IRAQ BY THE NUMBERS, from Stars and Stripes:
U.S. troops killed: 4,414
U.S. troops wounded in action: 31,897
Number of U.S. troop amputees: 1,135
Iraqi civilian deaths: 113,166
War’s operating cost: $747.6 billion
Per American: $2,435; Per Iraqi: $25,828
Estimate of the total cost of the war: $3 trillion
Cost of maintaining 50,000 troops from now to end of 2011: $12.75 billion
Cost of medical care and disability compensation for Iraq war veterans over their lifetimes: $500 billion.
_____________________________________________________

Commentary: Seven and a half years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the last U.S. combat brigade has departed. It took longer than the duration of World War II to get to this point.

Still, as many as 50,000 U.S. troops will stay behind to help train and support the Iraqi military.

This fact is not widely reported in the media despite that the last combat brigade exit has been reported.

Voters deserve to know the truth: the U.S. continues to finance — through taxpayer dollars (e.g., money we do not have) — the rebuilding of foreign nations while our own country faces problems with government spending, debt, and increasing financial obligations.

The solution is to stop rebuilding foreign countries and start rebuilding our own country.

It can be done, but it takes politicians with backbones and courage of their convictions.

That’s where our Republican Liberty Caucus-endorsed candidates come in.

Please support them today.

Last week our friends at Students for Liberty participate in a debate with students from the Heritage Foundation.

Click here to view the entire debate, courtesy of the Cato Institute.

Who do you think won?

PO Box 130
West Shokan, NY 12494

June 12, 2010

Lazio 2010, Inc.
P.O. Box 4818
New York, NY 10185

Dear Mr. Lazio:

I am writing as a registered Republican and a member of my Town’s Republican Committee.

Your opponent, Carl Paladino, has publicly stated that during your tenure as a full-time employee and lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase you lobbied for and arranged a payment of $25 billion from the US Treasury to your employer. In other words, Mr. Paldino has publicly alleged that you participated in the “bailout.”  In return you received a $1.3 million bonus.

If Mr. Paldino’s allegations are inaccurate, please respond to this inquiry publicly.

If Mr. Paladino’s allegations are accurate you are morally unfit to serve in public office.  I am posting this letter on my blog and stating explicitly that if Mr. Paladino’s allegations are accurate you are morally equivalent to a common criminal and belong in jail.  Consequently, I would urge you to step down from the gubernatorial candidacy and allow the better man to run.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.

My latest article, “Finding Candidates for Liberty”, is the second installment of the Winning on Principle Newsletter from the Young Americans for Liberty. Check it out at http://www.yaliberty.org/winning2.

Of course, another good way to find candidates for liberty is to check out the Republican Liberty Caucus endorsed 2010 candidates.

Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel a Lesson for
the Liberty Movement to Follow:
A(nother) Libertarian Defense of Israel

by Aaron Biterman

A recent article in The American Spectator by Philip Klein highlights Dr. Rand Paul’s view of Israel. In short, Rand Paul supports free trade with Israel, call for divestment from Iran, and “strongly objects to the arrogant approach of (the) Obama administration” toward the peace process, according to documents Klein obtained from the Paul campaign. Continues the Kentucky doctor, “Only Israel can decide what is in her security interest, not America and certainly not the United Nations.” The younger Paul says, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.”

The truth is that most Kentucky voters agree with the above-stated positions. Most Americans — especially those right of center — also agree with these positions. From a libertarian perspective, there is simply nothing objectionable about the above position statement. If you’re a minarchist and support the ability of the U.S. military to defend our borders against attacks, then it stands to reason that other countries should also be able to protect their borders.

But there is a vocal and growing fringe element within the libertarian/Constitutionalist movement (see DailyPaul.com to hear their rants and raves, or pick up a copy of the filthy American Free Press newspaper) who agree with left-wing radical Helen Thomas, who recently opined that all Israeli Jews should leave Israel and go back to Europe. (View her disgusting comments here.)

This article has been written to refute their bogus claims and defend a pro-Israel position from a libertarian perspective. (Other pro-Israel arguments have been made by libertarians, such as this excellent defense of Israel from Ilana Mercer.)

To Whom Does the Land Belong?

The prime argument driving the anti-Israel fervor is the claim that Jews belong somewhere other than Israel — that they have no legitimate claim to the land of Israel. Those individuals making this claim believe that the millions of Arabs from the 1948 exodus should be returned to their original homes in pre-1967 Israel based upon the libertarian conception of private property rights. This would clearly result in an Arab majority Israel.

