Last night’s State of the Union address had a more positive tone than I had originally expected. But it still carried a hypocritical juxtaposition of calling on Americans to come together and adopt reforms that create jobs and lift the burden on businesses, improve our children’s educational opportunities, and achieve energy independence while also touting the divisive rhetoric that drives us against each other and drives us to blame the wrong causes for our current situation.

Much of what President Obama said tonight was true. It is true that mortgages were lent to those who could not afford them. It is true that companies are shipping jobs overseas and at the same time receiving tax breaks. It is true that with the death of Osama Bin Laden and numerous Al Qaeda leaders, America is much safer. And it is true that millions of new jobs have been created since he took office.

The positives may sound good when you phrase them as such. But the grim reality is that the problems America faces are so significant, that the good things that have happened under this administration are eclipsed. While these jobs were being created, millions of jobs were being eliminated. We still have fewer jobs than when the president took office. And whether he likes to admit it or not, his own policies have played a part in this anemic growth.

EPA regulations piled on by this administration have cost us over 5% of our GDP, and that’s just one federal department of many. The Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will cost $30 billion that we don’t have. The Small Business Administration estimates that the compliance cost of our current regulatory environment is $1.75 trillion per year. President Obama alone cannot be blamed for this, as his predecessors and those in Congress passed many of these regulations prior to 2009.

The president failed to mention that government programs incentivized lending of mortgages to those who could not afford them. Federal laws demanded banks loosen their restrictions or face legal action. The Federal Reserve further incentivized banks to comply by offering them easy credit. They lowered interest rates causing investors to put their money into long term projects and many focused on residential construction.

With his re-appointment of Ben Bernanke to chair the Federal Reserve System, this inflationary policy of unnaturally and artificially low interest rates has continued. The Fed has injected trillions of dollars into our economy under this administration, money which is not backed by matching economic growth or a significant demand for US dollars. This has caused the value of our currency to drop, and commodities such as gasoline have jumped in price as a result of a speculative bubble.

President Obama could have partially alleviated this problem by promoting domestic drilling for oil and the construction of new refineries, while we wait for science to develop inexpensive renewable energy. Instead, he has chosen to stand in the way of domestic oil production, while we continue to send billions of dollars to the Saudi elite, and turn a blind eye as they send that money to violent, theocratic institutions all over the world. He turned down the Keystone oil pipeline which would run from our largest supplier of oil—Canada—to the world’s most high-tech refineries in Houston.

It would have created tens of thousands of new jobs, including many for union workers that support Obama enthusiastically. They have been denied this opportunity in favor of capitulating to a lobby of environmental zealots known for its dishonesty in promoting its agenda.

The president covered a topic that I have focused much of my attention on in recent years: education. While he briefly touted the importance of returning control to local communities and schools, the other solutions he proposed are not only wrong, but they would further damage a K-12 system that is already a miserable failure at meeting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The president proposed forcing students to stay in school until they are 18 and claimed this would improve overall education. With all due respect, this is dead wrong. We have to get out of this ‘everyone gets a trophy’ mentality and realize that some children just will not learn. By forcing them to stay in school they hold back those of our children who have the drive to succeed. It is sad and politically incorrect to mention this, but it is true.

It has been mentioned in the writings of Jim Blockey, a reform school teacher from Las Vegas, I’ve discussed it with Robert Mansfield of Pennsylvania; a man born to a drug-addicted mother who grew up on the streets of Philadelphia with nothing and who rose to success when he returned to school, got his GED and joined the Army where he rose to the rank of Sergeant.I have heard even more examples from my friends who attended failing government schools in the inner cities of Ohio.

Although early childhood education in this country is world class, by the time our children reach high school, students in European countries like Belgium beat us on a number of metrics. Students in Japan, South Korea and Singapore blow us out of the water. China isn’t messing around either. They are targeting their most skilled students and placing them into advanced programs. When those students come to our universities they trounce their American peers in mathematics and natural sciences, and then our broken immigration system forces them to return to China and use the skills that we taught them against us in the global economy. A better system would incentivize and enable them to become Americans, and grow our economy instead.

