War as the enemy of liberty

War allows governments to increase spending, taxes, and regulations in order to feed the war machine. War also enables the government to violate personal liberty. Wars can justify measures that remain in place long after the wars end.

War Abroad and Authoritarianism at Home | Ron Paul Institute } Ron Paul:

March 23, 2026 - “'War is the health of the state.' That phrase, coined by Randolph Bourne, explains why opposition to war is a priority of many libertarians. War allows governments to increase spending, taxes, and regulations in order to feed the war machine. Wars can justify measures that remain in place long after the wars end. An example of this is income tax withholding that was created to fund World War Two.

"The use of war as a justification for increased interference in the market is reason enough for libertarians to oppose war. However, war also enables the government to violate liberty. During the Civil War, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, shut down newspapers, and instituted a military draft. The draft was also used in World Wars One and Two, as well as Korea and Vietnam. During World War One, Congress passed the Sedition Act, outlawing criticism of the government. Widespread violations of liberty are a hallmark of the ongoing 'war on terror.' An infamous example of war being used to justify violations of liberty is the internment of Japanese Americans during World War Two.

"Given this history, it is not surprising that the Iran War may lead to crackdowns on free speech. Following criticisms of the media’s coverage of the Iran War by President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr made a post on Twitter telling broadcast networks that the FCC has the power to revoke their broadcast licenses if they do not fulfill their responsibility to act in the 'public interest.' This was clearly a threat to revoke the license of any broadcast network whose coverage of the war displeases the Trump administration.

"Threatening to use the FCC’s power to shut down broadcast networks that the president dislikes is a blatant violation of the First Amendment by Chairman Carr. Chairman Carr may think that he can get a court to approve revoking a broadcaster’s license for its war coverage by claiming it is endangering national security. This would hardly be the first time the government used national security as an excuse to censor its critics.

"Since the US is waging the Iran War in collaboration with Israel and the Trump Administration supports defining criticism of Israel as antisemitism, it is not out of the realm of possibility that opposition to the war will be labeled as antisemitic hate speech and be banned.

"Thousands of American troops are being deployed to the Middle East. With no end to the war in sight and the US military taking on the task of ensuring oil tankers have safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, the US military may soon need a major increase in troops. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has refused to rule out the possibility that President Trump may reinstate the draft.

"The Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) makes implementing the draft easer then ever by automatically registering every 18-year-old man with the Selective Service. The draft assumes rights are gifts from government that can be revoked at the whim of government officials. Violations of liberty come along with wars. Therefore, opposition to wars unrelated to the legitimate security needs of the country must be a priority for all who value liberty."

Copyright © 2026 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/war-abroad-and-authoritarianism-at-home/

US goes to war with Iran

Stuck in Another Disastrous Middle East War | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

March 2, 2026 - "Unfortunately, President Trump listened to the neocons and Benjamin Netanyahu instead of his MAGA base and other voices of caution as he launched a surprise attack on Iran over the weekend. For the second time in nine months, the US Administration used negotiations ... as a cover to launch a pre-planned attack.

"Last week’s talks produced 'progress' according to all sides, with technical teams set to meet this week to work out the details. President Trump, however, suddenly announced that he was not happy with the talks because the Iranian side refused to say 'the magic words' that they would not pursue nuclear weapons. But Iran has been insisting for decades that they have no interest in producing a nuclear weapon and our own intelligence has confirmed that they are not doing so.

"Shortly after President Trump’s announcement, the US and Israel launched their attack, killing Iran’s religious leader along with some 40 other political and military leaders in a 'decapitation' strike.

"It was supposed to be like the Venezuela operation. Quick and painless for the US. Kill the leadership and the long-suffering people would take to the streets and reclaim their country. It may make a good plot for a Hollywood movie, but in real life these regime change operations have never worked. Millions did take to the streets in Iran, but it was to mourn the slain Ayatollah and to reaffirm support for their government. 

"Just like we 'rallied around the flag' after the attacks on 9/11.

"Quickly, Iranian retaliation for the attacks began to take their toll on US assets and Israel. US soldiers have been killed and US fighter jets have been shot down. US bases in the region are either damaged or destroyed. Likewise, US embassies and consulates have come under attack, including by Iraqis likely still furious over the US destruction of their country 20 years ago. And, with the Pentagon warning that the operation may go weeks instead of days, we are quickly running out of missiles.

"Billions of dollars have already been spent on this unprovoked attack, and when the smoke clears – if it does – we may see hundreds of billions or maybe much more having been wasted on yet another Middle East war. Just what President Trump promised he would not do.

"The neocon 'cakewalk' crowd, including (Senator) Lindsey Graham and others, have been proven wrong again. Tragically, more American servicemembers may die while the neocons blame someone else for the fiasco they helped launch.

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said of the US/Israeli attack that 'this combination of forces enables us to do what I have longed to do for 40 years…' But the purpose of the US military is not to fulfill the decades-old wishes of foreign leaders. There is a good reason we have a Constitution that says only Congress can declare war.

"Launching a military strike during negotiations will have lasting negative effects for the United States. Who would ever trust US diplomacy again if talks are used as a distraction for pre-planned attacks?

"The Administration is doing its best to spin this unfolding disaster as all going according to plan, but what is the plan? No one knows. Do they know?

"Here’s a plan: End this today. Return the destroyed US bases to the countries where they are located. And just come home. That is what a real 'America first' movement looks like."

Copyright © 2026 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
https://ronpaulinstitute.org/stuck-in-another-disastrous-middle-east-war/

Trump revisits a changed Middle East

President Donald Trump's return visit this week is to a Middle East that has changed dramatically since his first-term trip seven years ago. 

Trump plane 001, 2011, courtesy IowaPolitics.com. CC BY-SA 2.0, Wikimedia Commons.

What Will Trump Find in the Middle East This Week? | Ron Paul Institute | Ron Paul:

May 12, 2025 - "President Trump’s return to the Middle East this week, the first since his first-term 2017 visit, will take place amidst great turmoil. It is a region that bears little resemblance to  the Middle East of 2017 and it appears, at least from media reporting this past week, that the Trump Administration has some understanding of this reality.

