There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy, but there’s everything wrong with the way he has been presenting them in his public appearances and in the debates.

Paul basically believes that national defense should focus on defense and that overcommitting our resources in foreign wars and foreign aid missions weakens our ability to defend our own nation and undermines our credibility and effectiveness in foreign policy. Secondarily, the huge cost of our foreign wars has helped put us into a vast pit of deficit spending and weakened our economy, and that economic vulnerability is as big a threat to national security as all the missiles in China. This is a reality-based and absolutely reasonable foreign policy position to take.

However, because of the way he presents his positions, detractors have been able to paint Paul as an isolationist, as anti-American and even as a Muslim sympathizer – largely unfairly – but nonetheless pretty effectively.

Paul’s downfall comes in his apparent fascination with the theory of “blowback,” a not very insightful foreign policy meme derived from the CIA’s use of the term as presented in the book Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. Johnson’s development of the idea is naive and simplistic and basically comes down to the unsurprising notion that sometimes when people are angry with the United States it’s precipitated by something we did to them. Our foreign policy hasn’t always been terribly gentle and not surprisingly we’ve made some enemies. Blowback is more like payback, when people or nations try to get revenge for wrongs we’ve done them in the past.

As part of a comprehensive view of foreign policy the idea of “blowback” certainly has a valid role. But if you lead with it, as Ron Paul has an unfortunate habit of doing, it creates the impression that it is the entire basis of your understanding of foreign affairs and that you are essentially saying that whatever happens to America, from the events of 9/11 to the latest bombing in Afghanistan, is not the fault of the terrorists, but has to be blamed on the United States because we wronged them first.

This is a view which is both logically fallacious and offensive to a lot of people. If it’s the only part of your foreign policy which registers with an audience, then it’s not surprising that some of them conclude that you’re sympathetic to the terrorists. Even Neoconservatives can see the fallacy in concluding that primary responsibility for any action lies with someone other than the actor himself. While motivations are worth considering, no matter what they are, the person who consciously chooses to commit a new and original act of violence still gets most of the blame. No matter how he was provoked he could have chosen not to do wrong.

The problem for Ron Paul as a candidate is that you cannot explain the nuances of an idea like this or put it in the larger foreign policy context in a sound byte or a 30 second debate response. So the result of bringing it up without enough time to explain it is that all that gets through is that you’re blaming the United States for provoking whatever attacks it has received. Paul is not wrong to raise this issue, but if that’s all you’re going to be able to communicate about your foreign policy it’s not going to play well with a lot of people.

That being the case, it would be far wiser to express a simple and positive position on foreign policy and leave issues like “blowback” on the back burner to be explained in a position paper in the proper context. Leading with a controversial issue like this is a bad idea, no matter how much some of your followers cheer when you stick it to the neocons by bringing it up. Ron Paul doesn’t need to win over the folks at Antiwar.com. He needs to win over the borderline War Hawks who are far more numerous and influential in the Republican Party.

More recently Paul has faced a similar problem to the controversy he created over “blowback” with his apparent defense of the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons. On this issue he’s largely correct. Iran is a sovereign nation and we really don’t have any more right to tell it what to do than China does to tell us. And if someone is going to try to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons it should be those who are most threatened by them and the international community, not the United States acting unilaterally. But all of that doesn’t make a good sound byte, so he ends up being portrayed as wanting Iran to have nukes.

Tonight’s debate on CNN is specifically focused on foreign policy and, assuming they give him more than the 89 seconds he was allowed in the last debate,  it would be a wonderful opportunity for Paul to counter some of the negative impressions he has created in the past and offer a simple and positive foreign policy statement which would win supporters he needs instead of being misinterpreted and taken out of context and used to fuel attacks against him.

He should avoid bringing up ideas like “blowback” which he won’t have time to explain and focus on short, clear and positive statements about how the role he would have America play in the world. Here are some simple statements which would fit with his beliefs and serve him much better than the things he has said in the past.

For a general statement on our role in foreign affairs he could say:

“I believe that America should lead by example and pursue peace through strength. A great nation does not need to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors.” (throwing int he right buzzword here could win a lot of points with GOP primary voters)

If asked specifically about “blowback” and 9/11 he could say:

“Our past foreign policy cannot be used to justify the actions of terrorists and murderers. One wrong does not excuse another and those who commit acts of terror should be held directly responsible.” (doesn’t rule out the possibility of holding the US responsible, but doesn’t push it either)

If asked about Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons he could say:

“Iran is already a threat to its neighbors and some of them have their own nuclear arsenals. Our primary concern should be the safety of our nation, our citizens and our property and so long as Iran does not directly threaten us we should respect Itheir sovereignty as much as we do that of other nuclear nations.”

