force against another peaceful individual. The government claims the right to use force or the threat of force to lay and collect taxes through the constitution.

Yet, how do “We the people” delegate rights to the constitution that we do not individually actually have?

Well, I got my response (or what passes as a response). As you can imagine, the point was ignored with a 10-foot form letter.

Thank you for contacting me regarding excessive taxation and government spending. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on these important issues.

I understand the frustration of American taxpayers regarding Congress’ seeming inability to restrain spending—the primary factor contributing to the budget deficit and our national debt. Like you, I am concerned about the possible long term effects of excessive government spending, often on wasteful, ineffective government programs. If Congress eliminates government waste and fraud, it can then begin to restrain runaway spending and more carefully steward tax dollars.

Unfortunately, the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Resolution (S.Con.Res. 13)—which passed Congress without my support—is a step in the wrong direction. It spends, borrows and taxes Americans too much. I am disappointed that Congress passed this legislation and chose to impose a $1.4 trillion tax increase, the largest in history, on working families and small businesses—the engine of economic growth and the creators of new jobs. This excessive taxation will not help grow the economy and will instead hinder much-needed job creation. In addition, spending included in the budget is so aggressive that it will drive our nation’s debt to an unsustainable level—doubling our debt in 5 years and tripling it in 10 years. In fact, the budget creates more debt than was accrued under every president from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

For too long, American families and small businesses have been forced to spend less so that the federal government can spend more. Between Inauguration Day and Tax Day, Congress has spent more money on federal programs than was appropriated for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Hurricane Katrina. Furthermore, taxpayers currently work almost four months out of the year to pay for the operations of government. This is more than they work to pay for transportation, food and clothing combined. Hardworking Texans deserve to keep more of their own money to spend, save, and invest how they see fit. Excessive taxation only serves to stunt economic growth and hinder much-needed job creation. In these troubled economic times, Congress should work to retain low taxes and reduce wasteful spending.

One of America’s greatest strengths and traditions has been for each generation to make sacrifices in order to improve the quality of life for the next generation. But by passing along trillions of dollars of debt, we are now asking the next generation of Americans to bear the burden of Congress’ reckless spending habits. Our children will be left with a government they cannot afford, preventing them from living the same quality of life that we enjoy today. This is unacceptable. Many families across Texas are struggling to pay bills and balance their checkbook—the federal government should also tighten its belt and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.

I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate. Thank you for taking the time to contact me.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator

It speaks for itself.

I also hope that it provides a compelling explanation of how that same government, under the leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, established a prison in which the overwhelming majority of those held – at [...]]]> ~ The Guantanamo File: a shameful legacy of the Bush presidency

It speaks for itself.

I also hope that it provides a compelling explanation of how that same government, under the leadership of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, established a prison in which the overwhelming majority of those held – at least 93 percent of the 779 men and boys imprisoned in total – were either completely innocent people, seized as a result of dubious intelligence or sold for bounty payments, or Taliban foot soldiers, recruited to fight an inter-Muslim civil war that began long before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or international terrorism.

~ Thomas Woods, intellectual bodyguard

His new book is already a New York Times bestseller — without any major media publicity.

We are learning what it is like to live in an Orwell novel. Our television screens are filled with people offering choices between idiotic and suicidal option A and idiotic and suicidal option B. We are being told that we must at least partially nationalize our banks, prop up zombie companies, lower interest rates to zero, and pass stimulus packages in order to escape the fate of Japan – which, um, partially nationalized its banks, propped up zombie companies, lowered interest rates to zero, and passed eight stimulus packages. We have a president who tells us we cannot rely on the free market to get us out of this mess because the free market is what got us here, as if the Federal Reserve and its bubble-inducing monetary policy never existed.

~ Pa. schools sells trailer for $1

Noticeably absent from the article is what disciplinary action is being taken against the person responsible for costing the school at least $5000 in revenue. Might that be because it would cost the taxpayers even more to fire the person responsible?

The East Stroudsburg School District was attempting to sell seven used classroom trailers, but an error in its ad on the online auction site allowed someone to bid and buy one trailer for only a dollar. The district had purchased the trailers three years ago for about $46,000 each. With transportation and setup costs, the total came to around $60,000. Officials were expecting to get around $5,000 to $10,000 per trailer on eBay.

~ It’s not the whole Internet, but it’s a start

Former vice president Al Gore submitted a proposal for a new top-level Web domain, .eco.

And Gore, who never actually quite claimed to have invented the Internet, though he did have some hand in getting it up and running, can claim to have partially invented a domain.

~ Pure Ownage: Thomas Friedman’s Five Worst Predictions

Friedman is a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner, a staple of The New York Times, and a bestselling author, and thus this prediction should be taken very seriously—in some alternate universe where the news media is a meritocracy and Thomas Friedman is a competent observer of the world and its workings. The rest of us can probably relax.

The highlight for me:

Then, a month into the Afghanistan conflict, Friedman complained that “the hand-wringing has already begun over how long this might last” and advised readers to “take a deep breath,” noting that Afghanistan is “far away.” Besides, Friedman had “no doubt, for now, that the Bush team has a military strategy for winning a long war.” A month later, he noted in passing that “America has won the war in Afghanistan” and that “the Taliban are gone,” though he did express some concern about “all the nonsense written in the press about the concern for ‘civilian casualties’,” a term he took to using with scare quotes. Seven years later, civilian casualties remain a major item of concern for Afghan’s in the non-won war against the non-gone Taliban.

~ The war on drugs, the war on guns

The worst elements of the drug war are now taking precedent in the war on guns, according to the Cato Institute.