1. He co-sponsored PIPA in the U.S.
2. He is also the primary sponsor of the Johnson-Shelby Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012, which “Requires the Administration to devise a comprehensive strategy and report to Congress on how best to assist Iran’s citizens in freely and safely accessing the Internet, developing counter-censorship technologies, expanding access to ‘surrogate’ programming including VOA’s Persian News Network, and Radio FARDA inside Iran, and taking other similar measures.”

Interesting how things work out, eh?

[HT: Jason Ditz]

• “At all events, Canada must be ours [say those who support the war]; and this is to be the sovereign balm, the universal panacea, which is to heal all the wounds we have received…This is to…secure the liberty of the seas hereafter…The conquest of Canada has been represented to be so easy as to be little more than a party of pleasure. We have, it has been said, nothing to do but to march an army into the country…and the Canadians will immediately flock to it and place themselves under our protection. They have been represented as ripe for revolt, panting for emancipation from a tyrannical Government…the mere sight of an army of the United States would immediately put an end to all thoughts of resistance, that we had little else to do only to march…This subject deserves a moment’s consideration”

[Quotes from Samuel Taggart, Massachusetts Congressman and Presbyterian Pastor, in a letter published in the Alexandria Gazette on June 24, 1812.]

Here are some interesting stats (though not necessarily drawn exclusively from that particular image).

Regarding U.S. military overseas:

• Number of independent countries recognized by the State Department: 195. Number of countries with U.S. Armed Forces stationed there: 150.
• U.S. Armed Forces stationed in Italy: over 9,000.
• U.S. Troops overseas: approximately 500,000
•  Number of U.S. military bases around the world: 700-1000.
• Number of bases in Afghanistan: 400
• Percentage of U.S. share of world military spending:43%

Regarding Israel’s enemies

• According to Global Fire Power, Israel’s military strength exceeds that of Iran, Germany, Pakistan, Italy, Egypt, France, and Japan.
• Running some math on Global Fire Power’s numbers. Israel spends 138 times more per square kilometer on defense than Iran does.
• Israel spends about 6.3% of its GDP on the military, Saudi Arabia about 11%. Iran spends 1.8%. Syria spends 4%.
• Number of nuclear weapons Israel has: Unknown, but likely between 75–200. Number of nuclear weapons Iran: None, but allegedly working on their first one for possibly over 30 years.

In light of these figures, import questions to ask are:

1. Is this  (U.S. military sprawl) sustainable in light of the current economic and geopolitical climate?
2. At what point does overseas military over-extension become a threat to national defense rather than an aid to it?
3. Why is Iran portrayed in American foreign policy coverage as being an existential threat to Israel (and to some degree even a threat to the U.S.)?
4. At what point does a militarized country (such as Israel) become self-sustaining and no longer needs U.S. aid?

Am I reading the U.S. Constitution wrong??? Doesn’t Article I, Section 6 say that Senators “shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place”.

“The president is usurping his powers as commander in chief. There is no legal authority for what he has done. If the president can intervene in Korea without congressional approval, he can go to war in Malaya or Indonesia or Iran or South America.” – Robert Taft, Senator from Ohio in 1950 in response to Trueman’s intervention in Korea.

1. What is the evidence that the protection of the country is the object principally regarded? (Webster)
2. When it [the country] calls thus loudly for the treasure and lives of the people, what pledge does it offer that it will not waste all in the same preposterous pursuits which have hitherto engaged it? (Webster)
3. In the failure of all past promises, do we see any assurance of future performance? (Webster)
4. [I]s war the true remedy? (Randolph)
5. Who will profit by it? (Randolph)
6. Who must suffer by it? (Randolph)
7. Will it render us more respected among foreign nations..? (Taggart)
8. [Will it render other countries] less disposed to make encroachments on our rights in [the] future? (Taggart)

Daniel Webster: Senator of Massachusetts

John Randolph: VA Congressman

Samuel Taggart: Massachusetts Congressman

“Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of Government may engage it?”

- Senator of Massachusetts, Daniel Webster (opposing a bill proposing enacting a draft with eye towards conquering Canada)

Watch this video. I ask, in disbelief, how can anyone vote for this guy? This may sound a little harsh, but it’s just stunning. Honestly, I think that if he was wearing a military fatigue, represented another country, and said the exact same things…..the people (ie. those who are currently voting for him would) would call him a lunatic mad-man.

Any reader of this blog will realize I am not at all a fan of Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney (in other words all the 4 GOP frontrunners besides Ron Paul).