If asked about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he could say:

“We should only go to war to protect our nation, its people and its immediate interests. Long wars for vague purposes are too costly and harm national security by weakening our economy. We should focus on retasking the military to be a more modern and effective force for defending our borders and protecting our citizens as its first priority.” (shows an interest in making the military better and more useful, not irrelevant)

If asked about how to deal with terrorists he should say:

“Terrorism should be treated as the most serious kind of crime. We should go after terrorists with every resource at our disposal, but our focus should always be on bringing the terrorists to justice with some due process of law. In fighting terror the military should act as an arm of law enforcement and with Congressional authorization, to apprehend terrorists wherever they are and bring them to trial and punishment.”

All of these statements are in keeping with Paul’s positions as I have been able to work them out from his more developed statements on these subjects. None of them is so long or complex that it could not be produced as a short answer in a debate.

How hard would it be for him to avoid his past mistakes and present his ideas in a more positive way? Why haven’t his advisors and debate prep team not tried to equip him with a better arsenal of responses? Or is it possible that he has been given this sort of advice and is too set in his ways and sees changing his presentation of these ideas as a concession he’s not willing to make?

I can’t answer these questions, but I sure would like to see him sell his ideas better to a broader audience in tonight’s debate.  He’s polling surprisingly well and if he could lay some of these criticisms to rest who knows how well he could do in the primary.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

Act Today to Tell the Super Committee to Cut Spending

and Not Raise Our Taxes – Midnight is the Deadline

The unconstitutional Super Committee has until midnight tonight to decide how to resolve our debt crisis. President Obama, Congressional Democrats and socialist organizations like MoveOn.org are pushing for tax increases instead of spending cuts. They are demanding as much as a $1.6 trillion increase in taxes, targeting the most productive Americans, hitting entrepreneurs and small businesses particularly hard.

Ron Paul said of the Super Committee “You don’t get out of the problem of having too much debt by allowing Congress to spend a lot more. It never made any sense to me; it just digs the hole much deeper and then it gets harder for us to get out.”

Although there are two strong RLC-endorsees on the committee, Co-Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), they are under enormous pressure to cave in and authorize tax increases. Toomey has even put forward a plan which trades larger cuts than those previously proposed for some tax increases. But the real problem is that it takes only a majority vote to pass a plan out of the Super Committee, which means that only one Republican has to vote with Democrats to raise taxes.

What’s more, in addition to raising taxes, Democrats on the committee want to give more money to Obama to launch even more phony stimulus and prop up companies which ought to take responsibility for their own mistakes and not lay their risk off on the taxpayers.

This makes it vitally important for us to remind every member of the committee, especially the Republicans that taxpayers have had enough. We don’t want more debt and we don’t want more taxes. We want bigger tax cuts and we want them now, not spread out over a decade where their impact is minimized.

The Super Committee will be voting on Monday and sending their report to Congress on Wednesday. If they cannot come up with a plan which is acceptable to Congress then automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion will be implemented. It would be better for them to come to no agreement at all and submit no plan than to offer one which doesn’t have at least $1.2 trillion in cuts and no increase in taxes.

We need you to write the members of the SuperCommittee today so that when they call their offices on Monday before they vote their staff will tell them that the people want them to hold the line and make big cuts and not give in to demands for tax increases.

Write them and make sure your email insists on a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and no increase in taxes.

Please use the form below to email your Senators and Representatives and tell them to demand that the Super Committee not raise taxes. It would also help to take a few minutes to call to each member of the Super Committee and leave a message reminding them that we can’t afford to pay more for bailouts and failed stimulus programs.

The 12 member Super Committee:
Sen. Patty Murray, (D-WA) Co-chair – Call 202-224-0238
Rep. Jeb Hensarling, (R-TX) Co-Chair – Call 202-226-4888
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) – Call 202-224-8525
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) – Call 202-224-9412
Sen. Jon Kyl, (R-AZ) – Call 202-224-2207
Sen. Rob Portman, (R-OH) – Call 202-228-1382
Sen. Pat Toomey, (R-PA) – Call 202-228-1229
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) – Call 202-225-2202
Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) – Call 202-225-2313
Rep. Chris Van Hollen, (D-MD) – Call 202-225-0375
Rep. Fred Upton, (R-MI) – Call 202-225-4986
Rep. Dave Camp, (R-MI) – Call 202-225-9177

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is running for president, but you wouldn’t know it if you’ve been watching the many Republican debates. The widely respected two-term governor, who is also a Republican Liberty Caucus Advisory Board member, has been excluded from all but two of the debates, despite the fact that he met the stated qualifications for many of them.

