Saying Good-Bye

This will be my last post on Beating the Powers that Be. A new blog Conservative Times is coming out that I will be a part of that will eventually evolve into a new journal of traditional conservative thought with some friends of mine that I met at the John Randolph Club Meeting.

My life right now is about joining with others to work together whether its at work or at home. The blog was abut selling a book and I'm simply not famous enough nor work for a larger publication to do my own blogging to have the kind of impact I wish to have. By joining with other bloggers, I can do so and use my time more effectively.

This article I found on My DD confims my thoughts on the subject:


As a blogger, one of my specialties has become the regular production of "meta" posts on the blogosphere (browse MyDD's meta and blogosphere archives here). For a long time, this specialty included regular attempts to estimate the size of the cumulative, daily audience of the political blogosphere. Since late 2005, I have seen a mounting array of evidence to suggest that political blogosphere traffic has reached a plateau, and that the nature of the political blogosphere is shifting away from a top-down content generation model toward a bottom-up audience generated model. While it is possible that the traffic evidence could be countermanded by a rising tide of traffic in during the long, slow build up toward the 2008 Presidential election, the sheer amount of evidence is becoming hard to ignore. A new era in the world of online politics is dawning.

Take a look at some of the evidence. For example, since early September of 2005, when it first reached three million daily page views on weekdays during the height of the Katrina debacle, The Liberal Blog Advertising Network has only increased in traffic by adding new members or by temporary, election related traffic frenzies. Otherwise, the combined traffic of its members has remained flat. Also, the largest progressive "blog" in the world, The Huffington Post (which is not in the LBAN), has also experienced stagnant traffic for some time now. Late 2005 was also the last time any new progressive political blogs with exceptionally large audiences were founded, as Glenn Greenwald and Fire Dog Lake entered the scene around then. Even apart from looking at individual blogs or even at the progressive, political blogosphere as a separate entity, both Gallup and Pew released data last year that strongly suggested the daily audience of all blogs had become flat after a long period of uninterrupted growth. . Further, the expected surge around the Connecticut Senate primary and November elections not withstanding, blogs and the right and the left experienced traffic problems during much of 2006.

While this is not conclusive evidence of the political blogosphere reaching an audience plateau over the past year, it does strongly suggest a plateau has occurred. Current estimates of a daily audience of 4-5 million for progressive political blogs, and an occasional audience of up to 13-14 million for all political blogs, are now appearing in multiple sources. While this gives the progressive blogosphere a substantial, at least 2-1 edge in both daily and occasional traffic on the conservative blogosphere, since our traffic is now stagnant I am not ready to toot our horn when pointing that out. Just as I once proclaimed that the aristocratic right-wing blogosphere was stagnating, it now seems that the community oriented left-wing blogosphere is stagnating as well.

Despite these numbers, I believe it would be a mistake to argue that "the death of political blogging" is imminent (I put that phrase in scare quotes because I can't even begin to count the number of times I have been asked about what will result in the death of political blogging). Instead, I believe this means is that the world of online political content generation is moving away from the top-down model of an individual, independent blogger producing the majority of new content for a given website--a model which was dominant through most of 2002-2005. Now, the paradigm is shifting toward a more networked, community-oriented model where a much higher percentage of the audience participates in the generation of new content. Blogging, including political blogging, is still quite healthy, as long as it encourages user-generated content and relies on a group of main writers rather than a single individual. However, the days when an individual blogger can start a new, solo website and make a big national splash are probably over. The blogosphere and the netroots are transforming, not dying off.

Take, for example, Dailykos. According to resident statistician jotter, while overall site traffic on Dailykos slightly declined in 2006 compared to 2005, user participation in the generation of new content on the site actually increased by 20%. This shifted the overall reader to content generator ratio within the Dailykos audience from about 25-1 in 2005, to just 15-1 in 2006. That is a substantial shift for only one year, and demonstrative of larger trends. Looking at the websites ranked in the top fifteen in terms of page views the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, only two and a half, Political Animal, Eschaton and the Talking Points Memo side of the TPM netowrk, are still primarily single-blogger operations (those also happen to be some of the oldest political blogs around). Further, while political blogosphere traffic has remained generally flat over seventeen months now (apart from election-related spikes), social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook have continued to expand at the same exponential rates that the political blogosphere once expanded (although MySpace is starting to flatten out as well). It is entirely possible, if not likely, that the growth social networking sites continue to experience while even community oriented progressive blogs remain flat was mirrored in 2003-2005 when group and community-oriented progressive blogs rocketed past top-down, individual-based, no comments allowed, right-wing blogs in terms of traffic. Even though it is benefiting a small number of large websites, the ability websites such as YouTube or Facebook give their audience to produce their own content has allowed those websites to perpetuate their viral stage of growth and development much longer than websites which offer fewer avenues for community-generated content and networking.

