Yesterday evening we listened in on a conference call hosted by Evan Cutler of Alaskans for Ron Paul:

This conference call is the first of two calls with the second planned for sometime on Thursday, 06 September.

During this call Mr. Cutler described a phone call he made to Dr. Paul on 02 September 2012 to urge Dr. Paul to reenter the Presidential Race as a VP candidate for the Libertarian Party. Mr. Cutler claims that he has spoken to "insiders" within the Libertarian Party that are interested in Dr. Paul joining to ticket.

My personal thoughts are that the above suggestion is a bad idea.

1. Is our long term plan as a movement to move the Republican Party along or will we allow ourselves to be completely marginalized?
2. Any liberty candidate that has ever been associated with Dr. Paul will feel repercussions from this at all levels, because a Romney loss will be blamed on Dr. Paul.
3. Gary Johnson as President and Dr. Paul as VP - Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with that? I'm sure GJ is a great guy but his debate mannerisms were off and his presentation was poor. He did not even register in the primaries or caucuses. He simply does not inspire. No ticket since Romney/Ryan has relied so heavily on the VP. I do not see this working out favorably.
4. Pro-Choice: Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party are Pro-Choice. Just like Pro-Life does for the lefties this is a position that is going to polarize the electorate. From his campaign website: "Life is precious and must be protected. A woman should be allowed to make her own decisions during pregnancy until the point of viability of a fetus." Well, we just lost a lot of potential voters. There are an astounding number of one issue voters and for a lot of people this is that issue. Dr. Paul has said in the past that he is "right to life." I'm not real sure what that means, but it is political gold.
5. A lot of people believe that Dr. Paul's We Are The Future Rally in Tampa was the torch passing to us, the supporters. (See Israel Anderson of Ron Paul Flix attempt to temper enthusiasm.)

I applaud everyone for trying to hold on to the dream, but this is a classic case of fear of the unknown. It is time for us to pick up the flag and continue the charge up the hill.

There are a lot of exciting things going on. Nothing is going to change overnight. I think we need another 4-5 years of hard work before we start to see real change.

Just watch State Sen Tom Davis of SC speak at Ron Paul's Rally. This guy is the real deal. He will be the one to kick that worthless warmongering big government scumbag Lindsey Graham out of office. We need to get behind this guy just like we did with Rand Paul and encourage him to run. A DeMint/Davis 1-2 punch out of South Carolina would be awesome.

Justin Amash, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, and Rand Paul are gentlemen we should be proud to support. Follow these men on Facebook and Twitter. Make sure to follow your own representatives on Facebook and Twitter. Call them out, challenge them when they vote against the Constitution. Relentless constant pressure will win the day.

This revolution can grow, we just need to keep our eyes on the prize. New people join everyday because they see how you act, they feel your passion, and they hear the message articulated in your voice. Dr. Paul is our champion, unfortunately he is no longer our leader (Thanks to the book: The Starfish and The Spider). He left a legacy and a blueprint in his various writings.

Stop the infighting. Stop the blame game. Get off your ass. Find liberty candidates in your area that are running for local and state elections and support them. If you can't find a candidate in your area you better step up and find a position to run for.

We can rebuild this, better than before.

For Liberty,

To understand how foreign policy will change after the 2012 presidential elections, we must first identify the trends in Washington and abroad. The 2004 and 2008 presidential elections dealt with foreign policy matters in grandiose and ideological terms, shaping the discourse on America's role in the world during the first decade of the twenty-first century. This November, foreign policy issues will take a back-seat to the economy—but not because we have taken on a smaller role in foreign affairs. The trend in Washington has called for greater US engagement abroad to promote liberal democratic values, free market principles and free trade to further US interests and secure hegemony. The campaign rhetoric of 2008 on both sides of the aisle did not depart from the conceptual trend of continued US engagement, only on how best and when to use our Armed Forces. For all of the perceived differences between Presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama, foreign policy changed little after the 2008 election. How foreign policy changes after the 2012 election, and America's role in an increasingly changing world, will depend not so much on who is elected president but on the difficult questions we ask to force a paradigm shift in Washington.



