The More the Merrier….Not the Case with the GOP Presidential Field

When it was leaked out that U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) was forming an exploratory committee to run for the GOP nomination for President, the excitement and electricity on the internet was enough to give full power to Baghdad. Paul has long been a favorite among many on the information super-highway for his paleolibertarian views on foreign and domestic policy and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Many were enthusiastic about the possibility of Paul gaining a broad coalition of support among libertarians, "real" conservatives and maybe even a few leftists as well to form a new electoral coalition.

Unfortunately all that euphoria had to be tampered because just a week later another favorite of the internet political posting crowds, U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.), decided that he was going form his own presidential exploratory committee.

I'll give my endorsement of Paul over Tancredo near end of this article. But once again it shows that when it comes to nominating a presidential candidate, too many cooks can spoil the broth on the GOP side. History has shown that anti-establishment or other sincerely conservative candidates have been hurt by the divisions caused when there are too many presidential candidates and not enough pool for them to swim in.

There really hasn't been united conservative backing to one presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964. Some may ask what about Ronald Reagan but truth be told when Reagan ran for president in 1968 and 1974 many southern Goldwaterites who become ensconced in the party after 1964, supported Richard Nixon in 1968 and in 1972 and Gerald Ford in 1976. Indeed, it was those very persons, like Mississippi's state Republican Party Chairman Clarke Reed, that ultimately gave Ford the nomination. Even when Reagan ran in 1980 there was a candidate to his right, U.S. Rep. Phil Crane (R-Ill.). Crane was the favorite of intellectual conservatives because they didn't think Reagan had the brain matter for the job ("Its not that Reagan lacks principals," one conservative joke went. "It’s that he doesn't understand the one’s he has.") and thought that if his candidacy collapsed, which nearly happened thanks to the inept leadership of campaign manager John Sears, then Crane would be left to pick up the pieces. Of course Reagan's candidacy didn't collapse and Crane was out the door after New Hampshire. There were Republican candidates like John Connally and Bob Dole in 1980 who were seen as reasonably conservative, but whose ties to a discredited GOP establishment at that time ruled them out among conservative voters.

The apparent unity within the old conservative movement cracked in 1986 and by the time of the next GOP nominating contest in 1988, several factions had their own candidates. In subsequent years, those divisions have only grown worse and the number of candidates has grown each time. However, each of these candidates are or have been trying to swim in a pool that simply doesn't have enough water to hold all of them.

What makes a person decide to run for president after all? It would seem that raising the money required to win along with the travel and hard work required would make it too daunting a task for a mere mortal. Walter Mondale thought spending all that time "sleeping in Holiday Inns" was too much for him back in 1974. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) formed an exploratory committee this year and quickly pulled the plug on it when he realized he couldn't win. And yet others are willing the make the sacrifice even though they don't have snowball's chance in hell of being president because modern presidential campaigns are not as taxing as you might think. Federal matching funds provides some cash to work with. You've got all sorts of free media nowadays to get your message out. You can live off the land in a low budget campaign to try and gain delegate or two to make a point at the convention. You can even use such a bid to gain attention for yourself for the gigs to come. John Kasich was an also-ran GOP candidate in 2000, but that didn't stop him getting his own show, "Heartland," on Fox News. Alan Keyes became a talk-radio host after his losing campaigns. Some loser candidates have parlayed their losses into cabinet posts like Bruce Babbitt or U.S. Senate campaigns like Elizabeth Dole or statewide office back home like Gerry Brown. Bob Kerry became a college president. You never know what awaits you even if you only gain 1 percent of the vote in New Hampshire. And of course if lighting does strike, as it did for an unknown former Georgia Governor named Jimmy Carter back in 1976, you too can be president.

So this new environment means that lots of candidates can run for president and all the factions in the GOP and the conservative universe gives them the rational. Unfortunately, all these candidacies accomplish is making it easier for the powers that be, both in the Republican and conservative establishments, to maintain their status and their control of the political scene.

The thing I despise most about political reporting and punditry is the fact that that such reporters and pundits lazily continue to mouth stereotypes and formulas and generalizations about voters and voting habits that have long ceased to be, if in fact ever were. This is especially true with the Republican primary electorate. Supposedly the GOP primary electorate is heavily conservative, which is true compared to moderate or liberal GOP voters, but such reporting doesn't delve into the kind of conservatism such voters espouse. GOP nominating history has shown time and again that most conservative candidates are usually not nominated and yet reporters and pundits seem blind to this fact and report about each candidate in reference to their support from the "conservative movement" or support among social conservatives, economic conservatives and national security conservatives and so forth.

Yet if support among social conservatives was the most important aspect in the Republican presidential nominating process, then we would have had GOP nominees Robertson, or Bauer or Keyes. If support among economic conservatives were important, then we would have had GOP nominees Kemp or Forbes. If strength among libertarian, anti-government conservatives was critical, we would have GOP nominees Gramm and or Kasich. If national security credentials made the difference among GOP primary voters, then we would have had nominees Haig or Dornan.

All of these candidacies just go to show how the divisiveness in the nominating process hurts candidates who have the opportunity to put together broad coalitions of support, especially those candidates who have a real opportunity of shaking things up in Washington. I speak of course of Pat Buchanan. In 1996, a little-known former UN ambassador and twice failed U.S. Senate candidate from Maryland, Alan Keyes, didn’t let his electoral failures or lack of notoriety keep him from somehow thinking he was presidential timber. Had Keyes not been around in Iowa, Pat Buchanan would have beaten Bob Dole in the caucus there and, with a win in New Hampshire, could have rolled his way to the nomination. Three years later in Iowa, Buchanan not only had to contend with Keyes once again, but former Reagan White House aide Gary Bauer. Instead of supporting someone whom he had very little disagreement with, Bauer decided to run himself because "Pat's had his turn. Now it's my turn," or something to that effect. Bauer was going to be Pat with a smile face, without all the nasty rhetoric or old newspaper columns that said bad things about Israel or women or whoever else was offended. He began to try and outdo Buchanan on the issues of economic nationalism, immigration and globalism while also coming out for more subsides for Iowa farmers. The end result was Buchanan saw his vote totals at the Iowa Straw Poll cut in half. Instead of being a top tier candidate along with George Bush II and John McCain, he began to run for the Reform Party nomination and the rest is history. Way to go Gary! You did the establishment's job quite nicely.

Not only that, but many within the conservative establishment of special interest groups, think tanks and political consultants on both coasts stay away from such boat-rockers like Buchanan for fear their own status could be compromised if they support candidates that aren’t given the seal of approval within in the establishment university they exist and work in. No one wants to be an outcast when trying move with the powers that be.

Of course such history doesn’t stop potential GOP candidates who should know better from pandering to such conservative factions which only further splits up the vote into atom-sized measurements. There are three good examples of this:

--- In 1988, Delaware Gov. Pierre S. DuPont ran for president with the reputation that all governors have of being a "moderate." So much so that the campaign staff of George Bush I feared that he could cut into Bush I's vote totals and threatened his chance of winning the GOP nomination. But DuPont decided to run like a whole-hog conservative, making a speech attacking the "moderate" wing of the party and even proposing a plan to privatize Social Security. Bush I advisers reacted with glee at their good fortune and DuPont wound up with six percent of the vote in New Hampshire.

--- In 2000 publisher Steve Forbes, coming off a solid run in his first try for the presidency in 1996, decided, like any good businessman would, that a certain segment of the GOP audience, namely social conservatives, didn't like his product very much, meaning himself, and decided that he would target himself to this audience until they came around. When they did, he would win the Republican nomination. The upshot was the audience that helped propel Forbes in 1996: economic conservatives and young, libertarian-leaning Republicans along with independents, felt abandoned by Forbes and rushed head-long into the waiting arms of John McCain. The end result was that Forbes slugged it out with Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer for the social conservative vote and saw his campaign end a lot earlier that year than it did in 1996.

--- Heading into 2008, both McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have been pandering and tailoring themselves to the conservative voting bloc. McCain, like Forbes, is trying to convince that certain segment of the GOP base to come around to his side by trying to kiss and make-up to their so-called leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, leaders that he once attacked as "agents of intolerance." Romney is touting his anti-homosexual marriage credentials. This, of course, is the old Richard Nixon strategy of running to the right to win the primary/run to the center to win the general election. Unfortunately, in a day and age where voters are more cynical about politics and distrustful of politicians in general and when Google and You Tube can catch your words in previous speeches or debates, such attempts at positioning can backfire. McCain is trying to convince a GOP electorate that still mistrusts and despises him that he's really one of them even to the point of supporting an unpopular war just so he can be seen as supporting a President who’s becoming unpopular with Republicans. Meanwhile, Romney's old debate tapes back from 1994 when he ran for the Senate against Ted Kennedy show this Mormon saying he would outdo Kennedy when it came to promoting homosexual rights and defending abortion. Romney's says he's seen the light, but you have to wonder if such conversions have come about the minute he announced his candidacy and what serious Mormon would say such things

Either way, it's this pandering that adds more swimmers to an ever-shrinking pool to splash in leaving little water for candidates that either do not have the money or bases of support outside of a few thousand hardcore followers. GOP primaries voters are not at all that different than anyone else for wanting to be on the winning team, being bandwagon fans or jumping on the train as it leaves the station. So whichever leading candidate jumps out ahead of the others after the first few primaries and caucuses, will more than likely be the nominee. And left behind will be another large group of candidates like messers. Brownback, Romney, Gingrich, Huckabee, Tancredo, Cox, Gilmore, Hunter, Thompson and any other joker who wants to jump into an empty, mud-filled hole without their clothes on.