"Syria has been over-run and is now controlled by the same al-Qaeda that the US government supposedly spent 20 years fighting in the 'war on terror.' Violence against religious and ethnic minorities has, predictably, exploded under the 'rule' of a self-proclaimed Syrian president who until very recently was on the US 'most wanted' terrorist list.

"After the October 7, 2023, Hamas raid [on Israel], Gaza has been reduced to rubble and turned into a humanitarian catastrophe. Tens of thousands of civilians have been killed and perhaps another million face starvation. US bombs and financial aid have facilitated the utter destruction of Gaza.

"Iran has made peace with Saudi Arabia thanks to Chinese mediation and is deepening its ties with the Kingdom. Thus, the US has little leverage in talks with the two former enemies.

"Israel is conducting military operations against several countries in the region simultaneously as the world increasingly condemns its aggression against its neighbors.

"After tearing up the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran in his first term, President Trump is pushing for a new deal with Iran while threatening to attack if negotiations do not produce the results he demands.

"Massively increased US military action against the Houthis in Yemen starting in March did not result in their capitulation to US demands. Despite attempting to put the best spin on things, it is clear that the US retreated from the region in the face of a series of successful Yemeni actions in defense of their homeland. Biden and then Trump launched attacks against Yemen on behalf of Israel, but in the end the US president wisely removed US military assets from the area and called off the bombing.

"In short, President Trump will be wading into a minefield this week, but it is a peril that the US government has largely brought upon itself. Decades of US interventionism, from at least the 2003 Iraq war, have not produced the peaceful transformation of the region, as promised by the neocons and their mentor, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. From the unnecessary Iraq war – based on lies – to the destruction of Libya and Syria and countless other interventions, the Middle East is a basket case.

"And it turns out none of it actually helped Israel at all! Having ignited the tinder box of the region with US backing, Israel has now found itself friendless in a region increasingly hostile to its policies and even its very existence. Now there are indications that the Trump Administration is tiring of this entangling alliance as the MAGA base looks more warily on foreign interventionism.

"The lesson that President Trump should take with him is that to a large degree it has been US interventionism in the Middle East that has produced these poisoned fruits. His wise military disengagement from the Houthis in Yemen should serve as a US model for the region. Ties forged by trade and friendship produce peace and prosperity and are far preferable to endless neocon war cries."

Copyright © 2025 The Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Read more: https://ronpaulinstitute.org/what-will-trump-find-in-the-middle-east-this-week/

Russian war protests and Western sanctions

Why Russian opposition to Putin's war is crucial — and how U.S. sanctions could hurt it | The Week - Saoirse Gowan: 

March 6, 2022 - "Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggressive, immoral, and illegal invasion of Ukraine that began last month has only continued to escalate.... But where Ukrainians have banded together to fight for their lives and their sovereignty, Russia is not united in this war. Russian protestors have risked everything to stand against the war despite living under an authoritarian government that meets dissent with police and judicial brutality.... OVD-Info, an independent human rights media project that tracks political persecution in Russia, estimates that more than 8,000 Russians have been detained as a result of anti-war activities in recent days. Many media outlets have been forced to close or to cease their coverage of the conflict, and new legislation passed in the Russian Duma this week would impose 15-year prison sentences on any journalist or protestor who contradicts the government's official narrative about the invasion.

"These crackdowns don't show the strength of the Russian state, but rather its fear of the Russian people. Governments engage in repression of this nature precisely because ordinary people possess the capability to force changes in policy and government through collective action.... We know from U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan that withdrawals often come about due to a combination of stiff resistance from the occupied population and a strong anti-war movement that succeeds in keeping a costly war at the forefront of domestic debate. Americans may be less familiar with the catastrophic Soviet intervention in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, a blunder so bad it contributed significantly to the Soviet Union's collapse. That invasion involved over half a million Soviet troops, many conscripted. Some of its survivors surely must empathize with the young men forced into the conflict today — told by propagandists they'd be greeted as liberators only to discover they're hated as an invading army.... 

"Family members of conscript soldiers, too, are a key demographic for resisting the war from within Russia, much like the grieving American mothers whose children were sent off to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. While we condemn Russian political leadership, the generals carrying out this brutality, and soldiers who perpetrate atrocities, it is important for us not to dehumanize Russian conscripts and their families or celebrate their deaths. Nor should we turn a blind eye to instances of discrimination against Russian culture in the West, such as vandalism against Russian-themed restaurants, which will lend credibility to Putin's claims that Western solidarity with Ukrainians is motivated by hatred of Russians, especially when those claims are filtered through propagandistic media. 

"Indeed, this war is a tragedy for ordinary people on all sides — though certainly a greater one for Ukrainians as a whole — and we should remember that, absent the unlikely event of an outright Ukrainian military victory, the options remaining on the table are basically three: 1) the effective end of Ukrainian independence, 2) a military intervention by NATO that could trigger a nuclear exchange, or 3) a diplomatic solution fostered by a combination of Ukrainian resistance and Russian domestic opposition to the war. 

"In this context, other governments, and particularly that of the United States, have a responsibility to consider the outcomes of retaliatory economic measures. Russian history professor Gregory Afinogenov of Georgetown University argues at Dissent that sanctions against Putin himself will do little to change his behavior here because Putin is largely motivated by concerns other than material wealth. Sanctions against oligarchs, Afinogenov argues, will only increase their dependence on the Kremlin for economic security.... Afinogenov reserves his strongest criticism, however, for broad sanctions that primarily hurt the Russian working class: 

[C]utting Russia off from SWIFT and freezing central bank assets are the worst [sanctions], because they lead to hyperinflation and shortages of key imports that millions of vulnerable Russians depend on. Putin has already anticipated the likely effects of all three types of sanctions and therefore will not be deterred by them; neither have sanctions ever worked to catalyze effective political opposition to the regime (or to other regimes targeted by Western sanctions). [Dissent]

"This is correct. There is little evidence the U.S. sanctions which target ordinary people in Russia (and many, many other nations) do much other than giving the regime a scapegoat for economic troubles and a pretext for cracking down on domestic opposition. Punishing working-class Russians for their government's actions will not help Ukrainians, but it might undermine popular movements that could develop the capacity to force Putin to withdraw, to bring Russian conscripts home from war, and — we must hope — to bring larger change to Moscow, building a more peaceful, democratic, and egalitarian Russia....