When then-Senator Obama was elected in 2008 he ran on a platform of change. By and large, Obama has held true to his promise. The change he promised included ending the war in Iraq, setting a timeline for withdrawal in Afghanistan, and broadly scaling back US boots-on-ground interventions. For his part, President Obama has been kept true to his campaign promises. Similarly, Romney discusses tightening the pressure on the Iranian regime and the need for more naval fleets as cornerstones of his foreign policy, issues he would most likely accomplish if elected president. Unfortunately, these changes in policy are exaggerated to energize the bases and are blown out of proportion by the 24-hour news media. They make it sound as if the democratic and republican parties are on completely opposite sides of the political spectrum. These disagreements on policy lack intellectual depth, as they have become the status quo of what the party establishments have settled upon. While Obama and Romney do have different backgrounds and worldviews (though not as pronounced as many believe) at their core both see greater US engagement as paramount to the foreign policy goals they want to accomplish. The paradox of the Obama Administration is that as they have called for less direct involvement, the proxy wars and constant drone strikes have noticeably increased--which ultimately will lead to prolonged conflict. If Romney is elected, tightening sanctions and marginalizing Iran even more could culminate in another avoidable armed conflict.


Since 2008 China has continued to steadily increase its purchasing power parity and establish itself in Africa. The Middle East was rocked by the so-called Arab Spring. Vladimir Putin has asserted Russia back as a serious geopolitical player in Asia. Iran and Israel have increased tensions and are on a collision path to war. Iraq was left a failed state. Afghanistan continues to flounder on any real progress. The trends around the world have been of increased tension towards the very principles espoused as cornerstones of US foreign policy. We must ask, then, does greater presence abroad increase our national security and foster freer trade? Are we any better off? Politics has become a reactionary sport in Washington—but on this point we must agree to ask the questions. The Obama and Romney campaigns are microcosms for how so many of us see the world: as black or white, republican or democrat, pro-war or anti-war. But these aren't are only options. It is how many of us have been conditioned to think, shackling our potential by limiting our options and intellectual capability. This election, expect foreign policy to follow the conventional trend prevalent in the Obama and Romney campaigns, unless we do something about it.




For Liberty,

Paul

      Isaac Newton proved white light was heterogeneous; it carried the colors of the rainbow within it until the moment it collided with a prism, and then the colors splintered off dispersing the colors of the rainbow.   To understand how the US contributed to a society that has increasingly begun viewing and identifying itself along various colors of the rainbow instead of heterogeneous white light, we must first acknowledge that we provided The Prism.  American foreign policy in Iraq has conceptually ignored this fact.  Namely, the theoretic Sunni-Shi’ah and Arab-Kurdish divides that have so dominated the Washington paradigm of Iraq were accepted at face value as ancient divisions.  This has shaped the Iraqi political climate, Iraqi culture and thought since the US-led invasion in 2003.  These ideas were borne into reality in every corner the American footprint laid its boot in Iraq. 

Upon arriving in Iraq in September 2009, my understanding of Iraqi religion, politics and culture was shaped through the Army Counter-Insurgency Center (COIN) briefings aimed at winning the hearts and mind struggle.  While the Army had the best of intentions, I wonder if the content of the COIN model had incorporated historical norms and better represented the ground truth if Iraq would be a different country today.  It was framed around the model that there were, in essence, three Iraqs—the north for the Kurds, the middle for the Sunnis, and the south for the Shi’ah—each assigned different values for their trustworthiness and loyalty working with Coalition Forces, as well as the perceived historical differences between the two main branches of Islam.  Soldiers were instructed to ask which branch of Islam one followed when questioning an Iraqi in the first five questions, generally right after his or her name.