I don’t agree with his argument for several reasons. In late 1947, the United Nations voted in favor of the partition of Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a UN-administered Jerusalem. Partition was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to civil war. One party was willing to compromise and the other was not — a familiar trend in the seemingly never-ending feud.

When Israel was declared a state in 1948, most of the Arabs living within the boundaries were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. These Arabs were promised Jewish property after victorious Arab armies won the war. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  Think 1939 to 1945 in Europe.

Of course, the day after Israel was declared a state (in 1948) it was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. And it’s been on the defense ever since. It is hard to believe that any libertarian — a person who purports to believe in the right of self-defense, even for a nation — would deny that a nation like Israel should be permitted to defend itself against terrorists seeking to exterminate Jews in the Middle East and replace Israel with a Taliban-style Islamic theocracy.

According to Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute and his co-author Peter Schwartz, “Only a state based on political and economic freedom has moral legitimacy. Contrary to what the Palestinians are seeking, there can be no ‘right’ to establish a dictatorship.” The Palestinians elected a Hamas majority to the Palestinian Legislative Assembly and now Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a radical Islamist terrorist organization that seeks to wipe Israel (and all Jews) off the face of the earth and replace it with an Islamic Palestine.

Concludes Brook and Schwartz, “Israel’s founders — like the homesteaders in the American West — earned ownership to the land by developing it. They arrived in a desolate, sparsely populated region and drained the swamps, irrigated the desert, grew crops and built cities. They worked unclaimed land or purchased it from the owners. They introduced industry, libraries, hospitals, art galleries, universities-and the concept of individual rights. Those Arabs who abandoned their land in order to join the military crusade against Israel forfeited all right to their property. And if there are any peaceful Arabs who were forcibly evicted from their property, they should be entitled to press their claims in the courts of Israel, which, unlike the Arab autocracies, has an independent, objective judiciary — a judiciary that recognizes the principle of property rights.”

Double Standards and the Need to Single Out Israel

The individuals leading the vocal anti-Israel movement within the broader coalition of pro-liberty activists claim they are interested in the quality of the lives led by the non-Jews living in the region who are being persecuted by the evil tyrant nation of Israel. But it’s rare to hear these same vocal anti-Israel critics talking about the fact that Jews cannot enter Mecca or Medina, that Jews cannot purchase or sell land in Jordan (nor can they become citizens), or that Jews and Israelis are banned from entering Saudi Arabia.

Not only do Arabs have representation in the Jewish Knesset (legislative branch of government), but Israel also offers one of the few safe havens for women and homosexuals who fear persecution (and humiliation and/or death) in many other parts of the Middle East.

The vocal anti-Israel voices within the broader liberty movement always single Israel out whenever they have an opportunity. They ignore the fact that Egypt, Jordan, and the Sudan are each on the top ten list of recipients of U.S. foreign aid, with Egypt receiving nearly $2 billion annually.

They don’t talk about anti-Semitism at all. Perhaps they believe it doesn’t exist. The truth is that worldwide, scores of anti-Semitic (anti-Jewish) outbursts are recorded each month by monitoring groups, ranging from armed and other attacks on individuals and property to the desecration of cemeteries and Holocaust memorials and the daubing of anti-Semitic slogans on buildings, often those housing Jewish communal offices and synagogues.

In the U.S., for example, the number of anti-Semitic crimes went up from 969 in 2007 to 1,013 in 2008. Such episodes represent 66 percent of all religiously motivated crimes and 12 percent of all recorded hate crimes. These are unsettling numbers when we consider that Jews constitute approximately 2 percent of the general population. Anti-Semitism is widespread throughout the Arab and Muslim world, manifested in every segment of society. Here (.pdf) are some examples from the Arab media alone.

As Ilana Mercer mentions in her defense of Israel, any libertarian who defends Israel recognizes its many imperfections. It is a quasi-socialist country which has violated human rights in the past via demolition of houses and closure of the Palestinian territories. We don’t excuse this behavior and criticize the Israeli government when it oversteps the rule of law.

But Israel’s current air and naval blockade on Gaza — which is controlled by Hamas — is justified defense of Israel.  Clearly Hamas intends to acquire lethal weaponry to wipe Israel and its citizens off the map.  As is pointed out in The Washington Post, an organizer of the ‘humanitarian’ boat that was stopped by Israel last week admitted that the boat was meant to break Israel’s blockade, effectively ending their inspection process. If successful, weapons — no doubt meant to exterminate all Jews in Israel — could be obtained by the radical government in charge of Gaza.