But before we dump Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee onto the ashbin of history, we should ponder their candidacies for a just minute. Both claim to be the champions of social conservatives but they’re not running as fire and brimstone candidates. Brownback plans to spend a night in jail to highlight one of his main issues, prison reform. And Huckabee, who reportedly plays a mean bass guitar, says the U.S. should open its borders and allow in as many Hispanics from south of the border as possible because that will give the U.S. a chance to make up for past racism. Gee, are these fellows vying for the Jesse Jackson wing of the Republican Party? Actually what they are vying for are younger Christian evangelicals, Roman Catholics, (Brownback converted from Methodism to Catholicism so we’ll see if any “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” sentiment still exists alongside anti-Mormonism within the so-called “religious right”) fundamentalists and Pentecostals who are fed up with being nothing more than back-seat drivers in the GOP coalition and who are fed up with being defined as voters only interested in abortion and homosexuality. They want to talk about different issues like the environment, like wealth disparity and poverty, like prison reform, and like immigration and Huckabee and Brownback are here to service them. They truly are “compassionate conservatism’s” bastard children.

The problem is that the trollops that bore them are in the food processing industry and who reap big benefits from open immigration policies that both Brownback and Huckabee have supported over the years. Indeed, Arkansas-based Tyson Foods has been instrumental in taking Huckabee from being an obscure Baptist preacher to being governor and he’s rewarded them with by helping Tyson import their workforce from Mexico and Central America into Arkansas. Brownback too, has extensive ties to the food industry going all the way back to when he was Secretary of Agriculture in Kansas and they have backed his career. And while Huckabee and Brownback, along with Romney and maybe even former Virginia governor and RNC Chairman Jim Gilmore, slice and dice up the social conservative vote, the issue immigration could well sink the “compassionate conservatives” in the race. As more and more rank-and-file Republicans oppose any kind of liberal immigration policy, those who support such policies are not going to be on the top of their voting lists. Indeed, immigration could well supersede abortion as a GOP litmus test issue and you heard it here first well before it will be reported in the corporate press or by corporate political writers and pundits.

Tom Tancredo has said he doesn’t think he’d make a good presidential candidate, or even president for that matter, doesn’t think he has a chance of winning it all. But he’s running anyway because he thinks the immigration issue is not being given the proper attention it should from the declared GOP candidates and he sees a vacuum of support for his kind of restrictive immigration policies. Certainly it is a vacuum he hopes to fill using Minutemen activists as his supporters, especially out West. And while many, including myself, have supported Tancredo and realize that without him in Congress we would already be in the process of providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, this writer is backing Ron Paul for President in 2008 come what may.

Tancredo’s candidacy is one-trick pony and he knows it. He gave up the opportunity to run a winning campaign for the U.S. Senate in his home state of Colorado, which would gain him a bigger platform and wider audience for his views, and instead decides to go on a fool’s errand. On top of that, he isn’t the only GOP candidate opposed to mass immigration or guest-worker bills in Congress because so is U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Cal.). And no doubt Hunter will be trying play up his opposition to such proposals in order to gain a niche as the anti-immigration candidate. Plus, they both support the war in Iraq. They are virtually the same kind of candidate. So while they’re busy chopping up their shares of vote into pieces like so many outside the establishment, it’s time for people who are serious conservatives, serious libertarians, and even a some serious liberals, those who are on the outside looking in on the powers that be, to give serious look at Ron Paul.

Ron Paul wants to make a serious bid for the White House (meaning no non-major party runs if he doesn’t win) by running for the GOP nomination.Not only does he support decentralization policies such voters can agree with (or at least on most issues anyway), his candidacy, if successful, could represent the beginning of a new movement and or voting coalition of such aforementioned groups who’s primary interest it is to dismantle the empire that’s led us into a bloody and disastrous war, that tries to enforce its values on people who don’t want such values imposed upon them (right or left depending on the community in question), that steals our money for its own vainglorious and unconstitutional pursuits and tries to steal our legitimate freedoms bit by bit. A successful Paul candidacy will destroy the cancer of centralism. This goes way beyond being a protest candidate or running just to “educate” voters in a shell. So much potential can come from Paul’s candidacy that can benefit so many. Paleos of all stripes can join hands with regular Republicans, libertarians, so-called “crunchy conservatives” and liberals for such a movement and members of non-major parties like the LP or CP and maybe even the Greens could leave their enclaves in their respective states and join with a man who doesn’t have to recant his support for this illegal war because he’s opposed it from the beginning. Much this sounds like dreaming I know, but I also know that by the fall of 2007, Ron Paul will be the only Republican candidate (assuming Chuck Hagel doesn’t run) having opposed an unpopular war that will be unpopular with a majority of Republicans. That’s a powerful position to be in with campaign that’s going to be dominated by the war whether the politicians like it or not. Considering the other options out there and considering what could become of a successful Paul campaign, it’s time to support someone standing proudly on shore rather than wallowing in the mud with the other also-rans.

Bong 4 Jesus Madness

This is the latest article from Doug Newman

--Sean Scallon

Bong 4 Jesus Madness
By Doug Newman

When I was growing up somewhere in the swamps of Jersey, I had a friend who would sometimes ask the following when things were blown out of proportion: “Do you have to make a federal issue out of it?”

I was reminded of this when I read that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Morse and the Juneau School Board et al. v. Frederick.

The case began in early 2002, when Joseph Frederick, a high school student in Juneau, Alaska, went on a school field trip to watch the Olympic Torch as it passed through town en route to Salt Lake City. It was there that he unfurled a banner that read “Bong hits 4 Jesus.”

Isn't this just free-spirited high school mischief?

Deborah Morse, the high school principal, did not think so. Even though Frederick displayed the offending, seditious, end-of-civilization-as-we-know-it banner off of school grounds, Morse suspended him for ten days.

This was just the beginning of the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" madness. Frederick eventually sued in federal district court on First Amendment grounds. The court ruled in favor of the school district. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and ruled in Frederick’s favor.

Enter Kenneth Starr, the former US Solicitor General and Whitewater prosecutor who was very active in pushing for Bill Clinton’s impeachment. He has convinced the Court to hear this case. He will represent the school district.

Starr, who is now dean of the law school at Pepperdine University, wants the Court to have the chance “to clear up the ‘doctrinal fog infecting student speech jurisprudence.’"

Did I miss the Big News? Did they catch bin Laden?

How about clearing up the doctrinal fog infecting the Bill of Rights?

The Bill of Rights is really a bill of prohibitions on federal intrusions on the rights of thee and me. If federal judges actually read the first ten amendments to the Constitution, we would live in quite a different America.

Free speech – protected by the First Amendment – would be secure. Your rights to do things such as have your bong hits and to opt out of government education -- protected by the Ninth Amendment – would be secure. Federal intrusion in education – forbidden by the Tenth Amendment – would be non-existent. No doctrinal fog here.

In short, your right to do as you willy-nilly pleased as long as you did not harm anyone else would be secure from the predations of control freaks left and right. Your right to be left alone would be secure.

A YouTube video made the point that the ACLU is defending Frederick’s right to unfurl a banner that included the name of “Jesus”. At the same time, a stalwart of the Christian Right has his trousers in such a wad that he has convinced the Supremes to hear the case.

If the mere mention of “bong hits” sends these Holy Joes over the edge, how about Genesis 1:29?

"And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat." (KJV)

"Every herb bearing seed" means exactly that: "every herb bearing seed". This includes hippy lettuce.

It is enough that – in a post-9/11 America -- what was left of the Constitution was sent through the shredder under the guise of fighting terrorism. (Most of it had already been finished off in the name of the War on Drugs.)

In the future – in a post-“Bong hits 4 Jesus” America -- will everyone who has just a little too much fun wind up before the Supreme Court in order to clear up someone’s "doctrinal fog”?

I opened with a question asked by a friend from New Jersey. I will close with a question once asked by a friend from Arizona:

“Lord, when’s the Big Rock gonna hit?”

Ron Paul and Free Republic

I met Dr. Dan "Red" Phillips at last year's JRC gathering in Rockford and we've corresponding ever since. He's a writer like myself to I'm happy to put his pieces on my blog like this one on Ron Paul and Free Republic:

--Sean Scallon

Since the beginning of the Bush administration genuine conservatives have been taking a beating, but now there is hope. Friday 12 January 07 finally brought some good news for the conservative movement and the cause of authentic conservatism and constitutionally limited government! Rep. Ron Paul has set up an exploratory committee for a possible presidential campaign for the GOP nomination in 2008. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Rep. Paul, he is a Republican Congressman from the 14th District of Texas. In the Congress he is a bright shining light of limited government in a bastion of big government darkness. In an age when many Republicans have embraced the cause of activist, “big government (sic) conservatism” at home and abroad, Rep. Paul has been keeping the limited government faith. (Of course “big government conservatism” is an obvious oxymoron.) Rep. Paul’s, who is a physician by trade, support of constitutionally limited government has earned him the moniker “Dr. No,” because he so often votes against big spending bills. Rep. Paul, in an era marked by the abandonment of core principles, has remained a genuine constitutionalist.