"Leveling severe sanctions so we can 'do something' may make us feel less impotent. But cheering brave Russian protesters is useless if our policies actively hurt their push for a just peace."

Read more: https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1010938/why-russian-opposition-to-putins-war-is-crucial-and-how-us-sanctions

Beware the lies of war

Reminder: American Officials Lie About War – Reason.com- Matt Welch:

January 3, 2020 - "'Don't trust liars—especially about matters of war and peace,' writes Vox's Matthew Yglesias. 'Today's a day," The Atlantic's David Frum posits, 'when the most untruthful administration in US history will wish its statements could be believed.' It is appropriate, necessary, yet insufficient to remember that government lying is bad, that government lying about war is particularly bad, and that Donald Trump is one of the most bizarrely promiscuous liars ever seen in American political life....

"The truth, which literally hurts, is that every administration lies about war.... It was literally only last month that The Washington Post's "Afghanistan Papers" project detailed how ... 'Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible'....

"Frum wrote President George W. Bush's infamous 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union Address in January 2002, linking Iran, North Korea, and especially Iraq .... 'I was to provide a justification for war,' Frum recalled in his memoir. The justification was ... damaging in a way that relates directly to this week's escalation with Iran.... Reformers inside the government, who had advocated a rapprochement with the United States, were put on the defensive....

"'We knew,' Barack Obama said on March 28, 2011, 'that … if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world..... I refused to let that happen'.... 'This policy,' concluded a detailed and damning post-facto report by the British House of Commons, "was not informed by accurate intelligence'.... Western intelligence agencies, the report found, 'could not verify the actual threat to civilians posed by the Gaddafi regime [and] selectively took elements of Muammar Gaddafi's rhetoric at face value....[S]trategy was founded on erroneous assumptions and an incomplete understanding of the evidence.'

"American administrations going to war routinely exaggerate threats, Hitlerize enemies, euphemize foreign casualties, and bend tales of U.S. heroism beyond all human recognition.... The world has never seen an arsenal as powerful as ours, and Lord Acton had a point about that power stuff....
[T]he fog of war, the temptations of power, the quickening heartbeat of fight-or-flight patriotism ... should be, advertisements for human fallibility.... And it should make us more reluctant to give the commanders more authority. Instead, too many people turn off their brains once the battle bugle calls....

"So no, don't trust Donald Trump. Or Mike Pompeo. Or Mitch McConnell. And for God's sake please don't trust David Frum or Matthew Yglesias or Matt Welch either. America will continue being a bull in a china shop for as long as the body politic has more heft than humility. Those audacious enough to wield that awesome power, or to influence the wielding of it, will only begin to earn respect when they acknowledge the mountain of their own lies."

Read more: https://reason.com/2020/01/03/reminder-american-officials-lie-about-war/
'via Blog this'

Afghanistan Papers show years of official lying

The ‘Afghanistan Papers’ Confirm Critics’ Worst Fears About America’s Longest War – Reason.com - Steven Greenjut, Orange County Register:

December 20, 2019 - "It's been 18 years since the United States invaded Afghanistan in what officials promised to be a decisive mission to uproot a breeding ground for Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. You're totally not shocked to learn that things didn't quite work out as promised, and that the government repeatedly misled the public about its level of success, about the fundamental purpose of the endeavor and just about everything....

"That's how government behaves — not that many readers believed anti-war libertarians as we warned about such things at the time. I'm surprised it took so long for anyone to notice, and that the latest evidence — a meticulously reported project by The Washington Post — has been met with yawns. It's hard to compete for attention with the ongoing impeachment proceedings, but the 'Afghan Papers' should cause heads to roll (or explode)....

"On the Orange County Register editorial board, we issued our warnings about overseas commitments — the costs in lives and treasure and the impossibility of turning impoverished backwaters into modern democracies. We were accused of basically being bad Americans. Yet the Afghan and Iraq conflicts turned out pretty much as we and other critics predicted, as the Post report reveals in maddening detail.

"Most people have long realized that Iraq was a debacle ... that had little to do with the 9/11 attacks, but Afghanistan seemed more defensible given that the Taliban and Islamic fundamentalists clearly had set up shop there. But the Post report suggests that even that reality didn't make the war's focus clear....  The newspaper found 'that as the war dragged on, the goals and mission kept changing and a lack of faith in the U.S. strategy took root' at the highest levels. Officials couldn't even agree on the purpose of the war....

"The arrogance of American officials always amazed me. Our country's large-scale efforts to transform parts of this country — the War on Poverty, the Great Society — failed spectacularly. Yet our leaders thought they could invade a country that most Americans couldn't pinpoint on a map, and which had a history of repelling invaders (think of Russia), and fundamentally transform its society. And they kept spinning Americans and distorting 'statistics to make it appear the United States was winning the war when that was not the case'....

"Some of the Post's stories were eye-opening: how military officials were ordered to spend millions of dollars a day in small regions, even though no one had any idea what to do with it. That's government. It literally dumps money on problems and hopes it will create progress, when all it does is encourage corruption. Even more amazing, our military couldn't distinguish between friends and enemies....

"These days, we're all sure our fellow partisans are brilliant and the other side is evil, but this ought to give everyone pause: President Barack Obama's policy in Afghanistan wasn't appreciably different from George W. Bush's — and neither of them had any particular success. Both made grandiose promises about 'winning' and eradicating terrorists, but neither delivered."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/the-afghanistan-papers-confirm-critics-worst-fears-about-americas-longest-war/
'via Blog this'

No authority for war with Iran, U.S. House votes

House Votes To Stop Trump From Attacking Iran Without Congressional Authorization – Reason.com - Christian Britschgi:

July 12, 2019 - "Earlier this afternoon, the Democrat-controlled House voted 220–197 in favor of a $733 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which will fund the Pentagon and its various foreign wars through the end of the next fiscal year.