In addition to the end of the era of the highly successful solo-blogger, I forecast that this development toward user-generated content will carry two other important ramifications for the political blogosphere. First, the already extreme gap between the political engagement of netroots activists and rank-and-file voters will grow even wider. With more people not just consuming political information online, but helping to generate it, netroots activists will continue to consolidate as a sort of "elite influential" subset within the American political system. Second, in order to remain successful, more than more political blogs will transform into full-blown professional operations that can be considered institutions unto themselves. In addition to community development, they will more frequently produce difficult, original work (beat reporting, investigative journalism, professional lobbying, national activist campaigns, original video, commissioned polls, mass email lists, etc.) that until now have been mainly the province of long-established news and political organizations. Competition from other high-end blogs will continue to raise the bar in this area, as the days of thriving on punditry alone are further confined to diaries and comments off the front-page.

Phew. This is not going to be easy, and it may all collapse if blogger can't find better revenue streams. After all, you can't run a professional organization and upgrade your user generated content options without money to pay programmers and full-time employees. Many wags compared the collapse of Howard Dean's Presidential campaign in 2004 to the dot.com bust of 2000, but the real bust could happen in a more traditional economic sense two or three down the road. I know hat I won't stop trying to find ways to keep the progressive political blogosphere moving forward, but I can't deny the difficulties that lay ahead."

Thanks to all those who come here and read my articles and have posted here as well. Please join me at my new site, www.conservativetimes.org to my articles, posts and other musing along with those many other talented writers and people with something interesting to say.

Good Bye and Farwell!

Political Power and the Rule of Law by Rep. Ron Paul

Political Power and the Rule of Law
by Ron Paul

With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.

The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us – we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.

The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.

Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate – not political victories.

Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.

In a free society, government is restrained – and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.

Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.

Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.

February 6, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Presidential front runners will surrender America's sovereignty

This post comes from Rev. Chuck Baldwin, VP candidate of the Constitution Party in 2004. Basically we have a field of turkeys running for President.


---Sean Scallon


Looking at the potential presidential frontrunners for both the Democrat and
Republican parties reveals that virtually everyone of them would surrender
America's borders. Not one of the presidential frontrunners from either
party would protect our borders against illegal immigration. Just the
opposite. They would continue George Bush's policy of wide open borders,
including his determination to grant amnesty to illegals. In other words,
when it comes to protecting our borders, there is not a nickel's worth of
difference between the two major parties' leading presidential contenders.

Democratic presidential frontrunners include John Edwards, Barak Obama, and
Hillary Clinton. Republican frontrunners include John McCain, Mitt Romney,
and Rudy Giuliani.

In fact, virtually every Democratic candidate, and even the vast majority of
Republican candidates, would provide no relief to America's border problems.
And, yes, that includes Sam Brownback and Newt Gingrich. Notable exceptions
include Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, with Tancredo at the head
of the class.

Obviously, should Hunter, Paul, or Tancredo miraculously win the White
House, the push for a North American Union (NAU) complete with a NAFTA
superhighway and a trilateral, hemispheric government, would be stopped dead
in its tracks. For this reason, the GOP machine (and the insiders who
control it) will never allow someone such as Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, or Tom
Tancredo to obtain the nomination.

It's time the American people faced a hard, cold reality: no matter who the
two major parties nominate in November 2008, the push for open borders,
amnesty for illegal aliens, and the NAU will continue unabated. In other
words, anyone one believes that unimpeded illegal immigration (and related
issues) just might be the biggest threat to our national sovereignty and
security (and count me as one who does) will not be able to vote for either
the Republican or Democratic nominee in 2008. It's time to start preparing
for that reality now.

Does that mean that Republicans should not do everything they can to help
Tancredo, Paul, or Hunter gain the nomination? Of course not. If the vast
majority of the GOP rank and file would get solidly behind these three men,
one of them might have a chance of succeeding. However, the track record of
the GOP faithful is not very reassuring.

Instead of supporting principled, uncompromising men of integrity, such as
the three men named above, Republican voters will doubtless buy into the
party mantra of pragmatism and help nominate another spineless globalist
such as currently occupies the White House, which will leave us exactly
where we are now.