For awhile, I have had to set back and listen to conservatives debate whether Sen. McCain or Gov. Romney was the least objectionable candidate. Or even worse if that is possible, I had to listen to speculation about whether Mayor Rudy Giuliani could win the Republican nomination. Almost in despair I listened as conservatives mentioned amnesty supporters Sen. Brownback and Gov. Huckabee as possible conservative alternative candidates. I wondered to myself and also aloud, “Has the conservative movement really sunk this low?”


As I have indicated before, I am a serious political junkie. The problem is there has seldom been a candidate that I could whole-heartedly endorse. My paleoconservative and constitutionalist beliefs would not allow me to enthusiastically support such obvious moderates as Dole in ’96 or Bush in ‘00 and ‘04. In fact, I felt like Bush’s embrace of “compassionate” big government (sic) conservatism was more in line with the editorial page of the New York Times a la David Brooks than it was with main street small government conservatism. And his foreign policy was certainly not small government conservatism. It was big government Wilsonian liberalism.

So when I heard about Rep. Paul’s announcement, I was ecstatic. I immediately went to a few e-mail groups I belong to to share the good news, but good news travels fast. Many were already aware. Since Rep. Paul’s announcement, the conservative blogosphere and conservative internet sites have been on fire with the news of a possible Paul candidacy. Finally there is a candidate who is right on all the right issues, a candidate I can whole-heartily endorse. I have already priced tickets to Iowa and New Hampshire.

Rep Paul is right on spending, he is right on taxes, he is right on the border, immigration and amnesty, he is right on life, and he is right on guns. Unlike many “federalist” conservatives, he understands the importance of decentralization and State’s rights. And given the current situation in Iraq, he understands the importance of a truly “humble” foreign policy. Bush campaigned on a “humble” foreign policy but gave us Jacobin revolution instead. Rep. Paul understands that the only foreign policy consistent with small, limited government is non-intervention. His foreign policy is the policy of the Founders. His is the foreign policy of authentic, historic conservatism. His is a foreign policy of humility that recognizes the limitations of fallen man. His is not the foreign policy of revolutionary Jacobin transformation and overthrow. Political Science and History 101 should teach us that Jacobin style transformation is a policy of the left, not the right.

Rep. Paul’s campaign is really the answer to prayer for many conservatives. Here is a paragraph I wrote from a previous column. This column first appeared 9 Jan 07.

Based on the reaction to the Baker commission and talk of surges, the official Right does not look like it will be abandoning its embrace of neo-con interventionism any time soon. The base is still broadly supportive of the policy. None of the potential GOP presidential candidates in 2008 are anti-war. Senator Hagel (R-NE) could probably be described as a realist, but the base hates him because of it. Both possible paleo-esq candidates, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), are pro-war. Front-runner Senator McCain (R-AZ) is the loudest voice calling for more troops. (Rep. Ron Paul, are you listening?)[emphasis added]

I am not trying to take credit for his decision to run. I just want to demonstrate that Rep. Paul’s potential campaign really is for many of us, the best political news in a long, long time.

So I was eager to share my excitement with my paleo friends, but I was also interested to see how some of the more militantly (no pun intended) pro-intervention sites were dealing with the news. So I went to the “Mother of All” pro-intervention sites, Free Republic.

I went to Free Republic and searched “’Ron Paul’ President.” There were already a few threads. One had 40+ replies, and it is the first one I looked at. I only got to look at the 40+ reply thread briefly before it was deleted. In it, some clueless Freeper had written “Paleoconservatism = fake conservatism.” Of course, this infuriated me. Statements like that are either the result of ignorance or are a deliberate attempt to smear and distort. No thoughtful, well-informed person could make such a silly statement. The rap against paleoconservatism is that it is too conservative: that it rejects certain modernist, liberal assumptions. It can not simultaneously be too conservative and fake conservative. That makes no logical sense. So I replied with the following:

“Paleoconservative = fake conservative”

You have got to be kidding me. The paleocons are the only true conservatives. It is actually not them who need a pre-fix. Neocons and the mainstream conservatives who have bought their rhetoric are liberal Wilsonian interventionists. Interventionism is inconsistent with small government conservatism. Look at what the right in this country believed before the Cold War. Contrary to the myopic belief of some “conservatives,” human history and conservative history did not start 50 years ago. Perhaps you should take a look at Washington’s Farewell Address.

For that statement I joined the large and proud legion of those who have been “banned” by Free (sic) Republic. I recognize the above statement is unpopular with many on the “right,” especially the Free (sic) Republic style “right,” but it is certainly a defensible position. It is a position held by many respectable conservatives/rightists. It is not a lone or eccentric opinion. So why did it warrant my banning? Clearly I was not banned for foul language or personal attacks or some other legitimate reason. I was banned because I expressed what Free (sic) Republic determined to be wrong think. It is really very sad. There was a time when invoking the past proved your conservative bona fides. Now it seems at Free (sic) Republic that invoking the past is wrong think. How dare I worry about what Washington and the Founders believed, at Free (sic) Republic all that matters is what the Dear Leader believes. I will leave it to the readers to determine if “Dear Leader” refers to President Bush or Jim Robinson, the founder of Free (sic) Republic. Or come to think of it, has anyone ever seen “Jim Rob” and President Bush in the same room together? Hmmm …

Anyway, after my banishment, I returned to the website to check on the status of the thread I had attempted to post on. In good Orwellian fashion, it had been erased as if it had never existed. Ron who? Perhaps there was some problem with the thread such as foul language that caused it to be deleted, but I doubt it. I suspect the problem with the thread was the same problem with my comment; it expressed wrong think. Other Ron Paul for President threads remain. I really have no idea what makes the difference. Maybe it has to do with who is moderating at the time or whether the non-interventionists are getting the better of the interventionists.

I sent “Jim Rob” two e-mails asking him for an explanation for the thread being deleted and why my innocuous comment warranted banning, but he has yet to reply. I’m not holding my breath.

I discussed this situation with many people via e-mail and several replied that they thought Jim Robinson and the Free (sic) Republic crowd feared Ron Paul. Ron Paul does have a tremendous amount of support among the grassroots base. He is an articulate spokesman for the principled non-interventionist position. He does have the potential to unite people from across the political spectrum and draw in a lot of third party activists and those who have previously given up on the system. But I honestly don’t think Jim Robinson and the boys at Free (sic) >Republic fear Ron Paul. What they fear is honest, open, and intelligent debate. Who needs paleoconservatives with their pesky ideas and concern for the past constantly invoking Washington’s Farewell Address and the Founders and making all those learned references to Jacobins, the left-wing and the French Revolution? It is so much less taxing on the brain to read over and over again “Kill all the Islamo-fascists,” chant “regime change,” “creative destruction,” and “benign global hegemony” and lap up the rest of the revolutionary, left-wing faith that passes for “conservatism” these days.

But the actions of the thought police at Free (sic) Republic are not a sign of strength. They are an indication of weakness. Their position of the more foreign intervention the merrier (Let’s take out Iran and Syria while we are at it) is rapidly deteriorating and becoming increasingly untenable. When the War first began they could count on a lot of support and consent on the mainstream right. But as things have gone poorly in Iraq as the conservative war critics predicted (I take no joy in being right about that), they are in an increasingly smaller minority. Their interventionist strategy is opposed by more and more Americans on the right, left, and center. I’m not arguing that public opinion is always right. It isn’t. But no one is buying their strategy anymore. They are spending all their time talking to each other and shouting down, or banning, dissent. Again this is a sign of weakness, not strength. And it is a sign of intellectual atrophy. They certainly can not prove that their interventionist ideas are from the right, because they manifestly are not. And they can’t defend their leftist position beyond mindless slogans and accusations. “Kill them Islamo-fascist!” “You’ve got your head buried in the sand.” “Pacifist.” “Appeaser.” “Neville Chamberlain.” “Cut and run.” “Surrender.” And my very favorite of all, the completely mindless “I would rather fight them over there than fight them over here.” Can you tell I am a veteran of these wars?

Well Jim Rob and the boys can mindlessly continue to backslap each other and cheer on global Jacobin revolution and hoot down all those who dare to call them on their left-wing ideological crusade, but fewer and fewer on the right are buying it. It is my hope that a Ron Paul campaign will continue to chip away at the pro-war “right,” and restore some integrity to the word conservative and return the conservative movement to its Old Right, anti-interventionist roots. Global revolution is not now, nor has it ever been conservative. Run Ron run!

—–
Dr. Dan E. Phillips is an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia. He specializes in the treatment of alcohol and drug abuse. He can be reached at Phillips_de at mercer dot edu.)

Maine rejects Real ID

I always love it when a state or locality tells the Feds to go to hell and I am happy to tell about it as this article appeared on Yahoo.com this morning.

---Sean Scallon

Maine overwhelmingly rejected federal requirements for national identification cards on Thursday, marking the first formal state opposition to controversial legislation scheduled to go in effect for Americans next year.

Both chambers of the Maine legislature approved a resolution saying the state flatly "refuses" to force its citizens to use driver's licenses that comply with digital ID standards, which were established under the 2005 Real ID Act. It asks the U.S. Congress to repeal the law.