The tertiary effect of such questioning exacerbates any tensions over perceived divisions; in a war zone, where chaos and uncertainty is a way of life, these questions have profound implications.  It was not until the latter half of my yearlong tour did I realize these types of questions were foreign, a new phenomenon that plunged the country into civil war and has left it fractioned among ethno-sectarian lines.  Analogous to the way Germans segregated Rwandans amongst Tutsi and Hutu ethnic divisions, US foreign policy in Iraq saw Sunni/Shi’ah/Kurd divisions as only held together by the firm hand of a dictator that needed to be addressed swiftly.  They largely ignored Mesopotamian history and culture for reasons that are still unclear.

Perhaps more than any other city in the Middle East, Baghdad has historically been the model for pluralism in the region.  The vibrant Christian neighborhoods of Dura lived peacefully amongst their Muslim brethren.  Prior to the Zionist Movement, Jews thrived amongst Arabs in Baghdad.  Like in other corners of the Ottoman Empire, all religions were tolerated.  But this is not strictly anecdotal historical fact; I have spoken to middle-aged Iraqi women south of Baghdad whose parents still speak with Iraq-born Jews who now live outside modern-day Iraq.  How fascinating is it that we can talk to people today who did not see things along religious or ethnic lines?  The paradox of trying to bring something to a people who already had it before foreign ideas of pan-nationalism were introduced is difficult to wrap my head around.  Still, the Prism exists and expands its rainbow further each day as the so-called “conservative” intellectuals like Robert Kagan call to further the American Empire- a call heeded by both the so-called liberal and conservative movements today.  Those that want less military bases and political engagement are “soft on defense,” or termed “peaceniks,” without looking at the validity of their arguments.

‘History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does Rhyme’

Days after securing a second term in 2004, President George W. Bush stood at a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss Iraq and broader Middle East policy.  Bush’s views on democracy as a self-sustaining mechanism where upon those who are elected best serve and represent the people is best surmised in his response when a pool reporter asked about the occasional harsh peace of a dictator as perhaps being more pragmatic than implementing democracy in a the Middle East:

President Bush: Well, first of all, if there’s an election, the Iraqis will have come up with someone who is duly elected.  In other words, democracy will have spoken.  And the person is going to have to listen to the people, not to the whims of a dictator, not to their own desires – personal desires.  The great thing about democracy is that you actually go out and ask people for a vote, as you might have noticed recently.  And the people get to decide the course of their future.  And so it’s a contradiction in terms to say a dictator gets elected.  The person who gets elected is chosen by the people.  And so I don’t—I’m not--

Q: You can be elected and be a tyrant. 

President Bush: Well, you can be elected and then be a strong man, and then you get voted out, so long as you end up honoring democracy.  But if you’re true to democracy, you’ll listen to the people, not to your own desires, you’ll do what the people want you to do.  That’s the difference between democracy and a tyrant.  

The Bush Corollary to the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine on the Middle East, for all the tangents it made along the way in its eight years, had at its core a certain fundamentalism that is undisputable. "You're either with us or against us; you're either evil or you're good," he declared in the run-up to the Iraq War.  The Bush Administration took this position many times, rhapsodizing the sacredness of democracy as the antithesis to evil.  Many tenets of the Bush Corollary are apparent if one interchanges “terrorism” in lieu of “communism,” in Eisenhower’s Middle East Doctrine Speech to Congress. .  But Bush went further than any President has, waging a war based upon the premise that Saddam’s crippled Iraq may have, one day, posed a serious threat to American hegemony.    Bush’s worldview that democratically elected governments produce a voice of the people and for the people disregarded so many of the elements that are needed for a true democracy once a government is in place, a reality Bush confronted many times in Iraq. Ultimately, Bush’s failures in Iraq have been a byproduct of American foreign policy in the broader Middle East since the Eisenhower Administration increased engagement with Gamal Nasr during the Cold War.  Still, Bush must shoulder much of the responsibility, as drawing battle lines defined as good and evil leaves no room for dialogue or dissent.  This dangerous thinking was carried out into fruition under Bush where Eisenhower stopped short.