"Included in the bill was a bipartisan amendment from Reps. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) and Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.). It clarifies that Congress has passed no legislation that would allow the president to strike Iran. Their amendment says that 'no Federal funds may be used for any use of military force in or against Iran' unless Congress declares war on the country or passes some other statutory authorization for an attack.

"Stopping a war with Iran proved more popular than the spending bill as a whole. It earned the support of 20 House Republicans and passed with a commanding 251–170 vote....

"Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have been rising throughout the summer, with the U.S. hitting Tehran with increased sanctions and sending more troops and ships to the Persian Gulf. Iran has reportedly responded by sabotaging oil tankers and shooting down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. Trump ordered air strikes on Iran in response to the loss of the drone but called the attacks off at the last minute.

"Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been pitching lawmakers on the idea that the 2001 Authorization of Military Force (AUMF) — passed in the wake of 9/11 to permit the U.S. to attack Al Qaeda — allows the U.S. to attack Iran without further congressional approval. Khanna and Gaetz's amendment makes it clear this is not the case, stating explicitly that the 2001 AUMF does not authorize any sort of hostilities against Iran.

"Having passed, the House's NDAA now goes to the Senate, which has already passed its own, larger $750 billion military spending bill. That bill does not include any additional limitations on Trump's ability to attack Iran, nor does it seem likely that Senate Republicans will agree to fold that into the final version of the legislation."

Read more: https://reason.com/2019/07/12/house-votes-to-stop-trump-from-attacking-iran-without-congressional-authorization/
'via Blog this'

Iraq was the Democrats' war, too

When Iraq Was Clinton’s War - Chip Gibbons, The Jacobin:

May 6, 2016 - "When [George W.] Bush entered the White House, the US (with help from the UK) was bombing Iraq an average of three times a week. In 1999, the US spent  $1 billion dropping bombs in Iraq; in 2000, that number was up to $1.4 billion....

"Omitting the decade leading up to the 2003 invasion distorts the roots of the war, which wasn’t just a product of post–9/11 hysteria or the creation of various Bush administration personalities. The February 2001 assault was part of a bipartisan policy that put continuous war with Iraq at the center of strategies to maintain US hegemony in the Middle East....

"[A]t a February 1998 town hall... Secretary of State Madeleine Albright tried to sell the public on bombing Iraq. Albright was repeatedly interrupted by antiwar activists, and ... replied, 'No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction'.... Just a few years later, similar scenes, with different players, would be reprised in the buildup to the Bush administration’s invasion.

"Much as George W. Bush inherited his initial Iraq policy from Bill Clinton, Clinton inherited his from Bush’s father. Following Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on Iraq.... Even after Hussein pulled out, however, the US ... refused to allow the sanctions to be lifted. Their new rationale was that the restrictions were needed to  disarm Iraq. Yet as early as 1992 the US knew Iraq had given up its weapons of mass destruction, and the sanctions remained....

"Iraq experienced shortages of food, medicine, and clean drinking water. And a 1995 Lancet study sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization concluded that 576,000 children under the age of five perished because of the policy, while a “conservative” estimate put the death toll for the same age group at 350,000. Dennis Halliday, a thirty-four-year UN veteran, resigned ... after spending a little over a year as the UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq. He said the sanctions constituted genocide.... Clinton simply denied the facts in question....

"Like his successor, one of Clinton’s early acts in office was to bomb Baghdad. In 1993, he sent twenty-three cruise missiles to hit the city.... Five years later, Clinton signed the 'Iraq Liberation Act' into law, formalizing the US’s demand for regime change. The legislation, which also appropriated $97 million to fund Iraqi opposition groups, was followed up with ... Operation Desert Fox ... sold to the public as retribution for Hussein’s decision to kick UN weapons inspectors out of the country. Yet ... Clinton ordered the inspectors out. Saddam didn’t kick them out....

"From the end of Operation Desert Fox [in December 1998] until the 2003 invasion, the US and UK bombed Iraq at least once a week."

Read more: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/war-iraq-bill-clinton-sanctions-desert-fox/
'via Blog this'

An American libertarian's letter to Santa

Libertarian details wishes in a letter to Santa Claus | Columnists | lancasteronline.com - Roy Minet:

December 23 -
"Dear Santa,

"We know you’re very busy and you get lots of requests, so we’ll try to keep our list short. Here are a few of the things we’d most like for Christmas.

"First, we’d really like more fiscal responsibility. It’s troubling that the national debt is now nearly $22 trillion, which is more than the whole gross domestic product of our country for a year. Interest payments on this debt will exceed $334 billion this year.... This is a concern for the solvency of our nation. Moreover, it is morally reprehensible to shift the burden of our current flagrant spending onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.... What kind of parents would max out all their credit cards and then leave that debt for their kids to pay off?....

"We definitely are in favor of maintaining a strong national defense, but we would like an end to all the interminable undeclared wars. Just one of them — Iraq — has cost more than $2 trillion so far. At least as deplorable and morally unacceptable is our armed forces’ continuing loss of life and limb....

"Speaking of wars, we would also like an end to the war on drugs. This expensive war has been a failure by any measure and, quite likely, has exacerbated a serious problem. A previous misguided attempt at prohibition (of alcohol) was a similar disaster. That mistake was recognized after a decade of turmoil and reversed. Purely on a practical basis, there’s no reason to continue the war on drugs....

"If you can do it, we’d be extremely happy to have some election reforms. Our government — at the state and federal level — has fallen under the control of a class of establishment career politicians. They’ve certainly voted themselves extravagant pay, benefits and perks. They’ve rigged our elections to help themselves stay in power. As a result, 90 percent of incumbents are re-elected. And there is only one name on our ballots for far too many 'races.'

"Gerrymandering is the most obvious and easiest thing to fix. Next would be to greatly reduce the artificial barriers politicians have erected to keep their competition off the ballot. Another important change would be to replace the plurality voting method — the worst possible method — with a good ranked-choice method.... We should warn you, though, that career politicians are very adept at making sure that such reforms never make it through the legislative process....