Regarding Rick Santorum…

1. According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, in 2006 Santorum was one of 3 most corrupt members of the Senate.
2. He violated the Senate Gift rule
3. Over 4 years in the House and 12 years as a senator, Santorum developed a reputation for his immoderate use of earmarks.
4. Believes that it is “the duty of each and every American citizen…to stand up and say ‘I support Israel’”.
5. Opposes withdrawing from Afghanistan, supports foreign aid to Pakistan, and believes that because Pakistan has nuclear weapons it is automatically a friend of the U.S.
6. Is a strong supporter of the Cuban embargo.
7. He voted for the highway bill, subsidies for PA dairy farms, etc.
8. Wants some sort of economic war with China (though denies it is a trade war)
9. Says he is against abortion and is a social and fiscal conservative, but supported the campaign of Arlen Spenser (pro-choice and “Pork Spender of the Year”) over Pat Toomy).
10. Voted YES on the Patriot Act, extending the Patriot Act warrantless wiretap provisions.
11. Voted NO to habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees and having the CIA report on its detainees and interrogations.
12. In a time of near-economic disaster, his budget-cutting zeal does not extend to military spending and defends “robust U.S. military spending”.
13. Shown vast ignorance on foreign policy (in a debate he thought Perez Musharraf was still in power in Pakistan).

Regarding Mitt Romney…

1. Has a particularly strong messianic vision of American Exceptionalism (“The Case For American Greatness”, “America is always known as the hope of the Earth”, etc.)
2. Wishes to increase the size of the military by at least 100,000 troops and an expansion of the Navy that would cost an estimated $40 billion.
3. He said he doesn’t know whether it was necessary for the US Congress to issue a declaration of war before engaging in acts of war and would consult lawyers.
4. Has shown gross misunderstandings in regard to the Iraq situation (ie. he said the war could have been avoided if Hussein allowed the IAEA inspectors
   into the country, when in actuality Hussein did allow the inspectors into the country).
5. Has advocated a “Special Partnership” force in Pakistan, a team of CIA agents and Army special forces to aid in military support, gun supplies, etc
6. Felt Obama took too long to get involved in Libya and criticized Obama for ruling out ground forces in Libya.
7. He is on record saying that “We ought to double” the expensive Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
8. He praised the U.S. military for not allowing prisoners to have judicial review
9. He supports the Patriot Act, believes FBI wiretaps and spying on immigrants is OK, and thinks it is best not to say whether water boarding is torture or not.
10. In January 2008, the National Taxpayer Union determined that Romney’s campaign proposals would increase the federal budget by $19.5 billion.
11. He supported rescuing the auto-industry with government-backed loans and warranty guarantees.
12. Supported the Cuba embargo.

Newt Gingerich…

1. Supports Red Scare type loyalty tests for everyone.
2. Supports an assasination or coup in Iran
3. He believes the “right to be innocent until proven guilty” only applies “if it’s a matter of criminal law”. He rejects applying the same basic standards of Western justice to national security.
4. His consulting company accepted $1.6 million from government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac at the height of the real estate boom. Then he said that then-Senator Obama ought to return contributions he had received from Freddie Mac and its sister racket, Fannie Mae. And then Newt brought out a campaign book in which he argued for getting rid of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
5. In 1997 he advocated the death penalty for possesion of a certain quality of marijuana (while he is among 100 million Americans who have smoked marijuana). In 1996, he introduced the “Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 1996″.
6. His thinking is entrenched in unabashed moral relativism, especially when it comes to his own behavior. In spite of his support for the death penalty for marijuana possession, he had previously smoked marijuana back in the day. He maintains that while marijuana remained illegal the whole time, some time between the sixties and now it transitioned from being moral to immoral–that’s his way of explaining why it was ok back then but not now.
7. A 2006 speech at an awards dinner he gave calls into question his commitment to the First Amendment
8. Believes American Exceptionalism is central to the nation’s survival
9. He believes that a deadline for Iraqi withdrawal is legislating defeat.
10. He believes water boarding is “by every technical rule not torture” even though the U.S. Army Field Manual calls it torture.
11. As Jospeh Knippenberg said “Gingrich has a self-regard so immense that it rivals Obama’s – but, unlike Obama’s, is untamed by self-discipline”.
12. As George Will said “Gingrich’s is an amazingly efficient candidacy in that it embodies everything that is disagreeable about modern Washington. He’s the classic rental politician.”

And people will actually be voting for these guys? I shouldn’t be surprised–but It astounds me.