The Obama Administration has developed a comfortable relationship with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki much in the same way Ronald Reagan developed a relationship with Saddam in the 1980s to counter Soviet influence and Revolutionary Iran.  Both are examples of expedient relationships, paradoxical to the rhetoric from both Obama and Reagan.  Maliki is Saddam 2.0; in some ways he is worse because he commands under the guise of liberty and democracy, blessed to operate as he pleases while American officials in the Green Zone find themselves constantly out of touch.  Today, bombings happen on a regular basis, electricity is still sporadic, and a new form of Marxism-Leninism has arisen from the many who politicize Islam, replacing the intellectual class.   The brain drain that left Iraq will take generations to replenish.  Obama and Biden chose not to support Dr. Ayad Allawi after the March 2010 elections although he won a plurality of seats in Parliament.  He is one of the few Iraqi politicians left in Iraq who sees beyond any perceived Sunni/Shi’ah/Kurd divisions, and one of only a handful that could successfully restore security and stabilize relations with bordering countries.  But that would have required diligence.  After all, Iran did not contribute millions of dollars to his campaign in the same way they contributed to Maliki. After 5,000 American lives lost, tens of thousands maimed, and the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqis, there is an obligation to finally set things right, however.  The Obama/Biden foreign policy in Iraq largely followed where Bush left off.  The failures have left Iraq vulnerable in almost every conceivable way.


            As we have recently seen during the so-called Arab Spring, revolutions that happen without external force ultimately produce smoother transitions in power.  In Egypt, although many of the same war hawks are quick to criticize the Muslim Brotherhood as Islamic fundamentalists, this is the outcome they have espoused.  Were there not democratic elections?  But democracy is about so much more than elections; how the Egyptians honor the rights of the minorities and limit government overreach will ultimately decide their fate.  In Syria, US intervention would produce yet another entangling alliance in the region. . While the dead have surpasses 12,000 and the horrors of Assad’s regime are played out on (some) media outlets, the cry for US intervention has not gained traction in Congress.  Direct military intervention should not be an option; as we proved in Iraq, we have a poor track record of picking winners and losers.  Direct intervention would not, in the long run, benefit Syria.   Enlisting the help of Ahmad Chalabi, supporting the do-nothing Jafari Administration, empowering the likes of Paul Bremer to mismanage Iraq in every conceivable fashion; these personalities and appointments would only resurface in Syria albeit in different forms.  Obama’s recent nomination of Brett McGurk as the next Ambassador to Iraq shows Obama and Biden never fully understood beyond the divisions we exacerbated, even after the campaign rhetoric we heard in 2008.  McGurk, who recently withdrew his nomination due to questions about his moral behavior when he worked in the Green Zone, was fully supportive of Maliki and offered to meet with Kurdish officials on a weekly basis if appointed.  Seeing the country along these lines reinforces The Prism idea, and yet we continue nominating those cut from the same cloth and expecting different results.

            I am still optimistic things may change in Iraq.   One cannot ever underestimate their collective resilience.  As RFK said, “the greatest voice is the voice of the people - speaking out - in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out - in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes - let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind.”  The Unites States can encourage the voice, but it cannot be the voice. It cannot force the voice through money or coercion. Spending billions of dollars a year for the Embassy in Baghdad does not help the Iraqi people.  It does not help the United States.  It does not strengthen the cause for liberty and for peace, in Iraq and the United States.  In order for things to change, we must both humbly acknowledge our wrongs.  Both sides must see beyond the boundaries we have created for ourselves, past divisions of good and evil, and onto a new dimension free of judgment.  In George Washington’s Farewell Address to Congress, he warned of entangling alliances.  He also provided what he saw as our newfound role in the world.  Perhaps Iraq and the United States could, and should, reclaim more peace and liberty through greater cultural engagement—through education in ways that enrich the lives of both —not through war and subsequent mega-embassies.  