The complaints (shown to the right) focus primarily on the idea that giving some candidates access to the debates while excluding others amounts to the media effectively donating the value of that airtime to those campaigns and is a violation of campaign finance laws which require the reporting of in-kind contributions. They focus specifically on the recent CBS debate and argue that by selecting which candidates benefited from valuable air time during the broadcast debate and excluding others, CBS was “directly and significantly supporting those candidates it favors, and advocating the nomination of one of their favorites and opposing the nomination of Complainant, whom CBS evidently disfavors.”

In a press release about the complaints, Senior Campaign Adviser Ron Nielson writes:

“As this campaign progresses, it is clear that nationally televised debates are having a tremendous impact. Candidates are moving up and down in the polls with every debate, fundraising is impacted dramatically, and Republican voters obviously remain undecided. When one looks at the inconsistent and arbitrary criteria networks such as CBS have used to decide who gets to be on the stage for the debates, it is apparent that decisions are being made in board rooms that are having the effect of ‘preselecting’ candidates.”

That is just wrong. We owe it to our supporters and to the process to take this basic unfairness and clear bias to those agencies whose job it is to insure that the power of the airwaves is not being misused in an arbitrary manner in the Republican nominating process.”

While we remain very fortunate to have other voices for liberty in this campaign like Rep. Ron Paul, the exclusion of Johnson shows a very serious problem in the Republican primary process. It suggests that the party is essentially letting the media pick which candidates voters are allowed to hear from which amounts to the media picking the Republican nominee.

Complaints about media bias have been heard frequently from supporters of other candidates, going back to the 2008 election. Ron Paul received similar treatment in 2008 and there has been considerable complaint that in the recent debate he received only 89 seconds of airtime out of 90 minutes while other candidates were given much longer to express their positions and address questions. If Johnson is the victim of a media blackout, Paul is victim of a kind of gray-out with much the same effect. He is allowed to compete, but not on a level playing field. It’s better than being excluded entirely, but it’s still not fair.

This is unfair for the voters and it is very unhealthy for the Republican Party. Liberty candidates like Johnson and Paul have good ideas which appeal to the voters and they deserve a chance to be heard. The Republican Party is allowing itself to be defined by the media as a party of corporate hacks and religious extremists because that fits the narrative of the election which the media wants to create. Candidates like Paul and Johnson defy that stereotyping and put a more positive face on a party which is much more diverse than the media likes to admit.

These complaints represent a positive step in the right direction which activists can focus on. It’s an opportunity to express your dissatisfaction and demand that the networks be held accountable for their clear bias and manipulation of the political process. Demand that Governor Johnson be included in future debates.

To make this easier we’ve provided a form below which will let you email your members of congress and also the directors of the FEC and the FCC and perhaps most importantly key decision makers at CNN which is broadcasting the upcoming debate on November 22nd.

Now is the Time to Speak Up!
Write or Call Your Representatives in the House and Senate

In response to lobbying from media industry groups like the MPAA and Creative America, the House and Senate are now both considering bills which would allow large media businesses to shut down virtually any website with nothing more than an unfounded accusation and no due process of law whatsoever.

In the Senate this takes the form of the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act” (S 968), which was blocked this Spring by Senator. Ron Wyden (D-OR) but is now back on the docket for consideration and appears to have widespread bipartisan support.  In the House it’s the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (HR 3261) which was introduced by the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee, led by the notorious Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) who also brought us the PATRIOT Act, E-Verify and a recent bill to punish travellers for smoking marijuana in foreign countries.

The ostensible purpose of the bills is to go after large-scale media pirates, many operating offshore, who the supporters claim pirate more than 500,000 movies every year, which seems like a reasonable claim.  But as is too often the case with government solutions to complex problems the proposed solution is excessive and open to enormous abuse.  The problem is that as it is written, the language of the PROTECT IP bill is so broad  that it would allow anyone owning a copyright to accuse any website of infringing that copyright and shut the website down by court order, actually scrubbing its IP address from the internet, all with no due process or hearing of any evidence or ruling from a court.  The mere filing of a complaint would result in preemptive shut-down of the accused website, requiring backbone service providers to block any access to it, treating the owner of the site as guilty until he could prove his innocence, likely at a considerable cost in legal fees.