So, here is the sixty-four million dollar question: What will principled
conservative voters do in 2008? My hope and prayer is that after failing to
receive their party's nomination, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter
(or at least one of them) will leave the party and bring their (his)
followers to the Constitution Party (CP). In all likelihood, the CP will
have ballot access in over 45 states. It is already the third largest
political party in the country and is currently the fastest growing
political party in the nation. A national leader such as Paul, Tancredo, or
Hunter would provide the CP with a very attractive alternative to the
globalist candidates being offered by the two major parties.

By nature, I am not a single issue voter. However, I am sensible enough to
realize that there are currently a handful of issues that will literally
make or break America's future. And right now, the illegal immigration and
emerging North American Union issues are at the very top of the list.
Further failure on these issues will mean the end of America as we know it.
And I mean very soon.

Regardless of what Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo ultimately do, Republicans,
Democrats, and Independents who believe we must protect America's borders,
stop the burgeoning North American Union, and secure our national
sovereignty must be prepared to abandon the two major parties' presidential
nominees in 2008 and support an "America First" third party candidate. Even
a virtually unknown candidate with limited experience, but someone who
understands the issues and has the backbone to do what is right, would be
head and shoulders above what the two major parties are currently shoving
down our throats.

Better start preparing yourselves for it now, folks.

Who's side is Bush on?

This article comes from Rev. Chuck Baldwin

---Sean Scallon

During President Bush's State of the Union speech there was someone he would not dare publicly recognize. Even though he knew she was there, I'm confident he never even bothered to look up at Gallery 5, Row B, Seat 9, because sitting in that seat was Monica Ramos, the wife of imprisoned former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos. She was the invited guest of Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.

Representative Rohrabacher is incensed at Bush's Justice Department for
imprisoning Ramos and former Border Patrol agent Jose Alonso Compean for
their actions in the shooting and wounding of a Mexican drug smuggler.

In case you missed the story, the two BP agents intercepted a Mexican drug
smuggler who brought more than 700 pounds of marijuana (that we know of)
across the border into the United States. In the process of attempting to
capture the criminal, he pointed something at the agents, and they opened
fire. He was apparently hit in the buttocks, as he turned to run. However,
the smuggler appeared to not be injured, as he continued to run swiftly back
into Mexico and into a waiting van. Both van and smuggler raced out of
sight. The smuggler's weapon was not found.

Why, you ask, were the two agents imprisoned (for a term of more than 11
years each, no less)? For firing their weapons and not filing the proper
paperwork. You read it right.

"TJ Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union
representing 1,500 agents, argued failure to report the discharge of a
firearm is an administrative offense that, at the most, merits a five-day
suspension," reports World Net Daily.

"How that translates into 11-and 12-year prison terms is beyond me," Bonner
said.

Making matters worse, the Mexican drug smuggler was even granted full
immunity by the Justice Department and brought back at U.S. taxpayers'
expense to testify against the agents. He is even being allowed to sue the
two agents for over $5 million for having his "civil rights" violated. No,
he is not an American citizen. He is a Mexican criminal who entered the
United States illegally for the express purpose of smuggling drugs.

More than 70 lawmakers signed a petition pleading with President Bush to
pardon the two agents. To no avail. Agents Ramos and Compean began their
prison terms on January 17.

Representative Rohrabacher called President Bush a "disgrace" for refusing
to pardon the two BP agents. About Bush, he said, "This is the worst
betrayal of American defenders I have ever seen." He further said, "He
[Bush] obviously thinks more of his agreements with Mexico than the lives of
American people and backing up his defenders."

Rep. Joe Wilson said, "Convicting Ramos and Compean is a slap in the face to
every American who respects the rule of law and expects our government to
enforce its own laws."

However, the story gets even more bizarre. Writing for World Net Daily,
Jerome Corsi reports, "New evidence suggests prosecuting U.S. Attorney
Johnny Sutton of El Paso lied about how the government found the fleeing
illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, according to a
Border Patrol advocate closely following the case of former agents Ignacio
Ramos and Jose Campean.

"Contrary to claims, no Mexican attorney was involved as an intermediary
offering to reveal the identity of the drug smuggler and bring him back to
the U.S. in exchange for given immunity to testify against Border Patrol,
contended Andy Ramirez, chairman of Friends of the Border Patrol.

"'It's shocking how much lying Johnny Sutton has done about Aldrete-Davila,'
he told WND."

Ramirez said emphatically, "If the truth about how the government got their
hands on Aldrete-Davila had been told to the jury, there is no way the jury
would have believed a word of his story that he was unarmed."