The Belgians and the Japanese emphasize on the importance of school choice and privatization of education. And the British and the Japanese both emphasize on the important of the individual. Their programs are customized to fit the abilities of each student. In Japan, education is mandatory till around 15 years of age, at which they get their equivalent of our GED. Their upper-tier secondary schools are optional, and yet over 95% of Japanese students continue their education beyond the mandatory requirements. These programs are customized as either vocational education or preparation for university.

And one third of these schools are private!

In Great Britain, when you are 16, you can stay in the system, go to a trade school, or if you are smart enough go straight to college. Some states have adopted similar programs right here in America, where gifted students can achieve associates degrees upon graduating. I propose that we don’t waste their time teaching things they don’t need in the career they want.

We need to take heed to what the Belgians, the British and especially our Japanese friends have done. We shouldn’t mandate education to 18; we should eliminate the high school diploma and require a GED at the end of what is currently 9th grade as they do in Japan. Then make tenth through twelfth grade a customizable and optional program. Let students have choices of vocational programs, college preparatory programs, and if they are skilled enough, let them go straight to college. Provide a system that can ensure our 18 year olds truly are adults by giving them the marketable skills they need to make a living wage instead of mooching off of mom and dad into their twenties.

The status quo is unacceptable! And it fosters this sort of environment. To those who are worried about the students who wouldn’t go to school beyond their GED, they can always take the unskilled labor jobs and then work their way up the ladder or choose to continue their education at a later time in life. What makes such a system work so well is that the market will determine what skills are needed and relevant programs will be supplied.

This one-size-fits-all everyone-needs-to-go-to-college mentality is causing us to fall behind the competition. It is creating an education bubble that will inevitably burst. Many of these college degrees are becoming useless, rendering starting salaries that are not significantly higher than a high school diploma. The focus must be on marketable skills. General education is never a bad thing and should be viewed as a virtue, but it can only go so far.

The best possible system we can provide for our children is a system of individual choice, with a supply of curriculum determined by the market economy’s demand. A system that empowers parents, rewards the best students, and the best teachers, and yes—a system that discourages and reprimands failure.

The president went on to claim that college tuition is too high, and if it continues to rise he will pull subsidies from those universities. He’s right to acknowledge the avarice of our university system: costing its students thousands in waste on unnecessary programs and fees that should either be privately funded or purchased a la carte at the individual level.

Yet, he fails to understand the prime reason why tuition has risen at twice the rate of inflation and four times the wage rate. The federal government’s guarantee of all student loans has given greedy academics and administrators an opportunity that they would not have in a free market. They have constantly jacked up their prices, knowing that the government would credit the money to them no matter what, and the students would get stuck with the bill.

In the state of today’s economy, no one between the ages of 18 and 22 with the exception of military, civil service and a few lucky kids who invested from their teen years would be able to apply for a loan at a bank to pay over $10,000 a year for full-time tuition and living expense financing unless they had either a parent or credit-worthy friend co-sign for them. I know because I borrow primarily from a credit union to finance my education. Without a co-signer I likely would not have been approved, and if I was approved, my interest rate would be over 10%.

But the government federally guarantees many financial options for students who have little to no credit history. This has allowed the universities to set their tuition and fees well above a true market rate. In a free market where the finance was out of pocket or credit-based, they could not do this. Their classrooms would sit empty at those prices, and they would go bankrupt. Ending the federal department of education would quickly slash tuition prices in half, and prices would finally begin to increase in conjunction with wages and inflation.

When my father went to college in the 1970s, you borrowed directly from the school. A full-time summer job was enough to cover a year’s tuition and much of your living expenses at a state university. My father came here a poor immigrant, went to a small private college, and worked part time as a manual laborer. He graduated on time and with two years of debt.

My generation has not been so lucky.

This achievement by my father is the American Dream that we should want for all of our children, and it is morally wrong to deny them the benefits of a free market where they have the power to control their own destinies.

The message of class envy is dividing us and acting against the interests of that dream. Claiming that a job creating class is not paying their fair share when the top 1% of earners pay nearly 40% of the income taxes and the top 10% pay 70% of income taxes is ludicrous. But loopholes favoring one business over another certainly must go.