The vote represents a political setback for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Republicans in Washington, D.C., which have argued that nationalized ID cards for all Americans would help in the fight against terrorists.

"I have faith that the Democrats in Congress will hear this from many states and will find a way to repeal or amend this in the coming months," House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview after the vote. "It's not only a huge federal mandate, but it's a huge mandate from the federal government asking us to do something we don't have any interest in doing."

The Real ID Act says that, starting around May 2008, Americans will need a federally approved ID card--a U.S. passport will also qualify--to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments or take advantage of nearly any government service. States will have to conduct checks of their citizens' identification papers, and driver's licenses likely will be reissued to comply with Homeland Security requirements.

In addition, the national ID cards must be "machine-readable," with details left up to Homeland Security, which hasn't yet released final regulations. That could end up being a magnetic strip, an enhanced bar code or radio frequency identification (RFID) chips.

The votes in Maine on the resolution were nonpartisan. It was approved by a 34-to-0 vote in the state Senate and by a 137-to-4 vote in the House of Representatives.

Other states are debating similar measures. Bills pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Montana and Washington state express varying degrees of opposition to the Real ID Act.

Montana's is one of the strongest. The legislature held a hearing on Wednesday on a bill that says "The state of Montana will not participate in the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005" and directs the state motor vehicle department "not to implement the provisions."

Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project, said he thinks Maine's vote will "break the logjam, and other states are going to follow." (The American Civil Liberties Union has set up an anti-Real ID Web site called Real Nightmare).

Pingree, Maine's House majority leader, said the Real ID Act would have cost the state $185 million over five years and required every state resident to visit the motor vehicle agency so that several forms of identification--including an original copy of the birth certificate and a Social Security card--would be uploaded into a federal database.


Growing opposition to the law in the states could create a political pickle for the Bush administration. The White House has enthusiastically embraced the Real ID Act, saying it (click for PDF) "facilitates the strengthening by the states of the standards for the security and integrity of drivers' licenses."

But if a sufficient number of states follow Maine's lead, pressure would increase on a Democratic Congress to relax the Real ID rules--or even rescind them entirely.

A key Republican supporter of the Real ID Act said Thursday that the law was just as necessary now as when it was enacted as part of an $82 billion military spending and tsunami relief bill. (Its backers say it follows the recommendations that the 9/11 Commission made in 2004.)

"Real ID is needed to protect the American people from terrorists who use drivers licenses to board planes, get jobs and move around the country as the 9/11 terrorists did," Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an e-mailed statement. "It makes sense to have drivers licenses that ensure a person is who they say they are. It makes the country safer and protects the American people from terrorists who would use the most common form of ID as cover."

New York Times article on Ron Paul

Please enjoy this New York Times op-ed page article on Ron Paul from Bruce Bartlett that was published back on Jan. 23

--Sean Scallon

Not Your Average Republican Presidential Candidate

By Bruce Bartlett

The other day, I went by to visit Congressman Ron Paul, Republican of Texas. My first "real" job in Washington was working for him when he was initially elected to Congress in 1976, and I wanted to see how he was doing. Little did I realize when I made the appointment that I would be talking to a candidate for president.

I remember clearly when I first heard of Ron. It was in an article in The Washington Post on April 5, 1976, which said that he had just won a special election. My memory was that he had said he was to the right of Barry Goldwater, which sounded pretty good to me. But rereading the article, I see that Ron had not said this; it was his opponent, Bob Gammage, a Democrat. The charge was not altogether true, as I eventually discovered.

I was looking for a job at the time, so I sent a resume and a couple of articles I had published to Ron’s office and about a month later got an interview with him. I remember that his office had a complete set of books distributed by the Foundation for Economic Education, in Irvington, N. Y., the most prominent free market think tank in the United States at that time.

This was a good sign because I had published two articles in the foundation’s journal, The Freeman. I think Ron was impressed by this, so he hired me as a legislative assistant. I spent most of my time monitoring his principal committee, which was then known as the House Committee on Banking and Currency. With inflation climbing through the roof, it was an interesting assignment.

Ron saw the roots of the inflation problem in fiat money – currency not backed by gold or other tangible assets. At the time, this was a controversial position. But there was no denying that inflation had accelerated in 1971, when the United States cut the dollar’s last link to gold. This meant that the Federal Reserve Board was no longer constrained by how much it could increase the money supply, which increased rapidly along with inflation.

Although few economists supported a return to the gold standard, as Ron did (and still does), his critique of the Fed for creating the inflation problem dovetailed with that of "monetarists" like Milton Friedman, the late University of Chicago economist. At that time, most economists thought something other than the money supply was the main cause of inflation – budget deficits, higher prices for oil engineered by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, bad harvests, whatever.

The Fed chairman at that time was Arthur Burns, who had been Friedman’s teacher at Rutgers and Columbia. I remember being impressed by Burns’s appearances before the banking committee, in which he would take long pauses to fiddle with his pipe before answering questions – giving himself time to think and using up his questioners’ time as well. Burns’s performances were masterful, but unilluminating. He always found some way to blame inflation on something other than Fed policy.

Since Burns was a Republican who had been appointed by Richard Nixon, criticizing him wasn’t really in the Republican playbook. But Ron was adamant that inflation had no other cause than too much money and that Burns could stop it if he wanted to. Most economists now agree with this view. That period of inflation ended only when Burns’s successor, Paul Volcker, slowed growth of the money supply.

In other ways as well, Ron was not your average Republican or a typical member of Congress. Most Republicans reflexively voted whatever way the White House told them to – Gerald Ford was still president, and party unity was the order of the day. And most congressmen hate being on the wrong side of a lopsided vote. But Ron voted his conscience and was often the only "nay" vote out of 435.

Since Ron is a medical doctor, he became known as "Dr. No," which delighted him. He hadn’t run for Congress as a stepping stone to becoming a lobbyist, but to define the political spectrum by showing how a consistent libertarian would vote. This meant being for the free market and against gun control – conventional right-wing positions – but also being in favor of drug legalization and nonintervention in foreign affairs – more commonly left-wing positions.

This is still Ron’s philosophy. It is why he has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, making him something of a darling among those on the left who see no connection between Ron’s free market views and his antiwar position. But to him and other libertarians the issues are one and the same. They’re against unjustified government intervention at home or abroad.

Unfortunately, Ron was defeated in the general election the same year he was first elected. But he came back two years later, in 1978, and served until 1984, when he ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination to fill a U.S. Senate seat in Texas. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, garnering 432,000 votes nationally.

In 1996, Ron was re-elected to Congress in a different district. (Tom Delay had his old district.) The Republican leadership wasn’t too happy to have him back, however, because they had persuaded the Democratic congressman in Ron’s new district to switch parties with a promise that he would run unopposed. But Ron had made no such promise.

Ron upset the Republican leadership’s plans to get other Democrats to switch party and embarrassed them by winning the Republican nomination and the general election. When he came back to the House, his fellow Republicans denied him the seniority to which he was entitled because of his previous service, and generally treated him as an outcast.

Other members of Congress might have been bitter over such treatment, but not Ron. He didn’t give up a successful medical practice to be a congressman because he craved the perks of office, but because he had a point to make. As long as he can continue making it, he is perfectly happy.

When I asked Ron why he kept running for office despite having little to show for it in terms of legislation or other tangible accomplishments, he said it was because he enjoyed the job. He gets to say what he thinks, meets interesting people, and shows that honesty and adherence to principle are not the political albatrosses that most politicians think they are. It’s worth noting that in 2006, when Republicans were losing control of Congress, Ron got 60 percent of the vote in his district.

One thing that came through to me as I was talking to Ron was his similarity to Ronald Reagan in a key respect. Reagan always said that he had already been a success in life before deciding to run for president – he had been a big Hollywood star, of course. Because being president didn’t define him as a person, it was easier for him to cope with the pressure of being in the White House.

Ron Paul had been a successful surgeon who delivered some 4,000 babies before giving up his practice. So like Reagan, he does not regard his current position as the pinnacle of his career. To him, serving in politics at the national level is more a privilege than a job.

During my visit, Ron had to leave for a vote, and that prevented my asking him about his future – according to press reports he has formed an exploratory committee to seek the Republican presidential nomination. Obviously, this is a long shot, but at least he has the advantage of being the only announced candidate in either party who has already received a political party’s presidential nomination.

In any other year, one would automatically dismiss Ron’s chances as quixotic at best. But 2008 is shaping up as an unusually fluid year politically, with no clear front-runner in either party, and new candidates emerging almost weekly. And the Internet has leveled the playing field in many ways. It may be a year when anything can happen.

Dream it all up again

Here's one piece of some short originality. It's part of an email letter I wrote today:

"Dr. Fleming had interesting article in the February edition of Chronicles that said that the elements of movement are out there, what it takes to bring together is hate and fear and that ideas are really an overrated aspect of politics compared to sense of "what's in it for me." I think a lot of it is true to a certain extent, but I would just dismiss the idea people because they have shown that small bands of persons working together and motivated by ideals can take over a party like the Goldwaterites did to the GOP or the McGovernites did to the Dems and neoconservatism did for U.S. foreign policy. Now this sense of control may very well illusionary and it may be true that the idea people need the politicians to engineer their takeovers, but again, it has happened.