"Finally, we’d most like to have world peace. Our definition of world peace would be that every individual’s rights to life, liberty and property be secured at all times. Everyone would be free to live and let live. Don’t tread on anyone. Minimize the use of force on honest and peaceful people."

Read more: https://lancasteronline.com/opinion/columnists/libertarian-details-wishes-in-a-letter-to-santa-claus/article_5a5f15ae-0493-11e9-b240-0ff27458c154.html
'via Blog this'

U.S. support for Yemen war raises opposition

Lawmakers alarmed by U.S. support for bombing campaign in Yemen - Deirdre Shesgreen, USA Today:

September 12, 2018 - "Lawmakers in both parties are increasingly alarmed by America’s support for a bombing campaign in Yemen that has left thousands of civilians dead – including 40 children who were killed [in August] when an airstrike hit a school bus....

“'It is as clear as day that the Saudi-led coalition is recklessly – and likely intentionally – killing innocent civilians and children, and they’re doing it with U.S. bombs and so-called targeting assistance,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....

"In a statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said ... the U.S. is working to ensure that Saudi Arabia and the UAE support efforts to end the war, and in the meantime, that the coalition allows humanitarian support to reach those in need and mitigates the impact of the conflict on civilians and civilian infrastructure. But others said the civilian casualties and a severe humanitarian crisis in Yemen is getting worse, not better.

"'The civil war in Yemen has been raging for more than three years and has created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis,' Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and Todd Young, R-Ind., wrote in a joint op-ed published [in September] by The Washington Post. They noted that three-quarters of Yemen’s population – about 22 million people – need humanitarian assistance. Of those, 8 million are on the brink of starvation, and 400,000 children are suffering from severe malnutrition.

"'A major contributor to the devastation and chaos is the indiscriminate bombing campaign led by a coalition made up of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which receives refueling, intelligence and targeting support from the United States,' the two senators wrote.

"A Sept. 5 report by the United Nation’s human rights office found that since March 2015, at least 5,144 civilians have been killed in Yemen and more than 8,749 injured. Children accounted for 1,184 of those killed and 1,592 of the injured.... 'Coalition airstrikes continued to be the leading cause of child casualties as well as overall civilian casualties,' the U.N. concluded....

"The Yemeni conflict is essentially a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as they compete for power and influence in the region. The civil war began three years ago when Houthi Shiite rebels, backed by Iran, overthrew President Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi's government. A Saudi-led coalition, backed by the U.S., launched a military campaign against the Houthis soon after. Iran is an arch-rival of Saudi Arabia, which has a Sunni majority."

Read more: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/12/lawmakers-alarmed-u-s-support-bombing-campaign-yemen/1283798002/
'via Blog this'

Veteran’s Day reflections from a civil libertarian

Veteran’s Day Reflections From a Civil Libertarian Former Soldier | American Civil Liberties Union - Noah Strangio:

November 9. 2017 - "In the past few weeks, I’ve spent considerable time, far more than usual in fact, reflecting on what Veteran’s Day means to me both now and at different times in the past decade. Before joining the military, Veteran’s Day for me was what I imagine it to be for most Americans: a day to recognize the service that a portion of our population volunteered for and to thank the veterans and active duty service members I knew for serving and risking their lives for our country.

"While I was on active duty, Veteran’s Day was mostly a time to tune out the noise and check in on fellow soldiers at home and abroad. During this time, I developed a tradition of calling at least three soldiers I had served with each Veteran’s Day to say hello and see how they were doing.

"I have now been out of the Army for nearly four and a half years and, in many ways, the day has taken on increasing significance with each passing year. This year in particular, the day has taken on increased meaning in light of the initiatives coming out of the White House and the broader political climate.

"Earlier this year,I wrote about about the Trump administration’s unnecessary and immoral ban on transgender soldiers.... I give thanks and honor the transgender service members who not only have taken on the duties and responsibilities, risks and sacrifices of service, but ... with the knowledge that in an instant, all they have worked for could be taken away from them simply because of who they are.

"This targeting of transgender individuals is part of a larger climate in which veterans and service members are being exploited and disrespected for political gain. Recently, the discussion of veterans has seemed to present itself most frequently in the ongoing conversation surrounding the National Football League players who have chosen to kneel during the national anthem in protest of racial injustice. Many have characterized the actions of these players as 'protests against the anthem' or our country, which, to me as a veteran, is ludicrous.

"The day I enlisted in the Army, I held up my right hand and swore to 'defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.' And one of the most critical rights the Constitution’s Bill of Rights guarantees is 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

"There is simply no question that the right to peaceful protest is precisely what veterans fight to protect. It is woven directly into the oath we all took the day we enlisted, just like our obligation to fight for equal protection of the laws and the equal dignity of our fellow Americans and soldiers."

Read more: https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/veterans-day-reflections-civil-libertarian-former-soldier
'via Blog this'

Senate kills Rand Paul's war powers repeal

Senate scuttles Rand Paul's war powers repeal - POLITICO - Connor O'Brien:

September 13, 2017 - "The Senate Wednesday scuttled a proposal by Sen. Rand Paul to repeal the war authorizations that underpin the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as military action in a slew of other countries.

"The vote was 61 to 36 to table — or kill — Paul's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Kentucky Republican's proposal would have repealed both the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force [AUMF's] six months after the bill becomes law, giving lawmakers a tight window to pass a new framework for U.S. military operations overseas....

"In a floor speech Tuesday, Paul torched his fellow lawmakers for refusing to vote to authorize the myriad military actions the U.S. has engaged in since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. 'I don't think that anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty believes that these authorizations from 16 years ago and 14 years ago ... authorized war in seven different countries,' Paul said.

"Wednesday's vote came after Paul blocked Senate leaders' efforts to speed consideration of the must-pass defense policy bill for two days. Paul objected to procedural efforts to begin debate sooner and threatened to hold up all other senators' amendments if he wasn't granted a vote on his proposal.

"Paul was joined by senators from both parties who supported sunsetting the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs in order to force Congress to debate and pass a new authorization that covers the current military campaign against ISIS as well as other contingencies.

"Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine, who has pushed for a new AUMF with Arizona Republican Jeff Flake, said it was 'way past time' for a vote.... 'Of all the powers Congress has, the one that we should most jealously guard is the power to declare war,' he said....

"In a classified briefing with senators in August, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the 2001 AUMF provides legal authority for current military operations in the Middle East, though Mattis has said Congress should enact a new resolution."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/13/war-powers-aumf-rand-paul-senate-242662
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul: Bring troops home from Afghanistan

OPINION | Sen. Rand Paul: 16 years on, it's past time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan | TheHill:

August 21, 2017 - "The Trump administration is increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan and, by doing so, keeping us involved even longer in a 16-year-old war that has long since gone past its time.

"The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war. It’s time to come home now.

"Our war in Afghanistan began in a proper fashion. We were attacked on 9/11. The Taliban, who then controlled Afghanistan, were harboring al Qaeda, and after being warned, and after an authorization from Congress, our military executed a plan to strike back. Had I been in Congress then, I would have voted to authorize this military action.

"But as is typical, there was significant mission creep in Afghanistan. We went from striking back against those who attacked us, to regime change, to nation-building, to policing their country for them. And we do it all now with an authorization that is flimsy at best, with the reason blurred, and the costs now known. We do it with an authorization that was debated and passed before some of our newest military personnel were out of diapers. This isn’t fair to them, to the American people, or to a rational foreign policy.

"The Afghanistan war going beyond its original mission has an enormous cost. First and most important is the cost to our troops. Deaths, injuries and unnecessary deployments causing harm to families are certainly the most important reason as to why you don’t go to wars that aren’t necessary.

"Then comes the taxpayer. We have spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan, and nearly $5 trillion on Middle East wars in the past 15 years. Would we not be better off with $5 trillion less in debt or using these funds in other, more productive ways?...

"I’ve spoken to the president, and I know he wants to end this war. We’ve all heard him say it. But talk won’t get it done.... He knows this war is over, and he – unlike the last two presidents – should have the guts to end it for real, on his watch."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/347393-16-years-on-its-past-time-to-bring-our-troops-home-from
'via Blog this'

Trump protests leave this libertarian speechless

Speechless in 2017 (On the Banks) - Bretigne Shaffer:

January 19, 2017 - "I’m a libertarian. I’ve been surrounded by people who don’t agree with me for as long as I can remember and it has never occurred to me to isolate myself from everyone because of our political differences.... To me, you’re all a bunch of fascists. But I’ve somehow learned to live with you.

"For me, watching people unravel over this election has been instructive.... I understand that a lot of people are worried, upset, even frightened over the prospect of a Trump presidency. Good. They should be. But they should have been worried eight years ago, or at the very least, four years ago.

"I was worried four years ago. And I was worried eight years ago. I tried in vain to get my Obama-supporting friends to see what I saw, but with very few exceptions (which I appreciated, thank you) I was met with silence, accused of mean-spiritedness or just told that I should 'give him a chance'....

So in case you (like some of my friends) somehow missed out on what’s been happening over the past eight years, let me catch you up:

1. We no longer have a Fourth Amendment, nor the right of habeas corpus (you remember: it was kind of the foundation of our justice system). Yes, the demise of these fundamental protections has been a long time coming, but President Obama delivered the death blow when he gave himself (and all future presidents) the right to imprison indefinitely or even assassinate any human being on the planet with no due process whatsoever.

"Number One should be enough.... But, because I know it won’t be enough, I’ll continue…

2. Obama has bombed more countries than George W. Bush did, and his drone strikes have killed more than six times as many people as those under Bush, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (killing unintended victims 90% of the time.)
3. He has given himself (and all future presidents) the power to wage war without Congressional approval.
4. He has greatly expanded the mass surveillance of American citizens.
5. He put in place a statist health insurance mandate that has sent insurance premiums skyrocketing.
6. He has continued the same brand of crony capitalism and debt expansion of the previous administration....

"So as I watch my friends and thousands of other Americans gather together to protest the inauguration, I find myself a little speechless. It cannot be that all of these people only see evil when it wears the other team’s uniform. It cannot be that they are more upset by offensive speech than by a man claiming the right to kill any human being on earth at his whim. These things simply cannot be. And yet it sure looks like they are.

 "I love my friends. I share many of their concerns (or rather, it seems they have recently come to share some of mine) and I don’t think less of them because of our political differences. But after eight years of deafening silence about these concerns, their newly discovered outrage has no credibility with me."

Read more: http://bretigne.typepad.com/on_the_banks/2017/01/speechless-in-2017.html
'via Blog this'

Why I’m not wearing a poppy

Why I’m not Wearing a Poppy | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG - D.J. Webb:

October 30, 2013 - "Once again the annual row on the wearing of poppies is taking place.... However, the issue has been rather muddied for me by Britain‘s habit of sending young men abroad into wars that have no conceivable connection to our national interest. I support our soldiers unconditionally, whether the wars are justified or not, as they are British soldiers. I also feel very sorry for those wounded, or killed, in wars staged for the convenience of the liberal elite. But I have not worn a poppy for several years now.

"I know many conservatives will be pained to read a short article explaining why a poppy should not be worn. But to my mind, the wearing of a poppy is tokenism at its worst, considerably cheapened by the wearing of poppies by BBC correspondents and members of the political class – in most cases, people who are not remotely interest in Great Britain as a nation-state. I don’t watch television, and so I don’t know if David Cameron has been espied this year wearing a poppy, but I expect he has done so or will be doing so very shortly, and the juxtaposition of that with his decisions to support 'the bringing of democracy to Afghanistan', as well as similar campaigns in other countries, just illustrates to me the false nature of the whole thing.... In the Queen’s case, as she does sign off on the sending of young men, without proper equipment, into wars that are not for the national interest, her wearing of a poppy is rather to be deprecated....

"Worst of all for me is the fact that the poppy seeks to depoliticise Britain‘s wars. After the First World War, when 'lions were led by donkeys', an accounting with those who had encouraged an unnecessary war would have been appropriate, including a public explanation by King George V as to why he, as commander-in-chief, had authorised Great Britain‘s joining of the war in the first place. Yet the bringing in of the poppy tradition has encouraged a non-political 'commemoration'. What is the point of commemorations if our political class are committed to sending more and more young men abroad into 'wars of choice' in the years ahead?