Our country needs a fairer, flatter tax. We need low rates for all, but we need few to no deductions. Compliance with our current tax laws cost American businesses nearly half a trillion dollars every year. Corporate taxes only make up 9% of our federal revenue yet their punitive nature begs the question: are they really worth it? What if the economic growth that was unleashed as a result of their elimination put so many people back to work, that the income tax revenue increased not only to offset that 9%, but to surpass it?

President Obama mentioned that companies are receiving tax breaks while they offshore jobs, and he mentioned the importance of incentivizing them with tax breaks to bring those jobs back here. There are over one trillion American dollars sitting overseas because investors don’t want it to be taxed by both the foreign country and the United States upon its return. Presidential candidate Ron Paul, former candidate Herman Cain, and myself all support a common sense solution to this problem.

I call upon President Obama to eliminate taxes on all foreign money repatriated into the U.S. economy. Let these corporations and businesspeople know that if they use that money to create American jobs, they can bring it back tax free! This is something that everyone should get behind! One trillion dollars is a lot of money with the potential to create millions of new jobs. If the president and both parties in congress are serious about restoring this economy to greatness, then a bill will be brought up and soon eliminating the repatriation tax, and President Obama will not hesitate to sign it.

There is too much at stake here to play class warfare politics. If government stole the entire net worth of every billionaire on the planet, not just in the U.S., it would total up to $4.5 trillion. Under this administration, the national debt has increased by over $5 trillion . We have debt because we spend too much, not because we tax too little. Both parties are to blame. We cannot afford our so-called entitlement system as is and we cannot afford a foreign policy of being the world’s policeman.

Now that we are out of Iraq President Obama said he wants to take that money, spend half of it to pay down the debt and half to build our own infrastructure. What he failed to mention was that there are no actual savings from the end of the Iraq War. We borrowed and printed money to finance our operations there and continue to do so in Afghanistan. There is no sudden influx of revenue we can use to pay down the debt, there is only a smaller deficit.

The President must realize that this is a Now or Never moment to prevent our country from going the way of many great empires in history, destroying itself under massive debt from an affluent society at home and a thinly spread militarism.

Do not give up on bipartisanship, Mr. President. Despite the differences between you and the Republicans, you can still get started on these things. Take a look at the recommendations of the Erskine-Bowles commission. Find the things in there that you and the Republicans can agree on, and immediately pass them. It will not be the end-all-be-all solution, but it is far better than doing nothing.

We owe it to future generations to actually build them a future. I understand the pressures of an election cycle, Mr. President. But the best way to get reelected is to do right by the American people. Embracing the free-market, ending corporatism, foreign nation building, and unsustainable benefit programs is the only way to save the American Dream.

Thank you, and God Bless America!

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is finishing his B.S. in Economics at Texas A&M University; he is a board member and Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is a senior economics major at Texas A&M University, as well as an alternate board member and  Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

In conjunction with a recently released study confirming that U.S. involvement in the affairs of Israel actually hurts the country and the fact that the U.S. has blocked peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it is time for Americans to demand a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East — including an end to foreign aid and an expedient exit of U.S. troops from Libya, Iraq, and other sovereign nations in the region.

A report from earlier today (linked above) by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency states that the United States has blocked an initiative by the UN, the European Union, and Russia to outline an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The settlement related to border talks, solutions for Palestinian refugees, and the sharing of Jerusalem.

The U.S. nixed the ideas, saying it was “not the right time”.

Given that the United States is busy fighting three foreign wars and most recently bombed Libya, apparently peace is not on Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama’s agenda.

Which once again makes the case for the United States butting out of Israel’s affairs and exiting the Middle East altogether.

Here is a summary of what the bipartisan agreement in Congress on the 2011 budget compromise gained Republicans:

• The largest spending cut in U.S. history. The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would result in no cuts.

• Hundreds of billions in spending cuts over the next decade. The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.

• An end to the “Stimulus” Spending Binge. The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment.

• Guarantees Senate Vote on Repeal of Obamacare. The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety. The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.

• New Tools in the Fight to Repeal Obamacare. The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions – who can’t meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what’s happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.