Regardless, libertarians in the U.S. who support Israel do not support U.S. foreign aid for Israel (although many believe that the U.S. should help Israel with arms technology development), believing instead that private aid would be more than enough to defend Israel against its enemies.  Of course, they believe that foreign aid should also be cut off to all other countries as well.

Just as libertarians in the U.S. support a strong national defense of our own country, pro-Israel libertarians also support Israel’s right to defend herself against attack. The same libertarians defending Israel’s right to self-defense can simultaneously defend a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is no contradiction, except by those who would have Israel wiped off the face of the earth due to an erroneous claim to ‘property rights’.   

Libertarians Should Support a Two-State Solution

A two-state solution is the sensible answer to the problem in the Middle East.

A two-state solution would create two separate states in the Western portion of the historic region of Palestine.  Israel would remain a Jewish state and Arabs would be given citizenship by a new Palestinian state. The new Palestinian state would also offer refugees citizenship, while Arab citizens of present-day Israel would be offered a choice of citizenship among the two states.

A one-state Palestine will, as Ilana Mercer put it, have “no economy, no free speech and press, no independent courts, no sound contract laws, and no individual or property rights.” Even worse, there is a huge threat that such a government will be run by radical dictators with an agenda that has little to do with protecting the rights of their citizens.  Such an endeavor would not only threaten the Middle East, but the world as well.

Why so many so-called freedom fighters continue to advocate this ’solution’ — a one-party dictatorship state — is beyond me, but in the interim Israel will continue to defend itself — as any libertarian should expect it to.

When analyzing the situation in the Middle East, it’s important to look at the big picture. Over a period of many years, Israel has worked to reach an agreement — a compromise — but the other side has not.

That’s why Rand Paul stands by Israel and why you should, too.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Aaron Biterman is Vice Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. As it is stated below this post, this article is just one opinion. We realize some RLC members will disagree with this opinion. If you would like to write a counter piece to be published in this blog, contact the Republican Liberty Caucus.  Only articles from dues-paying members of the RLC will be considered.

I have been objecting loudly to the GOP nominating processes in various states for many years now.

In short: the Republican Party Establishment has swooped into competitive Republican Party primaries (election contests that VOTERS should decide) to coronate certain candidates and exclude candidates they do not prefer.

This practice began during the Bush Administration, as far as I can tell. It’s a disgusting process and is truly politics as its worst.

Here is an article in which I criticize the Wisconsin Republican Party for nominating two candidates — one for Governor and another for U.S. Senate — at its Convention on Saturday despite the fact that one other candidate is running in each of these races. Enjoy!

The Republican Liberty Caucus of New York recently discussed whether to support Republican Otis Jennings for Mayor of Syracuse. The Democrat who will oppose him is anti-libertarian. Mr. Jennings voices an interest in budget cutting but is also in favor of education spending. Of the two, Jennings is less likely to increase taxes, but the odds are not enough to make libertarians enthusiastic. In other words, he is probably the lesser of two evils.

One response to this scenario, which is actually preferable to much of what occurs in the socialist Empire State where left-wing Republicans compete with Democrats who are less so, is to sit out the election or vote for an ideologically pure third party candidate. The problem with that strategy is that probably no more than two percent of the population of a rust belt city like Syracuse agree with libertarianism.  Therefore, you get to feel good about your choice but have no chance of influencing policy. That is the easy route because you do not need to work hard to influence candidates and incumbents. Rather, you get to have a clear conscience and enjoy a life of leisure because no one pays attention to you.

The harder way is to sully your conscience and support an ideologically impure candidate who is closer to your views by some degree, whether its 10 or 20 percent.  Then, work hard to influence that candidate, whether it be through campaigning and voicing your views; contributing and lobbying, or getting onto your county committee and voicing your views there. That way is hard work; stressful; and makes it more difficult to have a clear conscience.

The left has been successful because it has been willing to do the work. Libertarians need to re-think the path of ideological purity.

Mitchell Langbert can be visited at http://www.mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com.

Republican Liberty Caucus candidates were playing in the big leagues last night when they were matched up against candidates of the Republican Party machine. Overall, be prepared for some disappointing results — not because our candidates did poorly, but because they didn’t quite do well enough despite coming very close to victories.