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.


For Liberty, 

After a long observation of the events that have taken place in recent months, we are back. Many of the recent events have been overwhelming for some, disappointing for others and of no importance to most. I am here to say most of it has been of no importance to me. My motivation and inner flame to continue the fight for liberty remains. The players always change, what stays is the game and the rules of that game are exactly what we, in the liberty movement, are trying to change. Therefore, we must move on and continue to fight for liberty and individual freedom for all. 

Now on to the most pressing issue, The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare or whatever you want to call it). It is just another government program attempting to solve a problem by enlisting the government's awesome bureaucrats and throwing the people's money at it, and we all know how that turns out for our country.  

Now look, Obama is not the root of the problem here, universal healthcare is a fundamental bedrock to the left and all they needed were the right circumstances to pass it. They finally had those circumstances during the first two years of the current administration. However, that was the first major problem with this act, the way it was passed. This act was not passed with the American people's voice behind it, instead it was told to us that it was what we needed. It was more or less shoved down our throats because it was good for us. Much like a mother, who concocts a homemade remedy to cure her child, shoves the homemade potion down his/her throat because it is good for him/her. By the way that will no longer  be needed once ACA goes in effect because that mother will most likely feel compelled to take her son/daughter to the doctor. After all she is paying to have insurance at a more than likely higher premium in order to ensure she does not face the "tax" penalty.

I believe while the ACA may be beneficial to some it will always be at a cost to most. The ACA that was upheld by the Supreme Court June 28, 2012 is almost an exclusive benefit to pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies, and the federal government. Let us get this straight the majority of health ailments that plague our country are those that could be prevented or cured by our own improvements in health. Either by  eating healthier, exercise, or being actively involved in caring for our body. Is this mandatory? Of course not. Will you have to pay a penalty tax if you don't take care of yourself? Never. Well I shouldn't say never. Currently, there is no mandate that says you must be healthy, everyone is entitled to make whatever decision they choose,and also must accept the consequences or benefits of those decisions.

Unfortunately, there is a horrible disease that many in society have, they believe it is the government's role to provide for the public. This has sadly never been the most efficient or effective way to accomplish any task. Again, some may benefit from the ACA, but it also may raise prices for healthcare across the board, as it already has. How is it possible to mandate that children must be covered until the age 26 or that an insurance company can disregard pre-existing conditions, without passing that cost on to others somehow.  Not to mention, that we are no longer shopping around to pay for an insurance policy, doctor, and hospital, but now we are mandated to pay for an insurance policy (at a higher premium), doctor, hospital, and now government bureaucracy. There will be rationing. Bureaucrats, not doctors, patients or family members will be the ones who ultimately make the decisions on who will receive life-saving treatments and procedures once in a state of rationing.

While the ACA may be helpful to some just remember how social security started out. So, when 2014 arrives make sure that you have health insurance or risk the penalty of a fine or "tax". Let's just hope the premiums and co-pays are low enough to actually make paying them more logical than paying the tax. In which case that tax will be paid to the government, who will then use that money to pay for those who can't afford healthc.....you know what I will just stop there.

For Liberty,

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/fox_cities/what-the-affordable-care-act-means-for-you 

Welcome to the first full day of what is assuredly our last as a free nation. The government is setting itself up for complete information domination.

Educate yourselves on this bill. Contact your Senators and urge them to vote no. There is no way Obama vetoes this bill.  NONE.

Gizmodo's What is CISPA?

CISPA Wikipedia Page

Gotta love foreign press! - The Guardian's Coverage of Dr. Ron Paul's opposition to CISPA
Where is fox/cnn/msnbc on this bill?

Digital Trends Opinion Piece

Wired Opinion Piece

Please add to the links in the comments below and we will update this post as more information becomes available.