Obviously, much of the prosecutor's cased hinged on the testimony of the
drug smuggler that he was not armed. In the end, the jury had to decide in
favor of a U.S. Attorney and a Mexican drug smuggler or the two Border
Patrol agents. Pathetically, they chose to believe the Mexican criminal and
the collaborating U.S. Attorney.

Worse still, President Bush ignored the pleas of members of Congress and the
thousands of American citizens begging him to pardon the two agents.

In response to Bush's decision to leave the two BP agents behind bars,
Rohrabacher's spokeswoman, Tara Setmayer, said that the "lives of two brave
men, her husband Ignacio Ramos and Border Patrol agent Jose Compean, have
been destroyed by an inexplicable policy of open borders and amnesty this
administration has toward our southern border.

"If the Bush administration cared about securing our borders, these two law
enforcement officers would not be behind bars, and U.S. prosecuting
attorneys wouldn't be prosecuting Border Patrol agents while drug smugglers
go free."

Congressman Rohrabacher even went so far as to say, "He [President Bush]
talks about being a Christian, but he has shown no Christian charity." He
went on to say that because of the decision of Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and President Bush to prosecute the two Border Patrol agents, "The
word is out that the southern border is undefended. Border agents won't dare
to draw their weapons, and the drug cartel will double their effort to drive
a wedge in our border."

Makes one wonder whose side George W. Bush is on, doesn't it?

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Does Romans 13 demand we pay our taxes

This article comes form Doug Newman and is a welcome rebuke to those Christians who wish to use the Bible to justify tyranny.

--Sean Scallon


DOES ROMANS 13 DEMAND THAT WE PAY INCOME TAXES?
By Doug Newman

January 28, 2007

Jimmy writes:

“… as acts 5:29 says we are to obey God rather than men, and when a government such as the Nazi regime comes into power and tells us to report all Jews in hiding, that government has become un-Biblical and may be rebelled against, but what about less extreme examples? Take, for instance, the incremental destruction of our economic liberties, such as the creation of the income tax, and the Federal Reserve. How can we complain about the income tax when Romans 13:7 tells us to pay taxes?”

I replied:

Thanks for writing. Romans 13:1-7 (1) is the favorite Scripture of control freaks everywhere. However, to read it as demanding total obedience to earthly authorities is absurd. Christianity is an intellectual exercise. We are to love God with our hearts, souls and minds. (Mark 12:30)

No Scripture stands isolated from the rest of God’s Word. Disobedience is a common theme throughout Scripture. To cite just a few examples:

The three Hebrew children endured the fiery furnace rather than worship Nebuchadnezzar’s God. (Daniel 3)

Daniel is thrown into the lions’ den for defying King Darius. (Daniel 6)

Jesus was crucified on political charges – i.e. treason – for claiming to be God and therefore a counterforce to Caesar. (Luke 23:2)

Peter and John defy the authorities’ decree that they not teach in Jesus’ name. (Acts 4:18-20, Acts 5:29)

Christianity was an outlaw religion for the first few hundred years of its existence.

Several of Paul’s letters – Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon -- were written while he was in Roman jails.

The Prophet John wrote the book of Revelation while in exile on the Isle of Patmos.
Moreover, while we hear time and again that “America was founded on Christian values”, no one ever tells us what this means. While some Founders were Christian and others were not, their worldview was far more biblical than almost anything we find in the contemporary church. Not only did they say all kinds of nasty things about King George III, many were big time scofflaws! Among them were smugglers, tax resisters and militia members who engaged in shootouts with their own government!

This government was nowhere nearly as large, costly and intrusive as our current government. The people were taxed at less than three percent, there was no war on drugs and no Royal Department of Education. I hope this answers your question about "less extreme examples."

The Declaration of Independence, while not an explicitly Christian document, appeals to a God who takes an active concern in political affairs. When the 56 signers pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor, they were dead serious. Many paid huge prices so that you and I could live and breathe in freedom.

Consider also the northerners of good conscience who harbored runaway slaves in the 1850s in defiance of the fugitive slave laws. Consider Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her bus seat to a white man in Alabama in 1955.

Consider all the people who risked their lives either resisting or fleeing from Nazism and Communism.

Consider the underground churches in many countries throughout the world which exist in direct defiance of their governments. The spirit of the early church lives!

The First Commandment states that “You shall have no other Gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3) “No other Gods” includes earthly governments.

I am not an expert on various translations of the Bible. However, I invite you to look at Romans 13:1 in the New International Version and then in the King James Version.