INDIANA

Let’s take a look at the race in southwest Indiana’s 8th District. When I was looking at the results, I was floored last night when RLC-endorsed Tea Party “stay at home mom” Kristi Risk was in a very tight race to win the Republican nomination. Ultimately, Kristi ended up losing the race. CQ Politics — geniuses no doubt — reported that “the Republican Party avoided a disaster,” explaining that Risk would not prove to be a challenger to Congressman Joe Donnelly (D) in November. The arrogance of the mainstream media continues to have no bounds. Let’s hope Kristi Risk runs for office again because her campaign clearly lit up the hearts and minds of concerned Hoosier voters.

In the Indiana U.S. Senate race, FOX News’ Carl Cameron reported — long before the polls closed — that Republican Dan Coats had won the race. Again, the media just doesn’t seem to get it: elections are for voters, and every seat is the people’s seat! Coats did win the race, but Marlin Stutzman made it close. My belief is that if either Hostettler or Stutzman were not in the race, the other could have siphoned enough conservative votes to beat Coats in the primary. I believe Indiana is now left with a vulnerable and uninspiring Republican U.S. Senate candidate.

Although he was not endorsed by the Republican Liberty Caucus, Tea Party candidate and a personal friend of mine, Travis Hankins, had a similar performance to Ms. Risk in the neighboring southern Indiana district. Hankins was running against two others — a former Congressman and an establishment choice — for the right to challenge Congressman Baron Hill in November. Unfortunately, Hankins lost by a few hundred votes. Travis Hankins’ youthfulness — he’s just 28 — and his lack of name recognition — this was his first race — did not seem to cause problems for Hoosier voters. I’m sure we’ll see more of Travis, or his twin brother Aaron, in the future.

On a positive note, RLC member Steve Davisson won his primary and will now advance to the General Election for State Representative in Indiana’s 73rd District — the largest State Representative district in the state that includes much of southern Indiana.

OHIO

There are no positive results to report from Ohio. All of our Republican Liberty Caucus candidates lost their respective races. Beth Lear, running for State Representative, ran a tremendous campaign and got bested by only a small margin of votes for a Delaware County state legislative seat.

The most interesting race in Ohio was perhaps the contest in District 16, whose winner would go on to face vulnerable Democrat John Boccieri — a vocal proponent of government-run health care. Former County Commissioner Matt Miller was the Tea Party candidate and he narrowly lost to the establishment choice, businessman Jim Renacci. Let’s hope Renacci can defeat Boccieri this fall.

NORTH CAROLINA

There were two Republican Liberty Caucus victories in North Carolina. First, but not surprisingly, BJ Lawson won his primary for Congress in District 4. Lawson will face David Price in November in a district that is overwhelmingly Democrat.

Newcomer Jon Hardister won the Republican primary in North Carolina’s 57th District — which includes the city of Greensboro. Hardister will bring youthfulness and common sense if he’s selected by North Carolina voters in November.

Let’s work to help Lawson, Davisson, and Hardister win their races this fall!

Clearly the Tea Party had an impact on these races. Let’s hope its impact is more imprinted on upcoming primary races in Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

From Our America, the Gary Johnson Initiative:

A lot has been said of “principle over party” by the tea party movement in the last year. They stuck to their guns so strongly as to support a third party candidate over the Republican candidate in New York’s special District 23 election, because they felt the Republican candidate didn’t align closely enough with the principles they held so dear.

Videos on YouTube abound of tea party protesters shouting down and booing Republican speakers who dared come to their events to speak after voting for 2008’s financial bailout package. Over and over again, tea party leaders stress that this is about principles, not partisan politics- they could care less who has what letter next to their name. They only want people who stand for the right principles: limited government, individual liberty, Constitutional rule of law.

But there’s an important aspect of “principle over party” that cannot be overlooked. If the tea party neglects this one important thing, it will be doomed to fail in its attempt to limit and reverse the relentless expansion of government into our lives. That one crucial factor in its success is for the tea party to remember policy over personality.

While someone may have a good personality, a personality that seems conservative, down-to-earth, and middle-American; while a politician on stage might say everything you agree with and believe deep down in your heart; while that person may strongly affirm all of your principles… he or she might not really believe in them.

Is it so hard to think that a politician might capitalize on the tea party movement by telling us what we want to hear? Is it so impossible to believe that a politician would lie? There’s only one way to find out if someone believes what they say, and will truly work to advance your principles in our government: and that is to carefully examine this person’s past policies.

Read the rest of the article here.