"Let's face it, demographics and changes in society did much to power the conservative movement as "ideas" did. Any movement is a reflection of the people in it or involved and what motivates them. It may be that hate and fear ultimately motivates a person vote when you boil it down, but voters also WANT to believe they are voting for the right reasons even if they are not. You could spin together a movement made up of those who are traditional, don't like big government or high taxes, want something about immigration on the premise that 1). U.S. foreign policy endangers U.S. security with foreign alliances, 2). Immigration must be controlled for economic, social and environmental reasons, 3). Reducing the size of the federal government preserves liberty and increases reliability of government services; 4). Communities should be allowed to develop as they see fit "Let Utah be Utah and let San Francisco be San Francisco." 5). The West's traditions and heritage must be preserved. This kind of movement should be anchored by "Crunch Cons" types but be able to reach out to ordinary conservatives, libertarians paleo or otherwise, and even leftists concerned about the environment or who are "Power to the People" types. Economically it should be encompass professionals but also manufacturers and farmers. Socially it should encompass most Christians but with an emphasis on Orthodox faiths, European ethnic groups but also traditional Hispanics and traditional African-American as well. It should encompass conservationalists as opposed to environmentalists.

"In short, it's a naturally conservative movement opposed being ideologically conservative."

Indeed what's needed is to dream it all up again. What's needed is to move conservatism away from being an ideology back to beaing a state of mind.

--Sean Scallon

Ron Paul interview with Reason Magazine

Here is an interview Ron Paul gave to Reason Magazine. Yes I know I promised some original stuff for today but it may have to wait until tomorrow. Until then chew on this.

---Sean Scallon


Paul for President?

The maverick libertarian Republican talks on war, immigration, and presidential ambition.

Brian Doherty January 22, 2007

Excitement spread like wildfire last week across the libertarian web: Ron Paul has entered the presidential race! Even the mainstream press took notice. As we’ll see in the interview with Rep. Paul (R-Texas) below, the excitement may have been premature.

The reason for the excitement is understandable: Ron Paul has been the most consistent successful politician advocating the limited-government principles that he sees embedded in the Constitution. Part of his appeal, to a voting base that we can safely presume isn’t as libertarian as Paul is himself, is that of the very rare politician following his own conscience and mind with steadfast integrity. Indeed, Paul is not afraid of aggravating even parts of his libertarian constituency when he thinks it’s the right thing to do, as on immigration (where he’s against amnesty and birthright citizenship, and for increased border control) and his vote this month in favor of prescription drug negotiation.

I first wrote at length about Paul in a 1999 American Spectator profile. Its discussion of Paul's nature and appeal is worth revisiting, even with some old details. Just remember, he’s continued to win his reelection since 1999. In 2004, the Democrats didn’t even bother running anyone against him. And in 2006 he won with 60 percent of the vote.

Though his name rarely appears in the national press, his face almost never on Sunday morning news shows, in 1996 he was third only to Gingrich and Bob Dornan in individual contributions to Republican House members. Though he hasn’t managed to get any of his own bills out of committee since re-entering the House in January 1997, he’s considered a vital asset by a large national constituency of libertarians, goldbugs, and constitutionalists. He’s defied one of the holy shibboleths of electoral politics—Thou Must Bring Home the Bacon—by being a consistent opponent of agricultural subsidies in a largely agricultural district…..

Ron Paul has been defying standard political rules since he first won an off-term House election in 1976--a post-Watergate year when new Republicans weren’t widely embraced. He lost the regular election in ‘76, but came back to win in ‘78, ‘80, and ‘82, then left the House for an ill-fated go at the Senate seat won by Phil Gramm. He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. He was a hero to a national constituency of hard-core skeptics about the State—the one successful politician who was always steadfast even on the less-popular aspects of the live-free-or-die libertarian philosophy. He’d talk about ending the federal drug war when speaking to high school students. In 1985, he spent his own money to fly and testify on behalf of one of the first draft-registration defiers to go to trial, not blanching when confronted with the hot-blooded youngster’s use of the phrase “Smash the State.” He might not use that verb, the sober obstetrician, Air Force veteran, and family man said, but from his first-hand experience with how the U.S. government disrespects its citizens’ natural liberties, he could understand the sentiments.

I talked to Paul Thursday afternoon by phone about presidential and congressional politics. Here is an edited transcript of our talk.

Reason: Does launching an official exploratory committee necessarily mean you will end up launching an official campaign?

Ron Paul: Last week it leaked that we were getting ready to organize an exploratory committee—I haven’t even officially announced that yet. If I find with the exploratory committee that there is some support out there, that we can raise the money you need, then [I’d] declare that [I’m] running.

Reason: Now that it has leaked, what have you thought of the response so far?

Paul: I think it’s been impressive. I’ve been pleased and surprised.

Reason: Who are some of the staff and supporters behind the committee?

Paul: I’m not going into any of that now--we haven’t even officially made the announcement! It was leaked info and I’m still in the process of organizing a team. [In an AP story, Kent Snyder is identified as chairman for the exploratory committee.]

Reason: What would you anticipate the major issues you’d emphasize in a presidential run, if it comes to that?

Paul: Everything I’ve talked about for 20 years! I think the biggest thing for Republican primary voters is that most Republicans are turned off right now. They’ve had a beating and are reassessing their values. They have to decide what they believe in. The Republican Party has become about big government conservatism, and Republicans need to hear the message they used to hear: that conservatives are supposed to be for small government.

Reason: You appeared at a bipartisan press conference today on a resolution regarding possible war in Iran….

Paul: Walter Jones (R-N.C.) has a resolution he’s introducing, sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, saying that the president can’t go into Iran and spread this war without permission of Congress. I don’t know the total number of supporters, but we had a real nice bipartisan group, seven or eight members of Congress, split between Republicans and Democrats. I thought it went well. [The resolution has 12 co-sponsors.]

I think the feeling [on the Hill] is getting more against the war every day. Republicans have generally benefited from being on the other side of war issues, and lately we’ve been pressured into supporting pre-emptive war, and it has hurt us politically. The Old Right position was [antiwar] and through the 20th century conservatives in the Republican Party have generally been trying to keep us out of war, and we’ve generally benefited by this. Eisenhower was elected to end the Korean War. Nixon was supposed to end the Vietnam War and in 2000 Bush ran on a policy of “no nation building” and not being the policeman of the world. He criticized Clinton on Somalia. It’s a strong tradition for Republicans to be on the side of avoiding military conflicts. Democrats have generally been the international instigators.
Reason: One of the Internet rumors is linking you with Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Col.) in a possible joint run…

Paul: Tancredo? No. We’ve never talked about anything like that.

Reason: And another rumor is that the GOP run could be a lead-in to some sort of third party run…

Paul: A third party run? No.

Reason: Have you noticed any differences about being in the minority party in Congress again? Will that affect you?

Paul: Well, the Republican Party leaders are acting in a very defensive manner--which they’ve earned! It probably doesn’t change what I do very much. I’m just as likely to get Democratic support in things I want to do as from Republicans. Republicans were too determined to support the president rather than thinking things through and standing up to his requests to expand government internationally or to expand entitlement program at home. They’ve just gone along here.

Reason: Do you think the losing Congress will liberate more Republicans to revolt against the administration?

Paul: That’s the other Republican politicians’ dilemma: They don’t want to annoy some Republican voters, but at the same time realize that it’s not very popular to have to defend the war. When you see someone like Brownback [R-Kan.] scurrying away from the war….there’s a big change in attitude [in the GOP] and Republicans are starting to remember where they came from and that they don’t have to be supporters of war. I think a year from now there will be a lot more Republican antiwar people around.

Reason: Do you expect the Democrats to do anything substantive to stop the war?

Paul: I think we’ll see more rhetoric than a real desire to do [something specific]. We’ll see hiding behind just saying that “we don’t like this, Bush made a mess, but we can’t cut the money because then we won’t be supporting the troops.” I think that’s a cop out. There’s plenty of money to take care of the troops, billions of dollars in piles.

Reason: What did you think of Rep. Joe Biden’s declaration that there’s really nothing Congress can do to stop the war?

Paul: I think Biden is absolutely wrong. The Constitution gives more responsibility to Congress in dealing with foreign policy than to the executive. The only thing the president can do is be commander in chief after being given directions to pursue. If we had followed the rules he wouldn’t have been able to do a thing, with no declaration of war. How can the commander in chief fight a war that hasn’t been declared? If Congress had not been so complacent in its responsibilities….The war in Vietnam finally ended by definancing, but tragically after 60,000 Americans died. Congress has lots of responsibility, for defining policy, raising an army, buying equipment, the whole works. For Biden to say that–that’s avoiding the responsibility of doing what we can do.

Reason: Have you had much interaction with the larger active antiwar movement from the left?

Paul: Not really. I have a lot of people who correspond with me who come from the left, but I don’t go to their events since there’s so often more on their plate than just the war. They have an agenda I don’t endorse. I’m interested in reviving that spirit that says conservatives and limited-government constitutionalists can support the antiwar position, can be comfortable without aggressive foreign policy.

Reason: What do you have to say to libertarians who disagree with your immigration position, such as on amnesty, birthright citizenship, and a concentration of federal money on border security?

Paul: If they don’t agree, they’d have to be anarchists, and I’m not. I believe in national borders and national security. My position is, take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education and medical care? I don’t endorse easy automatic citizenship for people who break the law. They shouldn’t be able to come reap the benefits of welfare state. I don’t think libertarians can endorse that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don’t think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that interferes with the market economy. We’re short of labor at the same time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal immigrants'] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that’s a reasonable position.