"I would not want to show disrespect to Britain‘s war dead, but to me the greatest respect that can be shown is to mount a political discussion of Britain‘s role in the world and whether it should be attempting to remain a military power in the way it is and whether it should be continuing to intervene in distant countries in fatuous attempts to impose democracy. I cannot wear the White Poppy that is used to symbolise peace, as I would support war for the national interest (such as the Falklands War), but not the staging of foreign wars for the political convenience of British leaders where no national interest is at stake."

Read more: https://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/why-im-not-wearing-a-poppy/
'via Blog this'

Iraq war contributed to rise of ISIS, Blair admits

Blair: Iraq war contributed to rise of ISIS but was justified | News , Middle East | THE DAILY STAR - Associated Press:

October 26, 2015 - "Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has acknowledged that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was partly responsible for the emergence of ISIS militant group in the Middle East. But he insists that toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had been the right thing to do.

"Blair told CNN 'there are elements of truth' in the assertion that the war in Iraq caused the rise of ISIS, which now controls a large swath of Iraq and Syria.

"'Of course, you can’t say those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015,' he said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

"Blair added that the Arab Spring revolutions, which began in 2011, had also played a part by allowing the Islamist fundamentalist militant group to flourish in civil war-torn Syria and then Iraq. And he said the 'sectarian policy' of Iraq’s Shiite-led government was also a factor in destabilizing the country.

"Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Iraq war – based on what turned out to be false claims about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – remains hugely divisive at home and contributed to his Labour Party’s loss of power in 2010....

"'I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,' he said. 'I also apologize for some of the mistakes in planning and, certainly, our mistake in our understanding of what would happen once you removed the regime.'

"Some 179 British personnel died in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. A public inquiry into decisions and mistakes in Britain’s planning and execution of the war began in 2009 but has yet to issue its findings."

Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Oct-26/320228-blair-iraq-war-contributed-to-rise-of-isis-but-was-justified.ashx
'via Blog this'

New book on 'the most misunderstood libertarian'

The Most Misunderstood Libertarian - Online Library of Law & Liberty - Alberto Mingardi:

September 28, 2015 - "To the surprise of many, scholarship on Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) has flourished in the last few years. A towering figure in Victorian Britain, Spencer was all but forgotten after his death. His works, which taken together form a 'Synthetic Philosophy,' seemed alien to 20th century academics in an age of meticulous specialization. Also his commitment to individual liberty and (seriously) limited government has not been too common in the discipline that he helped establish, sociology.... Spencer may be routinely included among the forerunners of modern libertarianism but it is rather uncommon to find a contemporary individualist thinker deliberately appealing to his insights....

"The paradox of one of the fiercest libertarians ever to be ignored by libertarians emerges vividly from Herbert Spencer: Legacies, edited by Mark Francis and Michael Taylor.... Spencer’s legacy is plural, as the title of this collection suggests, and may have come to us mediated by subsequent developments in different fields. The plural nature of the 'legacies' is stressed throughout, and has multiple dimensions: disciplinary, political, and even geographical...

"Taylor stresses how Spencer goes for voluntary and spontaneous arrangements, not necessarily for institutional settings based on the price system. But this won’t sound particularly controversial or new to libertarians, who, despite the caricature often made of them, understand that not everything in life is tradable at a money price. Their point is more subtle (and Spencerian): that is, top-down government intrusions may retard or altogether stop the spontaneous evolution (or adaptation to new circumstances) of human societies....

"One of the many take-aways of this book is that Spencer was a far more complex thinker than those who only know him as a diabolical 'social Darwinist.' Its essays might, for example, open the eyes of those who still have in mind the Herbert Spencer largely manufactured in the 1940s by Richard Hofstadter in a book that made history as a beautifully written and yet quite misleading tirade. Taylor explains that Spencer never thought that 'social existence involved an unrelenting struggle for survival in which the richest were the most successful and the poor should go to the wall.' He quotes Thomas Leonard’s important study on the Hofstadterian myth....

"Francis, who like his co-editor cites the Leonard monograph, also makes clear Spencer’s commitment to pacifism: 'Spencerians believed that imperial conquest might have been a natural phenomenon when employed by ancient states, but was an archaic activity in modern times' and a most immoral one. The thread running through all of Spencer’s works is the idea that society progresses toward the minimization of violence, which had been needed at earlier stages of civilization....

"This book may convey a sense of Spencer’s true understanding of complexity.... His magnificent The Study of Sociology (1873) would be a relevant work for those interested in the proper role of the social sciences and their limits, if only they read it....

"If I had any quibble about this impressive collection, it would be that the propensity to consider The Man Versus the State as 'just' a political pamphlet causes the contributors to overlook that this is perhaps the first work whose arguments are truly centered around the notion of unintended consequences. All in all, though, Herbert Spencer: Legacies may foster a better understanding of this seminal thinker and raise yet more interest in his underappreciated writings."

Read more: http://www.libertylawsite.org/book-review/the-most-misunderstood-libertarian/
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul stresses libertarian themes in debate

Rand Paul returns to libertarian roots - Tom Loftus, Louisville Courier-Journal:

September 17, 2015 - "Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul emphasized the conservative libertarian themes that distinguish him from his rivals in Wednesday night's debate among leading Republicans seeking their party's 2016 presidential nomination.... Paul urged caution on military intervention in the Middle East, said the federal government should not override state laws on marijuana in states such as Colorado, and urged criminal justice reforms that emphasize rehabilitation over incarceration.

"'If you want boots on the ground, and you want them to be our sons and daughters, you’ve got 14 other choices,' Paul said referring to the rest of the GOP field. He said the prolonged American military engagement in Iraq has proven to be a mistake. 'And I’m not sending our sending our sons and our daughters back to Iraq.'

"Paul was among 11 candidates who took part in the prime time broadcast by CNN from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California.... The themes emphasized by Paul are ones that mostly set him apart from the pack and ones he has not stressed in recent weeks as his standing in the polls has dropped.