-For Liberty

  Would a proportional representation system foster liberty and individual freedom more than our current single member district plurality system? In our current "lesser of two evils" approach to selecting our elected officials only one side of the table is represented in a district. The majority is represented strongly while the minority is forced to either remain unrepresented or choose the "lesser of two evils". In this way smaller parties are flushed out and herded into the larger parties and their flagship. In today's political arena, we have only two choices because of this system.  

  In a single member district plurality system a smaller party's voice can only be heard if a successful candidate runs for office and gets elected. However, it is close to impossible for a small party candidate to compete with big Republican and Democratic campaigns. What is the result? In order for an individual to win an election he/she must run under a bigger party's flag and sacrifice many of the smaller party's values. For example, Ron Paul while officially a Republican is a Libertarian at heart. Dr. Paul in order to become influential and get elected decided rally under the Republican Party’s wing since it closely reflected most of his values. However, currently we see where that has led. Dr. Paul has been ostracized from the Republican Party and labeled the "loony uncle". Ron Paul's ideas, while not popular with the Republican party, are also not considered "mainstream" therefore his true political identity as a Libertarian and its party's values are not taken seriously.


  How would the other system look? Well, its difficult to say. Although there are different variations of the proportional representation system, its core is the same. Every party has a seat at the table. The amount of voice and voting power each party has at the table varies, but each party is represented nonetheless. This system may seem nice at first glance, but it too has its flaws. Since the amount of representatives in a parliament directly reflects the percentage of vote by the people, two major parties still have control. However, in order to pass initiatives and legislation much more compromise and different points of view must be taken into account. This will result in delayed legislation and even stale mate as the larger party's debate and swindle back door deals to gain the votes of the smaller party's representatives. The upside is deals must be made, and the larger party's must compromise with the ideas of smaller parties in order to gain the majority. In our current presidential race, all the rage is over who is more conservative, who is just moderate (i.e. flip flopper), or who is more liberal. Barack Obama, while in the Democratic party, is not as far to the left as many in the Democratic party would like him to be. In fact, Obama is closer to the center overall. I would even go so far as to say, Obama and his predecessor Bush are not much different.

  So where am I going with this? They each were elected from platforms promised to the people. What occurred after is debatable, but I think we both know what I am trying to say here. What happened to their hard lined rhetoric they once pushed as their non wavering platform to the people? They lied. Simple. I don't think I'm making a profound revelation here as I'm sure many of you already understand this, but what I am trying to point out is who, then, are these Presidents representing? It seems in the past decade the people have not been benefiting from the decisions coming out of Washington. 

  Now we have come to our present day situation. The choice is ours. The liberty movement is alive and well. The stakes are only getting higher and the time is only getting shorter. The proverbial torch is being passed to our generation as we speak. What happens if we choose to continue the same ol' decision of choosing the "lesser of two evils" a President who never amounts to what our expectations have led us to believe? Nothing good. Our flame will flicker and the momentum we are currently experiencing will fade away. 

  Let us not allow this to happen. The Kingmakers have had their power for far too long. It is time for the people to stand up and ensure the safety and preservation of liberty for all. 

For Liberty

Make no mistake, I personally do not view drugs as a benefit to society as a whole. I do however, believe in free will and the power of the individual. To put it simply people should have the ability to make decisions for themselves without the hindrance of rules and regulations imposed by people who claim moral superiority over others. This viewpoint to me is in direct contrast to the values of Christianity.

Discuss below.

For Liberty,

Diesel

Sources:

Fox News

NY Times

   A controversial regulation that forces almost all employers to provide health insurance coverage of abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization, without a co-pay has been introduced to pass along with ObamaCare. This affects all who pay premiums for insurance, thereby raising the cost for those who may not believe in contraceptive or abortion. Since when is it acceptable to not only force upon the public healthcare with a penalty of fine if you choose not to participate, but now to institute a mandate that must be paid for even if you do not believe in it. That is like forcing a mandate for all to pay for the construction, maintenance, and salaries for a church organization. Of course, this would be outrageous to those that do not believe in organized religion!