• Denial of Additional Funding to the IRS. The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues. This increased funding is denied in the agreement.

• A Guarantee of Senate Vote and Debate On Defunding Planned Parenthood.  The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

• Ban of Taxpayer-Funded Abortion in DC. The agreement includes a complete ban on federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”).

• Mandatory Audits of the New Job-Crushing Bureaucracy Set Up Under Dodd-Frank. The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.

Will Reince Priebus exclude Ron Paul and Gary Johnson from the 2012 RNC debates?

Despite the fact that no candidates have formally announced for President, we know that campaign season is upon us because the usual suspects are working to find a way to exclude new ideas from the Presidential debates.

Presidential debates in our country have often been exclusionary, especially since the formation of the Commission on Presidential Debates after Ross Perot’s successful third party campaign in 1992. The Libertarian Party candidate has never been included in a nationally televised debate. Congressman Ron Paul was excluded from at least one debate in Iowa in 2007, but was ultimately included in the important debates. If he had not been included in the debates, both his ideas and his popularity would have suffered as a result. Perhaps the Tea Party never would have formed.

Last week, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus formed a committee comprised of RNC member Jim Bopp, former RNC Chair Mike Duncan, former Florida GOP Chair Al Cardenas, and former Congressman Dick Armey to decide whether the Republican National Committee should sponsor debates to raise money for themselves. According to James Bopp, “The RNC or its designee may at its discretion determine the time, place, co-sponsors, format , subject matter, moderators and participants” for the debates.

“Those candidates invited to participate in RNC-sanctioned debates will be allowed to participate in a list exchange with the RNC,” wrote Bopp.

And therein lies the problem. Certain candidates will be invited and other candidates will be excluded.

This is exactly what I warned of when I asked you to write your RNC member to oppose the nomination of RNC Chairman Reince Priebus just a few months ago.

The RNC is planning to pick favorites. If conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt — who thinks this is a grand plan for the Republican Party — has his way, Congressman Ron Paul and Governor Gary Johnson will be excluded from RNC-sanctioned debates. Writes Hewitt:

“Bar the stage to those candidates who simply cannot win the nomination, even under Iowa-upset circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania are long-shots, but they have a plausible path to the nomination. Former Rep. Buddy Roemer of Louisiana and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson do not. If Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, asks for another giant chunk of valuable time, the RNC should say no, and put up with the howls from the 1 percent who will scream.“

Fortunately, some debates are already scheduled, including a May 5 South Carolina debate, a June 7 New Hampshire debate, an August Iowa debate, two debates in Florida in September and October, and the Politico/NBC debate on September 14 in California. However, if the RNC continues with its plan, they could simply adopt some of these debates and begin excluding whomever they want — just as the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates excludes third party candidates each Presidential election cycle.

TAKE ACTION

Please contact RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, RNC Chief of Staff Jeff Larson, RNC Committeeman from Indiana Jim Bopp, RNC Committeeman from Kentucky Mike Duncan, FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey, and American Conservative Union’s Al Cardenas. Ask them for inclusive debates that include Congressman Ron Paul, former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, former Louisiana Governor Buddy Roemer, and former Reagan official Fred Karger.

Here is a sample letter:

Dear Committeeman Bopp,

I recently learned that the Republican National Committee is sponsoring its own debates to raise money for the RNC.  I am a Republican party activist and am also involved with my local Tea Party.  I saw conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt comment that certain candidates should be excluded from the RNC-sanctioned debates.

Mr. Bopp, rest assured that I will not donate to the RNC if they exclude candidates like Congressman Ron Paul, Governor Buddy Roemer, or Governor Gary Johnson.  I want to hear as many voices as possible so that the Republican Party can have its best choice to defeat President Obama in 2012.

If your debates are going to be inclusive, then please forge ahead.  However, if you’re going to exclude candidates and ideas from the process, count me out.

Best Regards,

[Your Name]

You may also want to write to Hugh Hewitt to ask him why he believes American voters should be isolated from new ideas and different approaches to solving our problems.

GET INVOLVED

This leads us to the most important point about the discussion: We need more liberty-loving Republicans involved in the Republican Party so our voices can be heard.