1. For as much as they denounce each others foreign policy, the mainstream Democrats and the Republicans agree on the main core matters of foreign policy. Their disagreement is often about operational matters and petty details.  It’s absolutely astounding that you could have 9 candidates for President (including Obama) and have so little variation in foreign policy (except for Ron Paul). There is a growing understanding that none of the mainstream candidates are really addressing the core issues of foreign policy, they are all arguing over technicalities while they presume American exceptionalism and that they must wage expensive, bloody, and questionably justified wars. Their critiques of each other boil down to scoring points in political feuds, rather than arriving at a rational, beneficial foreign policy. There is a hunger for a candidate that will truly turn over the tables and scale back the empire. People are starting to see the way foreign policy impacts their children and grandchildren.
2. The political spectrum is far more complicated than the left-right paradigm has lead us to believe. People are beginning to see past the left-right dichotomies and see that public policy is complicated and they are feeling more freedom to follow and advocate what they feel is right rather than just parrot what “their side” tells them. They are feeling more free to explore less mainstream candidates and candidates who are more complex than a left-right label. They respect a man that is willing to stick up against the rest of his contemporaries and his party for a just cause. They’ve realized that new paint jobs on regurgitated strategies just won’t do anymore, so to speak.
3. There is a long history of Republicans who have talked fiscal conservatism, but have not walked it at all. They love spending, they just don’t like the Democrats spending. This years rounds of debates was quite illustrative. Lots of pet programs and lots of defending the very same sort of things that they chastised the Democrats for.  In the debates, the so-called fiscal conservatives became big-government advocates of spending as soon as one would ask whether one might be able to cut a little money to the Department of Defense budget. They are looking for a radical change in economics, and the other candidates just aren’t offering it.
4. People are realizing the importance of the principle of liberty. They don’t believe the propaganda that a free society necessarily leads to anarchism.  Quite frankly, many people have advocated government intervention against the perpetrators of their pet peeves only to find the very momentum that they started being used against them. The emergence of the “Religious Right” gives many case studies in this. Religious people, especially Christians, are increasingly seeing that you reap what you sow, and if you use government to pester other people, that momentum will at some point in time be used against you. People are rapidly seeing the folly of using government coercion to accomplish their means and are seeing the benefit of using non-aggressive persuasion, harkening back to the age old saying “A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still”.
5. People are tired of big government, but they are ALSO tired of corporatism (ie. crony capitalism). Many Republicans critique “big government” and praise the “free market” while they wield their government power by corruption, enabling corporations to do things they would never be able to do in a free market. People are hungry for those who will step outside of the old mantras and critique not only socialism, but also “crony capitalism”.
6. People are sick and tired of politicians that put party, re-election, politics, business deals, etc. over principle. They are looking for someone who is going to be bold enough to go against the grain vote 1 to 250, and say something that gets them booed and loses them thousands of votes.  And the sort of person who doesn’t have the aura of having spend days upon days with image consultants and pollsters is very appealing these days. They want the sort of person whose political philosophy is understandable and not a whatever-way-the-wind-blows sort of thing.
7. There is a growing understanding that being pro-liberty and pro-life ought to be compatible and there is a hunger for pro-life candidates who consistently take that basic respect for the life of others and apply it in other areas such as foreign policy, economics, law enforcement, due process, etc. (unfortunately some so-called pro-lifers are drastically inconsistent because they do not have any principle of non-aggression in other areas of policy–the idea of respect for life just magically appears when they start talking about abortion). People want a candidate who sees a rational connection between upholding the life of babies and all the other areas of public policy that deal with respecting life.
8. Seven words: Santorum, Romney, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman, and Obama (the Republican and Democratic parties have a tradition of offering questionable candidates)

I’m quite sure that these trends will outlast Ron Paul.  Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but undoubtedly spot-on in many (if not most) areas and refreshingly different and admirable. There is no reason to believe that the wave that has brought him to become one of the top 3 GOP contenders will be getting any smaller even after he is dead and buried.  It will be interesting to see what directions it takes.

It so turns out that an ethical, effective, and rational public policy is odious to the establishment of both the Democrat and Republican parties.  But I think people are waking up. I expect to see decreasing mainstream Democrat/Republican hedgemony and an increasing desire to work out policy outside of the old, worn out left-right dichotomy.

The categories in which they raised concerns included:

• School funding (especially for breaking state policies for his own kids)
• Passing a bill regarding weather services which benefited a corporation that he has links to (and then publicly *blaming* Hurricane Katrina victims for a lack of foresight that could arguably be one of the results of his bill)
• Taking money from U.S. Tobacco Corporation’s PAC the day after he cast a crucial vote on a buyout of tobacco farmers
• Six months before Santorum introduced legislation to reduce excise tax on brewers, he received a donation from the Miller/Anheuser-Busch PAC
• Links between donations to Santorum from Puerto Rican hosptal executives/administrators and his voting for the Puerto Rico Medicare Reembersement Equity act
• Questions about his independence in terms of energy, esp. his advocacy of federal subsidy of fuel plants
• Violation of the Senate Gift rule in the Senate Code of Official Conduct