Reason: Some of your libertarian fans were also upset about your vote on government price negotiations for Medicare drugs….

Paul: The government is already involved in giving out prescription drugs, in a program that the drug companies love and spend hundreds of millions lobbying for, this interventionist program. The drug corporations love it. Should government say something about controlling prices since it's a government program? I want to cut down spending, so why not say that government has a responsibility to get a better bargain? Both choices were horrible, but the person who complained on the Internet did not understand the vote. I don’t vote for price controls, obviously, but if government has to buy something—even if they shouldn’t be buying it!--they have a responsibility to get the best price. But most importantly, we shouldn’t be in that business [of buying drugs].

Reason: When can we expect an official announcement about your presidential plans?

Paul: It’s going to be several weeks. We want to get our ducks lined up, be better prepared to line up committees and all the things we didn’t get together before the information about [the exploratory committee] was leaked. I was impressed with how quick it leaked, and the reaction, O man!

Reason: Any reaction from your congressional colleagues or Republican Party types?

Paul: Not a whole lot. I didn’t expect them to say too much. I mean, they mention it—it’s not like they refuse to talk about it—but it’s not the hottest subject around. It’s much hotter on the Internet.

It will have to be a grassroots campaign and rely on the internet. If we don’t learn how to use that to its maximum benefit, we won’t have a very viable campaign. We’ll be able to raise significant amounts, but obviously we’re not getting money from corporate giants and we’re not apt to raise $100 million. Money is pretty important, but it’s not the final issue. There are other ways of running, more so today than ever before, new ways of reaching people in an economical manner. Obvious you have to get a certain [minimum amount] of money, but right now I have no idea of the number.

This article comes from Doug Newman

--Sean Scallon

THIS IS NOT AMERICA(WHAT THE HOLLIS WAYNE FINCHER CASE MEANS TO YOU.)
By Doug Newman
January 17, 2007

“All laws repugnant to the Constitution are void of law.”Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Does the Bill of Rights still serve as a guarantee of God-given rights against arbitrary abuses of government power? Or is it just a 215-year-old piece of paper that can be disregarded at the whim the authorities?

These are the central questions in the case of Mr. Hollis Wayne Fincher, 60, of Fayetteville, Arkansas. (1) If you are not familiar with this case, you need to be. What happened to Mr. Fincher could happen to you.
Mr. Fincher was arrested on November 8 of last year when his home was raided by agents from the FBI, BATFE and several local law enforcement agencies. He was charged with possession of a machine gun in violation of the Firearms Act of 1934. He had incurred the ire of the authorities for his activism on behalf of the Second Amendment and after protesting proposed local zoning ordinances. (2)

In late December, Assistant US Attorney Wendy Johnson filed a motion with the court requesting that the judge, Jimm Larry Hendren, not allow the defense to use any arguments based on the Constitution or on jury nullification. Heads the feds win; tails Fincher loses.
Fincher went to trial on January 8. After the prosecution rested, Hendren ruled that Mr. Fincher would be able to use the Second Amendment in his defense. Then, Hendren reversed himself, contending that the Second Amendment protected a collective, but not an individual, right.

Then the vise grip tightened on Fincher even more. He was forced to present his testimony before the judge only, and not the jury. Hendren had ruled that the defense could contest the government’s evidence, but not the law relevant to the case. After hearing Fincher’s testimony – with the jury out of the room, mind you – Hendren decided that Fincher’s focus was on the legality of federal gun laws rather than the legality of the firearms that Fincher had in his possession.

On January 12, the jury found Mr. Fincher guilty of possession of illegal machine guns and a sawed-off shotgun.

As I write this, I know not what the sentence will be or what appeals are planned.

While David Bowie and Pat Metheny are supremely talented in music, their politics are waaaaay to the left. However, when I read stories like that of Hollis Wayne Fincher, I cannot help recalling the following lyric from that wonderful theme song from The Falcon and the Snowman.

“A little piece of you, A little piece of me will die … This is not America.”

Every time the authorities so recklessly and wantonly disregard the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a little bit of freedom – your freedom and mine -- dies. We are not living in the America I thought I was living in during the early years of my life.

The government and the media want us to think that we are engaged in and apocalyptic struggle against terrorists “who want to take away our freedom and undermine our very way of life.” It is not some Islamopsychopath in a cave in Afghanistan who is denying Mr. Fincher his freedom. It is our own wretched and pathetic excuse of a government in Washington and its flunkies in Little Rock, Springdale and Fayetteville. “The terrorists” have not even taken over Afghanistan, one of the poorest most backward countries on earth. Our own government, however, has been slicing and dicing our Constitution and Bill of Rights for decades.

The Bill of Rights guarantees rights that already existed prior to being put to paper in 1791. The Second Amendment states, in part, that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Any restriction upon that right, no matter what the reason, is unconstitutional. Period.

At this point, people always ask me about the “need” for people to own machine guns and the like. How much firepower did the Branch Davidians “need” when they were so savagely attacked at Waco? How about Randy Weaver and the family of Elian Gonzales? What about all the people who have had their homes raided by DEA stormtroopers for the heinous offense of ingesting the only substance that provided real relief from their illnesses?

Firearms are like insurance: you never know exactly how much you are going to need until faced with a crisis. Indeed firearms are insurance. They insure “the security of a free State” against the actions of a rogue government.

The Sixth Amendment states, in part, that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”

Trial by jury means just that: trial by jury and not the “judge’s instructions.” Trial by jury means that jurors have the right to judge not only the facts, but also the law pertaining to the case. If so much as one juror thinks that the defendant is being charged under a law that is unconstitutional, unjust or just plain stupid, that one juror can vote to acquit, and the defendant walks!

This is the way it was in the beginning of this Republic. Fully informed juries were hugely instrumental as a check on the Fugitive Slave Laws in the 1850s. If Juror Smith thought the Fugitive Slave Laws were stupid, immoral or whatever, his single vote could acquit Defendant Jones who stood charged with harboring runaway slaves.

Fast forward 150 years. The jurors in the Fincher case were only allowed to hear the prosecution’s arguments, and were not even allowed in the room when Mr. Fincher was testifying.

People always ask me if jury nullification gives jurors license to “make up the rules as they go along.” I respond that jury nullification is actually the ultimate check against bad laws made by a government that makes up the rules as it goes along.

America has two constitutions. One was ratified in Philadelphia in 1787. Its purpose is not to restrain the people, but to restrain the government. It is really a simple document. Its greatness is in this simplicity.

However, it is not a self-enforcing document. Unless “we the people” put its words into practice vigorously and vigilantly, it is of no value. It is reduced to just a piece of paper.

America’s other constitution lies in the hearts, minds and souls of its people. If we are ignorant, apathetic and willing to sacrifice freedom for security, our written Constitution has no clout. If we want to be free people, our personal constitutions must consist of, in the words of author Tom Wolfe, “the right stuff.”

We think we are a free people. Oh sure, we can vote and we can criticize our government. However, there are two things you need to know about life in America in 2007: this nation has the world’s highest incarceration rate and all ten policy planks of the Communist Manifesto are part of the law of the land.

The trial and conviction of Hollis Wayne Fincher would prompt national outrage in a nation wherein the citizens were truly vigilant in defense of liberty. However, we do not live in such a country. Whenever I raise issues such as this, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge, or Elian, or my friend Rick Stanley or any number of other abuses of government power in recent years, people look at me as if I am speaking Swahili.

I am going to say this in English and I am going to say this once: WE ARE NOT FREE!

When you can be arrested for exercising a God-given right (3), forbidden from using the Constitution in your defense, and denied a jury trial, you are not free. This is the stuff of which totalitarian states are made! No one named Osama, or Mohammed, or Raheem, or Omar or Abdul is imposing this on us. People named Jimm, Wendy and George are. Terrorists cannot take away our freedom. Our own government is actively doing so, frequently with our blessing!
I know, I know. This is not Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China or North Korea. However, America is on a bobsled ride toward a totalitarian future. And unless we end this denial, we will find ourselves slaves on the very land that was once the freest nation on earth.

I started down this libertarian constitutionalist road in late 1991 over the rights of the accused. Bush 41 had signed into law a bill pertaining to racial quotas. An employer charged with violating the provisions of this law would have to prove themselves innocent. Yes, guilty until proven innocent! I said to myself “that could be me some day”! I pray fervently that I am never denied the presumption of innocence or the opportunity for a fair trial.

However, in a land where a man like Hollis Wayne Fincher, who has peacefully exercised his God-given rights and harmed no one, can be denied any semblance whatsoever of a fair trial, I ask you this: how can you feel safe, secure or free?

Ron Paul - Can we achieve peace in the Middle East?

Can We Achieve Peace in the Middle East?
by Ron Paul

Former President Carter’s new book about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine has raised the ire of Americans on two sides of the debate. I say “two sides” rather than “both sides,” because there is another perspective that is never discussed in American politics. That perspective is the perspective of our founding fathers, namely that America should not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations.

Everyone assumes America must play the leading role in crafting some settlement or compromise between the Israelis and the Palestinians. But Jefferson, Madison, and Washington explicitly warned against involving ourselves in foreign conflicts.