Please join the Republican Liberty Caucus today and get involved in your state or local chapter.

If we’re not able to change the Republican Party from within, liberty will lose.

It’s really that simple. We choose to inject libertarian ideas into the party, or we give up. Those are our options.

Patriots, it’s time to go RINO hunting in beautiful North Dakota!

Yesterday twenty-nine RINOs in the North Dakota State House voted to block an amendment to the state Constitution to prohibit North Dakotans from having to purchase health care.

The bill, HCR 3014, received support from 39 House Republicans but was blocked when 29 RINOs joined with 25 Democrats to kill the modification language.

The amendment is necessary to both strengthen North Dakota’s legal challenge to Obamacare and to protect residents from whatever comes after the courts rule. So why did 29 Republicans, many of them claiming that they’re opposed to Obamacare, vote down this amendment?

Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (pronounced Sten-jum), Republican.

Stenehjem, a likely candidate for higher office in 2012, did help North Dakota join the federal lawsuit challenging Obamacare. But he has also been working behind the scenes to convince state legislators that North Dakota is powerless in the face of federal law. In February, Stenehjem issued an opinion at the request of legislators in which he concluded that federal laws, once vetted by the states, are the supreme law of the land and that it is unconstitutional for the states to resist them.

Stenehjem has been working with State Rep. Bill Devlin to persuade Republican legislators that they are powerless until the court rules. Their campaign saw success in that it convinced Republican legislators to vote with the bloc of Democrats who supported Obamacare.

In response, please contact Wayne Stenehjem (Republican) at (701) 328-2210 today and express your disgust with his efforts to dissuade legislators from voting the will of their constituents. And please contact Bill Devlin (Republican) to express your feelings about his miseducation campaign in the North Dakota House.

Writes North Dakota blogger Rob Port, “This school of thought is based on a misunderstanding of the supremacy clause. Yes, the Constitution and such laws as the Congress may make are the supreme law of the land, but when the laws Congress makes violate the constitution then they cannot, by definition, be the supreme law of the land. That a federal court may endorse an unconstitutional law doesn’t make it any more constitutional.”

Concludes Port, “With Wayne Stenehjem clearly harboring aspirations for higher office, voters in North Dakota might want to remember just how hard he campaigned against the sovereignty of our state, and just how weakened his campaigning leaves our state in our battle to overturn Obamacare.”

The Republicans who voted against the measure include: Dick Anderson, Thomas Beadle, Dennis Johnson, Stacey Dahl, Duane DeKrey, Bill Devlin, Glen Froseth, Kathy Hawken, Joe Heilman, Curt Hofstad, Jon Nelson, George Keiser, Joyce Kingsbury, Matt Klein, Larry Klemin, Bill Kretschmar, Curt Kruen, Andy Maragos, Bob Martinson, Nancy Johnson, Gary Paur, Vonnie Pietsch, Todd Porter, Raeann Kelsch, Mark Sanford, Wayne Trottier, John Wall, Robin Weisz, David Drovdal

The form at this website will allow you to contact them in one fell swoop.

………………………………………

Two Republicans, Bill Devlin and Wayne Stenehjem, persuaded 29 Republican legislators to vote against asserting freedom from Obamacare in North Dakota. TAKE ACTION!

If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

For Immediate Release: March 24, 2011

Republican Liberty Caucus Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya
Attacks Violate Constitutional Requirement to Obtain Approval from Congress

Contact: Dave Nalle, RLC Chairman

WASHINGTON, DC — The Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC) National Committee has voted unanimously to condemn the Obama Administration’s military action against Libya.

The RLC resolution notes that the situation in Libya does not constitute a direct threat to the United States and that military action has not been authorized by Congress as required by the War Powers Act and the United States Constitution.

“At a time when we should be cutting back our foreign military involvement, the president’s action is as irresponsible as it is unconstitutional.” said RLC National Chair Dave Nalle of Austin, Texas.

As RLC member and Congressman from Michigan’s Third District Justin
Amash recently noted, “It’s not enough for the President simply to explain military actions in Libya to the American people after the fact — as though we are serfs. When there is no imminent threat to our country, he cannot launch strikes without authorization from th American people, through elected Representatives in Congress. No United Nations resolution or congressional act permits the President to circumvent the Constitution.”