The potential for abuse in this sort of legislation has already been demonstrated by the misuse of existing laws to shut down websites with potentially criminal content. There was a notable case last year where the FBI issued a simple query to a hosting service about one website with suspect content and it led to the shutdown of 73,000 websites out of concern over liability under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and other draconian laws which are already on the books.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has made its concern over the potential for abuse in these acts very clear, and has raised a further concern. They believe that fear of unmerited shutdowns under the act will lead to excessive self-policing by frightened service providers, stifling free speech and many forms of commerce on the internet.

The EFF’s Corynne McSherry writes that it “would authorize massive interference with the Internet, all in the name of a fruitless quest to stamp out all infringement online.” She points out that the potential for abuse under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is minimized by the “Safe Harbor” provisions of that bill, but that this new legislation would eliminate or bypass many of those protections and would “threaten to effectively eliminate the DMCA safe harbors that, while imperfect, have spurred much economic growth and online creativity.” She concludes that SOPA is “the worst piece of IP legislation we’ve seen in the last decade.”

It is not unreasonable for the government to be able to shut down websites which are engaging in criminal activity, but it should be the outcome of legal due process.  It should require the presentation of evidence to a court and a ruling that there is just cause to shut that sight down.  It should not be done solely on suspicion or through intimidation or as an act of prior restraint, with the presumption of guilt and the burden of proof transferred to the accused.  This is directly contrary to the fundamental legal principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and recognized under common law.

Please help support our work to bring our government under control and restore our liberties by donating using the PayPal link below. You can also join the RLCto become part of our network of member-activists. To make a recurring monthly donation try this link: Enter the maximum amount to pay each month: $ USD Sign up for

Small business leaders and internet entrepreneurs recently sent a letter to Congress, warning that the PROTECT IP Act threatens their ability to continue to expand new and innovative online businesses.  They observe that “the bill will ensnare innocent victims” and “create uncertainty for many legitimate businesses and in turn undermine innovation and creativity on those services,” while “the dedicated pirates who use and operate ‘rogue’ sites will simply migrate to platforms that conceal their activities.”

The amazing freedom to innovate and to engage in entrepreneurial creativity which the intenet has empowered is genuinely under threat from the proliferation of this kind of legislation.  As the United States has lost the lead in traditional manufacturing, we have seen most of our growth in the online business sector.  This is where the jobs of the new millenium are and it is where most of the hope for economic recovery lies.  PROTCT IP and SOPA will have a chilling effect on this increasingly important sectory of the economy and lead to wholesale violations of the privacy rights of individuals and businesses.  It’s another bad idea from a government which has become too big and too eager to interfere in every aspect of our lives.

Some elements of this article appeared previously in Blogcritics Magazine.

Prison overcrowding is one of the most serious problems we face here in Texas and is also causes problems in almost every other state. It is a drain on our resources and a threat to our safety. Overcrowding leads to greater violence, more escapes, more drug use, more disease and more expense. Practical solutions to the problem are right in front of us, but our legislators are too cowardly or too corrupt to take action.

As they are today our prisons just suck money away from the taxpayer, do little to rehabilitate, and often put that money into the pockets of corrupt politicians and their cronies. A few of years ago when I ran for State Representative I was up against one of the most corrupt figures in the outrageous prison situation here in Texas. This representative was directly involved in commercial prison management and lobbying for the prison industry at the same time she was serving in the legislature.  Between legislative sessions she was employed by a company which was hired by the state to run prisons for profit, a situation where she benefited directly from making sure that more people were in prison and more tax dollars were being spent on them while nothing was being done to improve the situation at all.

The purpose of prisons is to protect the public from dangerous criminals and ideally to make some efforts to see that those criminals don’t commit further crimes in the future. Right now the system does a poor job with the first and makes no real effort to achieve the second objective. No one seems very interested in remedying this situation. It’s hard to believe so little has been done in recent years while the problems have become worse and worse.  It ought to be pretty simple to make sure that violent criminals stay behind bars, reduce costs to the public for keeping them there, and to lower the overall prison population and eliminate overcrowding and the need to build more prisons.