The government represents the people, meaning the government must serve the people's best interests and protect our Liberty. I do not believe in lobbyists or interest groups. It seems more and more each day there are two groups in America, the government and the people. Big money will have endless resources to always meddle in the affairs of government, the American people do not. The people deserve a government that simply protects our freedoms and provides national defense. 

Religion and government are not to be combined. A government mandate or regulation that purports to ensure equality and fairness most always does the opposite. The government has two tools to enact laws and policies. The first is taxes that we the people pay. The second is force by sending a police man to your door if you don't pay. So to say that any regulation or policy will be fair to all will most always give preference to some at the cost to others.

The best policy is freedom. The best policy is Liberty. The freedom to choose, think, and act for oneself without harming others in the process.

What do you think?

_    Unfortunately, I think the Republican Party at large lacks the ability for empathy. This was evident during the first of two SC debates when the crowd was heard booing Dr. Paul when he suggested applying the golden rule to our foreign policy. Is this idea so radical? Are we not a Christian Nation founded on Christianity's principles? What the hell is going on in this country? Why are we in such a rush to go to war? These are questions that Americans would benefit from answering for themselves.

_You will hear the standard line that "war is hell." What does that mean? What is war? By definition, war is invading an enemy territory, destroying infrastructure, imposing your will, obliterating enemies, and claiming the conquered lands. What the United States has been involved in since the Korean Conflict is not war. What is so hellish about building bridges, schools, municipal buildings, roads, and cultural centers? These activities are errands of an empire. We as conservatives have been duped into supporting empire because it is the "pro-military" stance. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the regular American citizen understood what war is and how soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are trained and prepared for war they would understand that counter insurgency and nation building do not fit into the mold of war. These activities fit into empire building. We as a Republic and one of the last bastions of hope and liberty in the world should look to other failed republics in history to gain an understanding of the dangers of empire and overstretching one's military.

No where in the definition of war will you find any of the activities listed above. War is about destruction, we should not rebuild our foes after their defeat. If Americans feel badly enough about our enemies there are plenty of charitable organizations that would willingly provide services through private means after the cessation of hostilities.
This leads us into another point on why we should be hesitant to rush to war. There should not be financial benefit for anyone from catastrophic loss of life. This is as much a commentary on U.S. companies in war-zones as it is on the Iraqi and Afghan "allies" that accepted our money during our forces' time in those areas. There are a multitude of studies that suggest widespread corruption involving our Afghan and Iraqi partners.

In short, to state the obvious, the American people continue to be deceived by the MSM, the government, and the political parties. War propaganda leads to more and more bellicose language. This language leads to the maiming and death of our most precious resource, our people. Our veterans will ultimately shoulder the burdens of these undeclared wars. Our Veteran's Affairs system is destined to be overwhelmed. The amount of wounded returning from these conflicts is astounding  and the rate of suicide among our returning vets is unfathomable.

I am a conservative, I am not anti-war, but I am also not pro-war. The only patriotic and liberty preserving stance is to be pro-defense. What does this mean?

To be pro-defense, you must acknowledge that war is dirty, messy business, and that the United States only has so many cheeks to turn. This means that there is an appropriate time and place for war. However, we must not be so willing to send our brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, husbands, and wives off to die for "U.S. interests" (Whatever that means). The U.S. must never be the aggressor, and we must never use international bodies to legitimize our involvement in armed conflict. The United States must only respond with force when force is applied by an aggressor. I would also accept U.S. intervention to stop ongoing genocide. I do not support nor will I ever support installing pro-U.S. governments in any nation, this practice has proved misguided and disastrous time and time again.

Please share your thoughts.

I advocate the immediate deployment of US Combat Troops here:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/one-mexican-state-bordering-us-was-deadlier-all-afghanistan-last-year