The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank is almost like a schoolyard fight: when America and the world stand watching, neither side will give an inch for fear of appearing weak. But deep down, the people who actually have to live there desperately want an end to the violence. They don’t need solutions imposed by outsiders. It’s easy to sit here safe in America and talk tough, but we’re not the ones suffering.

Practically speaking, our meddling in the Middle East has only intensified strife and conflict. American tax dollars have militarized the entire region. We give Israel about $3 billion each year, but we also give Egypt $2 billion. Most other Middle East countries get money too, some of which ends up in the hands of Palestinian terrorists. Both sides have far more military weapons as a result. Talk about adding fuel to the fire! Our foolish and unconstitutional foreign aid has produced more violence, not less.

Congress and each successive administration pledge their political, financial, and military support for Israel. Yet while we call ourselves a strong ally of the Israeli people, we send billions in foreign aid every year to some Muslim states that many Israelis regard as enemies. From the Israeli point of view, many of the same Islamic nations we fund with our tax dollars want to destroy the Jewish state. Many average Israelis and American Jews see America as hypocritically hedging its bets.

This illustrates perfectly the inherent problem with foreign aid: once we give money to one country, we have to give it to all the rest or risk making enemies. This is especially true in the Middle East and other strife-torn regions, where our financial support for one side is seen as an act of aggression by the other. Just as our money never makes Israel secure, it doesn’t buy us any true friends elsewhere in the region. On the contrary, millions of Muslims hate the United States.

It is time to challenge the notion that it is our job to broker peace in the Middle East and every other troubled region across the globe. America can and should use every diplomatic means at our disposal to end the violence in the West Bank, but we should draw the line at any further entanglement. Third-party outsiders cannot impose political solutions in Palestine or anywhere else. Peace can be achieved only when self-determination operates freely in all nations. “Peace plans” imposed by outsiders or the UN cause resentment and seldom produce lasting peace.

The simple truth is that we cannot resolve every human conflict across the globe, and there will always be violence somewhere on earth. The fatal conceit lies in believing America can impose geopolitical solutions wherever it chooses.

January 23, 2007

Bad reviews

I received my first bad review, (or at least not a positive review, two stars, for my book) Beating the Powers that Be on Amazon.com (well, I'll still get the royalty for it I guess.) from a J.M. Miller from Madison.

I'd say his comments are fair. The book was poorly edited because the editing was done by yours truly. It needed another set of eyes, but in order to get published in 2006, which I felt it had to be to be released in time for the election when interest in political books would be high, I felt I had to edit it immediately. I did the best I could but I'm not a good proofreader and for that I apologize to all those who bought the book. If there any inaccuracies I also apologize for poor research as well. Again, an editor would have helped but that water under the bridge.

But I also thank those who did overlook the editing and did give the work good marks.

One issue I will contest with Miller and at least explain is my highlighting Polk County as a center of Progressive Party activity in Wisconsin. Yes, I could highlighted Progressive activity in Madison and Dane County, but without places like Polk County there would not have been a statewide Progressive Party. Polk County had the demographics that are the building blocks of any political party needs to be successful. Non-major parties need to organize themselves in this fashion, that is the thesis of my book. Demographics is destiny. It was true back then, it still true now. A movement of upper-class Madisonians would not have cut it, the Progressives needed Scandinavian farmers and co-op members to work and Polk was demographically as good as any representative of a rural Progressive county as you would have found in the state.

On that points I have no regrets. There are plenty of books on Madison Progressives. Somebody needed to throw a word in for Polk County and small places like it.

Same time, next Tuesday

I know I promised an article Wednesday but there is such a thign is being sidetracked. Sorry about that. We'll get back to a normal routine next Tuesday with an article on the GOP field for President in 2008 and we'll close out the month with a piece on Canadian foreign policy.

---Sean Scallon

Gang Violence - A libertarian solution

This article comes from Doug Newman

--Sean Scallon

Gang Violence - A libertarian solution

By Doug Newman

RB is a Christian friend who is of sound mind on political matters. He is no fan of either the present administration or of big government in general. He writes:

“I watched Peter Boyles’ talk show last night on PBS. They covered gangs and the Darrent Williams' murder and all that gang-related stuff. Denver is not LA or NY, but we have a problem with gangs, something the politicians, churches (not the inner city churches) and us honkies in south suburban-land (i.e., Littleton, Centennial, Highlands Ranch) are not willing to look at or deal with. Your thoughts on that subject, especially being from back East, etc.”

I replied in this letter:

"Thanks for writing. The tragic shooting death of Bronco cornerback Darrent Williams may well have been gang related. Thus it has got everyone asking: “What should we do about gangs and gang violence?” My thoughts on the subject are shaped not so much by my growing up in New Jersey – in a honky suburb – but by my Christianity and libertarianism.

People who ask “what should we, as a society, do” about a given problem always conclude that we need more laws, policies and programs as if we did not have enough already. America has more social programs than any other country on the planet.

Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. We drive ourselves crazy enacting more and more laws, policies and programs while the problems we attempt to solve get worse and worse.

Here are just a few suggestions:

The words “solve” and “problems” do not appear in the Constitution. The idea that government could solve problems was totally foreign to the Founders. Moreover, the idea that we could render our problems unto Caesar so the he could solve them has zero basis in Scripture. Utopia is not an option. Gang violence will never be totally eliminated no matter how many laws, programs and policies are in place.

End this absolutely insane War on Drugs, which is totally unconstitutional under the Ninth Amendment. We have a nightmare on our hands that we never could have envisioned in 1937 when we started outlawing hippy lettuce. After 70 years and God knows how many billions of dollars, we have more drugs than ever; more dangerous drugs than ever and – in the land of the free – the world’s highest incarceration rate. Moreover, just as alcohol prohibition resulted in huge profits for the likes of Al Capone and Joe Kennedy, Sr., drug prohibition makes drug trafficking extremely lucrative for the Crips, the Bloods, MS-13, etc. (Moreover, because it is illegal, drug dealing is a cash business and tax free.) Legalizing drugs would minimize the profit and largely defund the gangs.

Repeal all gun laws. The original gun laws in America were put in place to disarm racial minorities. Gun control only disarms law abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, have zero respect for gun laws. Compton, Bed-Stuy and New Orleans’ Ninth Ward are killing fields because only the criminals have guns. Let everyone be armed, keep would-be criminals guessing and watch the crime rate plummet.

Repeal all minimum wage laws. If you know anything whatsoever about economics, you know that when you mandate a price above the market price, you immediately create a surplus of the commodity in question. Unskilled labor is no exception to this rule. Why is teenage unemployment so tragically high in the inner cities? It is because Uncle Sam has forced employers to pay an unjustifiably high wage to unskilled workers. Where is a teenager in the hood better off? Employed at $4 per hour or unemployed because of a mandated wage of $6.85 per hour? The true minimum wage is zero. No wonder drug dealing looks so appealing.

Stop asking Uncle Sam to be our national parent. Someone once remarked that while Democrats want to be your Mommy and Republicans want to be your Daddy, libertarians believe you are an adult and that you can look after yourself. Seventy-plus years after the New Deal, forty-plus years after the Great Society and fifteen years after Dan Quayle’s “family values” speech, I think we can conclude one thing: there is no substitute for family. The family is God's primary form of government. Families were a whole lot stronger and effective and morals were a world stronger before we started asking government to solve all our problems.

As a friend used to say, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If the only tool you have is government, every problem looks like it can be solved by a law, a policy or a program. Again, America has more of this nonsense than any other society in history. All this micromanaging has not worked and will never work.

It didn’t save the life of Darrent Williams. More of the same would still not have saved the life of Darrent Williams."

Contribute to Ron Paul

If you wish to contribute to Ron Paul candidacy and help nudge into the race, go to this website, www.ronpaulexplore.com

The Free State Project is holding their New Hampshire Liberty Forum meeting Feb. 22 and hopefully Rep. Paull will make it there. It would be a great way to kick off his New Hampshire campaign with the support of the Free Staters.

Early momentum in important in the nomination process. John Kerry in 2004 threw everything he had in to Iowa and when won their he basically won the nomination. The dynamics pulled in his favor. Bascially what Rep. Paul needs to do is get a good anti-war Republican vote in the Iowa straw poll, win in New Hampshire and then win in South Carolina. Pull that off and he'll be on that kind of roll.

But of course, here comes Rep. Tom Tancredo ready to enter the race as well and muddy the waters. I'll have an article about this as well tomorrow.

Latest speech by Ron Paul - Will Bush II pull an LBJ?

You can find Rep. Ron Paul speeches to the House reprinted on Lew Rockwell.com as did this one or Antiwar.com from time to time. I'll be posting them myself as Rep. Paul geras up for a Presidential run.

--- Sean Scallon


Escalation Is Hardly the Answer
by Ron Paul

Before the US House of Representatives, January 11, 2007

Mr. Speaker, A military victory in Iraq is unattainable, just as it was in the Vietnam war.

At the close of the Vietnam war in 1975, a telling conversation took place between an NVA Colonel named Tu and an American Colonel named Harry Summers. Colonel Summers reportedly said, “You never beat us on the battlefield.” Tu replied, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” It is likewise irrelevant to seek military victory in Iraq.