The first step to cleaning up the prison problem is to stop imprisoning non-violent offenders. Even if we don’t have the legislative good sense to legalize relatively harmless drugs like Marijuana, there is no justification for jailing drug users or other non-violent lawbreakers. Rehabilitation, community service or simple fines for drug related crimes are a much simpler and less expensive solutions. The same applies to other non-violent crimes which can be dealt with through alternative sentencing without sending anyone to jail. Releasing rapists and armed robbers early to reduce overcrowding while people whose only crime is recreational drug use are being taken away from their jobs and families and thrown in prison is an outrage against logic and decency.

The next step is to make prisons pay for themselves. Inmates should be put to work, either in the prison, or under the right conditions, hired out to businesses which need manual labor. Yes, it’s the old idea of the chain-gang, but it was an idea which worked and should never have been abandoned. The money paid for prison labor should go to cover the cost of housing and feeding the prisoner and to victim compensation, either directly to the victims of that inmate, or to a general victims compensation fund. This has worked in other states and would work in Texas just as well.  And before you complain about taking away peoples rights and liberty, check the 13th Amendment where it says “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” – work as part of punishment is not unconstitutional.

These two changes would reduce overcrowding while keeping violent criminals behind bars. They would make new prisons unnecessary, massively reduce the cost of the prison system, keep families together and workers in their jobs, and make Texas a better, safer place to live. It seems obvious, but there’s a lot of money in the prison industry and that gives influence and political power.  When punishment produces profits then prisons become a growth industry, as legislators and law enforcement look for ways to put people in prison rather than realizing that society benefits more from keeping them out.

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Barry Hinckley in Rhode Island Senate Race

Barry Hinckley Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Principles of the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus voted unanimously to endorse Barry Hinckley in the Senatorial campaign in Rhode Island.  He received the highest praise of the board and is their first selection for endorsmeent in the 2012 election cycle.  Hinckley is an excellent advocate for the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“Rhode Island has a unique history as a bastion of liberty and free thought, dating back to its founding by Roger Williams,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Those ideas inspired the creation of the Republican Party and I believe that Barry Hinckley is a leader who can help restore the party to those principles of limited government and individual liberty. He is dedicated to giving the people of Rhode Island a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Taking back the Senate is a key goal for Republicans in 2012, but it’s only a victory if we elect the right kinds of Republicans – ones who are pledged to serving the people and not special interests,” observed  RLC Director Bill Westmiller.  “Barry Hinckley represents a new generation of Republican leaders who will govern based on principle tempered by pragmatism and who will roll back federal spending, end the cycle of uncontrolled debt and stand up for the rights of the people.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and crony capitalism and towards the government of citizen legislators our founders intended.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Barry Hinckley campaign can be found at http://www.hinckleyforsenate.com/

Republican Liberty Caucus Endorses Brian K. Hill in Connecticut Senate Race
Brian Hill Represents the Kind of Leader We Need to Restore the Republican Party

AUSTIN, TX – At their most recent meeting the National Board of the Republican Liberty Caucus selected Connecticut Senatorial candidate Brian K. Hill as one of their first endorsees for the 2012 election season.  Hill is an oustanding candidate who represents the principles of limited government and individual liberty to which the Republican Liberty Caucus is dedicated.

“The party establishment in Connecticut has put forward two candidates in this Senate race who represent only the interestes of big government and crony capitalists,” said RLC National Chairman Dave Nalle.  “Brian Hill is a real grassroots alternative with solid credentials and innovative ideas.  He is dedicated to giving the people of his state a real voice in Washington.  He is exactly the kind of Senator we need to send to DC to work with our 2010 endorsees like Mike Lee (UT) and Rand Paul (KY).”

“Brian Hill is a champion of individual liberty and limited government who will not give ground on fundamental principles and will hold both the Democrats and our own party leadership accountable for their failures,” observed  RLC Vice-Chairman Ed Lopez-Reyes.  “He will take up the serious work of rolling back federal spending, ending the cycle of uncontrolled debt and speaking up for the rights and interests of the people of their states.”

Following on the election of more than two-dozen RLC endorsees to the House and Senate in 2010, the RLC has set a goal of doubling that number in the 2012 election. With a larger core of newly elected, principled representatives in Washington we can swing the debate away from the big government status quo and towards putting the best interests of the people first.

In 1774 John Adams wrote that the revolution had been completed “in the minds of the people” before conflict ever broke out, and we believe that a similar revolution in attitude is taking place in the United States today. The people are no longer content to sit idly by and accept the dictates of an out of control government. We demand the restorations of our liberties and real accountability, and if we do not get it we will keep voting out complacent and unresponsive office holders until they get the message.

—

More information on the Brian K. Hill campaign can be found at http://briankhill.com/