In an interview in the Boston Globe in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama shared his view on the matter, saying, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Why are those words any less true today than they were when he spoke them only four years ago?

“President Obama seems to have taken this action solely on the authorization of the United Nations without consideration of the best interests of the United States or the limits which the Constitution places on the power of the president,” said RLC Chairman Dave Nalle. “The greatest threats to the safety of our citizens today are the reckless spending and dangerous fiscal policies of this administration. The President should do what he swore in his oath — uphold the Constitution. Instead, he continues to push a Big Government, freedom-crushing agenda that has not resulted in economic prosperity in our country.”

The Republican Liberty Caucus is working to raise awareness of the problems with United States intervention in Libya. As Congressman Amash observed, “The cost to American taxpayers will be substantial. We cannot spend money we don’t have on a war we don’t need.”

According to RLC Chairman Dave Nalle, “Our state chapters and our nationwide network of activists will be contacting their legislators to remind them of the traditional Republican foreign policy and the party’s historical commitment to constitutionally limited government. Our members demand an immediate end to military action by U.S. forces in Libya,” concluded Nalle.

-30-

WHEREAS Libya poses no imminent and clear threat to the United States; and

WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has not declared war against Libya, or in any other way authorized the use of military force against Libya; and

WHEREAS the President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution of the United States, which reserves to Congress the sole power to declare war;

We, the National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus, hereby RESOLVE;

THAT the President has violated the War Powers Act, which requires him to notify the Congress of the United States of the imminent use of military force, so as to receive the assent of Congress to the use of military force in a timely manner;

THAT we declare our solidarity with those members of the Congress and citizens of the United States who have sought to avert U.S. involvement in a war in the Libya;

THAT we do not believe the U.S. should be involved in Libya militarily;

AND we call on all those who believe in the Constitution and respect the rule of law to demand an end to U.S. military intervention in Libya.

(Adopted unanimously by the RLC National Committee, March 22, 2011.)

See also: RLC Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya; March 24, 2011

Obama’s political left, who thought they had a champion for their causes, is not only disgusted with the President’s recent authorization for the U.S. military to attack Libya, but continues to be dismayed regarding Obama’s War on Drugs policies.

Marijuana legalization advocates say the president should be taking a harder stance on the issue. And, if you believe his promises on the campaign trail, why wouldn’t he?

Barack Obama voiced support for medical marijuana access, harm reduction programs, and the reform of mandatory minimum drug sentences. He also spoke out in favor of marijuana decriminalization during his time in the Illinois Senate.

As Daily Caller reports, officers from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) raided two medical marijuana dispensaries in West Hollywood, California on March 15, 2011. Similar DEA raids also swept through Montana and forced at least one business to close its doors.

Last year, DEA agents ignored a Mendocino County, California ordinance to regulate medical marijuana cultivation by raiding the very first grower to register with the sheriff. Joy Greenfield, age 70, had paid more than $1,000 for a permit to cultivate 99 plants in a collective garden that had been inspected and approved by the local sheriff.

These raids occurred despite that the Obama administration said it wouldn’t pursue cases against marijuana dispensaries that are legal under state law — which is the case in California, Montana, and 14 other states.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a 2009 memo guiding authorities not to arrest or prosecute users of suppliers who are not breaking local laws. On the campaign trail, President Obama repeatedly promised not to waste federal resources interfering in states with laws protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest on the campaign trail. On March 28, 2008, for example, he told Southern Oregon’s Mail Tribune editorial board, “I’m not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue.”

At DailyKos, one left-wing activist says, “Obama is going to once again re-double the military/law-enforcement angle that maintains the status quo, that supports illegal drug prices, that support the profits for drug trafficking …”

In short, Obama appears quite far from the truth of his promises on the issues surrounding drug policy.

Eighty percent of Americans support medical marijuana access, 75 percent believe that the War on Drugs has failed and cannot be won, and 75 percent also say that adults should be fined (but not jailed) for using marijuana recreationally.

President Obama continues his change agenda with a complete lack of change and — instead — a whole lot more of the same.