As conditions deteriorate in Iraq, the American people are told more blood must be spilled to achieve just such a military victory. 20,000 additional troops and another $100 billion are needed for a “surge.” Yet the people remain rightfully skeptical.

Though we’ve been in Iraq nearly four years, the meager goal today simply is to secure Baghdad. This hardly shows that the mission is even partly accomplished.
Astonishingly, American taxpayers now will be forced to finance a multi-billion dollar jobs program in Iraq. Suddenly the war is about jobs! We export our manufacturing jobs to Asia, and now we plan to export our welfare jobs to Iraq – all at the expense of the poor and middle class here at home.

Plans are being made to become more ruthless in achieving stability in Iraq. It appears Muqtada al Sadr will be on the receiving end of our military efforts, despite his overwhelming support among large segments of the Iraqi people.
It’s interesting to note that one excuse given for our failure is leveled at the Iraqis themselves.

They have not done enough, we’re told, and are difficult to train.
Yet no one complains that Mahdi or Kurdish militias or the Badr Brigade (the real Iraq government, not our appointed government) are not well trained. Our problems obviously have nothing to do with training Iraqis to fight, but instead with loyalties and motivations.

We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq, but al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy toward our presence among most Iraqis.

In real estate the three important considerations are location, location, location. In Iraq the three conditions are occupation, occupation, occupation. Nothing can improve in Iraq until we understand that our occupation is the primary source of the chaos and killing. We are a foreign occupying force, strongly resented by the majority of Iraq’s citizens.

Our inability to adapt to the tactics of 4th-generation warfare compounds our military failure. Unless we understand this, even doubling our troop strength will not solve the problems created by our occupation.

The talk of a troop surge and jobs program in Iraq only distracts Americans from the very real possibility of an attack on Iran. Our growing naval presence in the region and our harsh rhetoric toward Iran are unsettling. Securing the Horn of Africa and sending Ethiopian troops into Somalia do not bode well for world peace. Yet these developments are almost totally ignored by Congress.

Rumors are flying about when, not if, Iran will be bombed by either Israel or the U.S. – possibly with nuclear weapons. Our CIA says Iran is ten years away from producing a nuclear bomb and has no delivery system, but this does not impede our plans to keep “everything on the table” when dealing with Iran.

We should remember that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone do anything to America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin–type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

Even if such an attack is carried out by Israel over U.S. objections, we will be politically and morally culpable since we provided the weapons and dollars to make it possible.

Mr. Speaker, let’s hope I’m wrong about this one.

January 16, 2007

Beltway Insiders vs. Neocons

Matt Roberts forwards me this article by John Walsh that appeared on the Counter Punch web magazine site at www.counterpunch.com. It's a good read. James Baker III may be many things but a radical he is not and that is good enough for me.
---Sean Scallon

Beltway Insiders vs. Necons

By John Walsh

A titanic power struggle is being waged within the policy elite orpower elite, or more simply the U.S. ruling class. The clash is taking place over the war on Iraq, U.S. policy toward Israel--andultimately over the best way to run the U.S. empire.

The war onIraq is shaping up as such a disaster for the empire that it can nolonger be tolerated by our rulers in its present form. The struggle is as plain as the nose on your face; nevertheless it draws littlecomment. One reason is that we are taught to view matters political through the prism of Democrat versus Republican, whereas thisstruggle among our rulers cuts across party lines. On the "Left," few so much as allude to this internecine war, much less use it to good effect.

This is apparently due to a very rigid, very dogmatic view of how empires function, indeed how they "must" function, anddue to a fear of being labeled anti-semitic and thus running afoulof the Israeli Lobby. In many cases this silence reflects an actualsympathy among "liberals" for neocon foreign policy, either out ofa latter day do-gooder version of the White Man's Burden, or anattachment to Israel.This struggle is in no way hidden and definitely not a secret conspiracy. It is out in the open, as it must be, since it is in great part a battle for the hearts and minds of the American public. This fact makes the absence of commentary about it all themore chilling. The fight among our rulers sets the neocons againstother very important elements in the establishment: the senior officer corps, represented by Jack Murtha and Colin Powell; the old money like Ned Lamont; the oil men, like James Baker III (With Baker against the war, how then can oil be the only reason for the war?); those who want to see the American imperium run effectively, like Lee Hamilton and Robert Gates of the Iraq Study Group; many in the CIA, both active duty and retired; policy makers like ZbigniewBrzezinski who has long opposed the war which he has ascribed tothe influence of certain "ethnic" groups; and even former presidents Gerald Ford who kept his mouth shut and Jimmy Carter whohas not and whose frustration with Israel and the neocons is alltoo clear in his book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid. Influential voices tied to the ruling circles include some writers for the militantly anti-war publication of the Old Right, TheAmerican Conservative.

On the other side are the neocons, based in the Washington "Think"Tanks, in the civilian leadership of the pre-Gates Pentagon, in Dick Cheney's office, in large parts of both parties in Congress,and in the editorial and op-ed pages of the print media. Most ofthe House and much of the Senate is still under the control of theneocons thanks to the fund-raising exertions and threats from AIPAC and its minions. Hence, the most powerful political allies of the neocons are the leading Democrats, who indulge in the most intenseand shallow anti-Bush rhetoric but are reliable allies in the neocon crusades in the Middle East. The neocon side has relied heavily on the power of ideas. This in turn hinges on the secondrate level of those writing for the mass media who think little forthemselves and go along with whatever framework for policy discussion is put forward by the neocons. Good examples of this are most op-ed pages, TV programs like the Sunday morning talk shows,Weekend Edition on NPR and Washington Week in Review on PBS. The neocons have not dominated the weekly news magazines, with the exception of U.S . News and World Report, but they are working to remedy that. Witness, for example, the adoption of William Kristol as a star columnist at Time! Given this balance of forces, it would seem that the neocons must lose but the outcome remains an open question. If they do prevail, that will be the end of our democracy and freedoms as we have known them. If you have any doubts about that, consult their philosopher, Leo Strauss. The neocons cannot be automatically counted out, even though their base is narrow, for they can draw on all the resourcesof a mighty nation state, Israel, a modern Sparta, with its vaunted intelligence services and special forces which span the world andoperate in the U.S., as well as its ability, if it desires, tolaunder cash and deliver it to U.S. operatives. And of course thewar profiteers like Halliburton and others love the Iraq adventure.The arms manufacturers may be less happy with it, since money is not being spent on profitable high-tech weapons which do not haveto function but rather on highly unprofitable "boots on the ground."The public forays of the anti-neocons in this struggle are well-known.

James Wilson in the New York Times, accusing Bush oflying about uranium from Niger; Richard Clarke's expose on theincompetence behind 9/11; the exposure of Judith Miller as lying about WMD, thus corrupting the NYT reportage (even the Washington Post, dominated as its opinion pages are by the neocons did notallow its reporting to be undermined by the likes of JudithMiller); the antiwar stance of John Murtha indicating the unhappiness of the senior officer corps with the dominance of US Middle East policy by the Israel-first neocons; Mearsheimer and Walt's paper, as important for who wrote it as for its content,which finally took on the Israeli Lobby, the core adversary of theanti-neocons; and most recently Jimmy Carter's book which inevitably raises the question of the shedding of American blood topreserve Israeli apartheid and to lay waste every and any nationperceive by Israel to be a threat. Add to this the report of theBaker Commission and the near-simultaneous removal of Rumsfeld and his replacement with a member of the Baker Commission.The biggest blow to the neocon agenda came from the peoplethemselves, in the form of the 2004 election defeat of theRepublicans.

Unfortunately, this defeat amounted only to a registration of national disgust over the war in Iraq but not onewhich would result in policy changes since the establishment Demsare solidly neocon in their foreign policy especially when itcomes to the Middle East and Israel. The same is true of many progressives. One looks in vain for a reference to the Lobby on theMichael Moore web site for example or in the missives from UFPJ orfrom "P"DA.Two questions emerge. Are there advantages to be gained from this struggle for the peace movement? Most definitely. We are beingprovided with powerful testimony from the most unassailable sources, Jimmy Carter, Richard Clarke and Mearsheimer and Walt to name afew. And we should not allow this important information to be discredited by the neocons. The leading anti-neocons are notanti-empire, but at least they want to end the bloody war on Iraqand the dominance of Israel over key segments of U.S. foreignpolicy. That is a step forward. And second, given the key power of the Israel Lobby, can the peace movement fail any longer to ignoreit as though it were irrelevant? Absolutely not. We ignore it atour peril. And we must get rid of all fears of being labeled asanti-semites. Most Jewish Americans, much to their credit, oppose the policies of the Lobby, which in the long run may be responsiblefor stirring up considerable anti-semitism in the U.S. and aroundthe world. Would it not be wonderful if an anti-Lobby organizationof Jewish Americans emerged with a title like "Not in Our Name"?

Finally, given the balance of forces at play, it is difficult todiscern what Bush is likely to do in the coming days and months.The punditry is now predicting an escalation of the war in Iraq(aka a "surge"), but Bush surprised once with the firing of Rumsfeld of which there was no advance hint quite the contrary. Heis certainly under enormous pressure to alter course, and he mayhave to do so no matter how much he recoils from it. He may even doso after a "surge" which could be used as a smoke screen for a policy shift. But escalating the conflict even temporarily willsink his ratings below 30% and make him the most unpopularpresident in history. We shall see.