"Wednesday night he made clear his opposition to military intervention without clear authority and a clear goal. 'I'm someone who believes in peace through strength,' he said in his closing statement. '...War is the last resort, not the first resort. And when we go to war, we go to war in a Constitutional way, which means that we have to vote on it, that war is initiated by Congress, not by the president. That we go to war reluctantly, but when we go to war we do not fight with one arm tied behind our back. We fight all-out to win.'

"Paul tangled with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on whether stronger federal laws on marijuana ought to be enforced over more liberal state laws in places like Colorado.

"'People going to jail for this are poor people, often African-Americans and often Hispanic ...' Paul said. 'I personally think that this is a crime for which the only victim is the individual, and I think that America has to take a different attitude.' Paul said, 'I think the federal government has gone too far, I think the war on drugs has had a racial outcome and really has been something that’s really damaged our inner cities ... So I don’t think the federal government should override the states'....

"As expected, the debate saw a clash between Paul and frontrunner Donald Trump. What wasn’t anticipated was that Trump would throw the first punch.

"'Rand Paul shouldn’t even be on this stage,' Trump said at the start of the debate, noting Paul's low standing in the polls. 'He’s number 11.'

"Actually Paul's latest ranking in Real Clear Politics' average of recent polls puts him in a tie for seventh place.

"Paul replied by questioning Trump's temperament - citing 'sophomoric' quips Trump has made about the physical appearance of his opponents. 'Would we not all be worried to have someone like that in charge of our nuclear arsenal?'

"Trump got in the last word in this exchange, however, saying he had never criticized Paul's looks, but 'believe me, there’s plenty of subject matter.'"

Read more: http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2015/09/17/rand-paul-tangles-trump-early-debate/32499415/
'via Blog this'

Rand Paul Constitution Day moneybomb, September 17.

Libertarians and the U.S. Civil War

What Should Libertarians Think About the Civil War? - Philip Magness, Newsweek:

July 18, 2015 - "The current national debate over the display and meaning of the Confederate battle flag has reopened a number of longstanding arguments about the meaning of the American Civil War, including within libertarian and classical liberal circles.... Unfortunately, bad history often accompanies this politicization, and libertarians are by no means immune from this tendency.

"The first and perhaps best known 'libertarian' approach to the Civil War attempts to find sympathy with the defeated Confederacy because of its resistance to the federal government and northern military authority or its professed cause of free trade and political self-determination.

"Some aspects of this position have intuitive appeal that produces sympathy for the Confederate cause: It professes outrage against a Union that is said to have conquered by force, trampled on the rights of states and individuals, unleashed a military invasion, suspended civil liberties, denied government by consent, elevated Lincoln to a 'dictator' and effected a lasting centralization of federal power....

"This interpretation falters in what it neglects: slavery....  A continuum of classical liberal thinkers from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill and J.E. Cairnes forged the main intellectual case against the slave system.... [P]ro-Confederate libertarians ... abandon what is perhaps the single most important and beneficial contribution that classical liberalism has made to the human condition: the abolition of slavery.

"[L]ibertarian defenders of the North are keenly aware of both the centrality of slavery to the conflict as well as the importance of the abolitionist cause to the liberal intellectual tradition.... This view recognizes slavery and celebrates its abolition, but it tends to neglect or even rationalize the war’s uglier features and consequences: a dramatic weakening of the constitutional federalism laid out in 1787, a rapid acceleration of the scope and power of the federal government, a precedent-setting assault on habeas corpus and expansion of presidential war powers that persists to the present day — and the horrendous destruction itself....

"In place of both views, and in recognition of their deficiencies, libertarians might develop a better appreciation for the Civil War’s complexity by turning their analysis to the nature of the ruinous agency of the conflict itself.

"War, whether waged to hold human beings in bondage or subjugate a political rebellion, is a consciously coercive action of the political state in its most expansive and direct form. And armed warfare, as both the Union and Confederacy came to discover across four destructive years, is horrifically messy, unpredictable and destructive of human life and human liberty."

Read more: http://www.newsweek.com/what-should-libertarians-think-about-civil-war-354946
'via Blog this'

Human Events on Paul’s "Libertarian Meltdown"

POTUS 2016: Hillary’s Mob, a Cruz Missile and Rand’s Libertarian Meltdown | Human Events - Brian Darling, "Daily Events":

March 27, 2015 - "Libertarians are absolutely freaking out about Rand Paul these days.

"First, they melted down when he wrote a bill declaring war on ISIS. The bill also removed the 2001 Afghanistan and 2002 Iraq Authorizations for the Use of Force (AUMF), prevented the Obama Administration from using old AUMFs to fight new undeclared wars and limited the battlefield to Syria and Iraq. David Weigel of Bloomberg wrote that it limited the President’s war powers....

"Next, Sen. Paul signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-Arkansas) open letter to the leaders of Iran saying that any treaty or oral agreement that qualifies as a binding agreement between the nations would have to be submitted to the Senate pursuant to the Constitution for ratification. Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com wrote that Paul was 'the Neville Chamberlain of the liberty movement.' Libertarians ... ignored the fact that the letter’s contents were an accurate description of the constitutional authority of a president.

"Finally, Paul filed an amendment to the budget this week to make cuts to programs to pay for new military spending.... Nick Gillespie of Reason wrote a good analysis of the amendment while other libertarians were throwing [Paul] under the bus. The Amendment assumed that if the sequester was eliminated and projected levels of spending on defense were restored, cuts were necessary to pay for the new spending. Paul cut $21 billion in foreign aid, $14 billion from the National Science Foundation, $10 billion from the EPA, $20 billion from the Department of Education and $41 billion from HUD.

"On this common sense amendment, Senator Paul only received 4 votes (Sens. Paul, Enzi, McConnell and Vitter). Every Senator, and presidential aspirant, who voted against this amendment, believes that defense spending should not be offset. Ironically, this was the most libertarian amendment offered during the budget debate."

Read more: http://humanevents.com/2015/03/27/potus-2016-hillarys-mob-a-cruz-missile-and-rands-libertarian-meltdown/
'via Blog this'