NIV “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

KJV “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
The concept of “higher powers” is far stronger than that of “governing authorities”. The governing authorities of this world are not exempt from God’s Judgment. The governors of this world have a Governor. (Psalm 2)

Jesus tells us to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.” (Matthew 22:21)

Concerning this passage, a few observations:

Jesus never gets specific about what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. Indeed, He never assigns any duties to Caesar.

The contemporary church would have you think that this Scripture means “Render unto Caesar everything Caesar demands and then sit down and shut up.” They never discuss particulars. Jesus’ words are a charter of liberty while contemporary church teaching is a recipe for slavery.

In America, Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution delegates 18 specific duties to Caesar. The Tenth Amendment forbids any other federal activity. The distinction between what is Caesar's and what is not is very clear.
There you have it: this idea that Christians should always do as told has no practical or scriptural basis.

Let us now address the issue of paying taxes. Romans 13:7 says, “If you owe taxes, pay taxes.” But do we owe taxes? I caused quite a stir on some message boards recently when I asked: “Please show me the law requiring us to pay income tax.” Click on this link to see the responses I received.

I personally have not had the fortitude yet to test this, but numerous people have. And some have paid dearly. Some have done jail time. (2) This is just a partial list, in no particular order, of people who have either spoken out about the absence of a law requiring us to pay income taxes, questioned the supremacy of the IRS over the church, exposed the fraud of the Sixteenth Amendment or who have challenged the absence of such a law directly by not paying income taxes: Irwin Schiff, Sherry Peel Jackson, Ed and Elaine Brown, Rick Stanley, Devvy Kidd, Robert Schultz, Bill Benson, Joseph Bannister, Larken Rose, Rose Lear, Vernice Kuglin, Whitey Harrell, Marcella Brooks, Larry Becraft, Greg Dixon, Gene Chapman, Kent Hovind, Robert Raymond and – most prominently – Aaron Russo.

If you are not seen Mr. Russo’s phenomenal documentary “America: Freedom to Fascism”, you need to. It chronicles his quest to find out if there is in fact a law requiring Americans to pay taxes on their incomes. No one ever cites the specific law.

When the matter has gone to court, the defendants have almost always had the deck stacked against them. Years ago, a defendant would have the opportunity to a trial by a jury that had far greater power than today’s juries. Jurors had the right to judge not only the facts pertaining to a case, but also the law relevant to that case. If so much as one juror thought the law was unconstitutional, immoral, stupid or even non-existent, the juror could vote to acquit and the defendant would walk.

Again, I have not had the audacity to test this myself. However, I am profoundly convinced of this: some day I will commit some act of civil disobedience. I do not know when or where or what the details will be. However, I see it coming.

In I Corinthians 7:23, Paul exhorts us not to “become slaves of men.” A slave may be described as someone who labors involuntarily for someone else’s benefit. A tax on income is a form of slavery.

In America’s Constitution, the “things that are Caesar’s” are few and defined. Hence, the cost of funding these activities is quite minimal and non-intrusive. The principle of direct taxation on one’s labor was abhorrent to the Founders.

The Founders’ vision of a minimal state was consistent with a worldview that was heavily influenced by the Bible. Even though God ordained civil government – Romans 13 – such government had to be severely limited. Christians have a King, but His Kingdom is not of this earth. (John 18:36) A Christian’s true citizenship is in Heaven, and not on earth. (Philippians 3:20)

Jesus sent His followers out “like sheep among wolves” and instructed them to be “shrewd as serpents.” (Matthew 10:16) The world will be hostile to Christians. This hostility will take many forms. It is your duty as a Christian to navigate through this world wisely, to discern the endless wiles of the enemy and to stand firm until the end in the face of evil. (Matthew 10:22)

Support the Troops by Ending the War -- Rep. Ron Paul

Support the Troops by Ending the War

by Rep. Ron Paul

I have never met anyone who did not support our troops. Sometimes, however, we hear accusations that someone or some group does not support the men and women serving in our armed forces. This is pure demagoguery, and it's intellectually dishonest. The accusers play on emotions to gain support for controversial policies, implying that those who disagree are unpatriotic. But keeping our troops out of harm's way, especially when war is unnecessary, is never unpatriotic. There's no better way to support the troops.

Since we now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was not threatening anyone, we must come to terms with 3,000 American deaths and 23,000 American casualties. It's disconcerting that those who never believed the justifications given for our invasion, and who now want the war ended, are still accused of not supporting the troops! This is strange indeed!

Instead of questioning who has the best interests of our troops at heart, we should be debating which policy is best for our country. Defensive wars to preserve our liberties, fought only with proper congressional declarations, are legitimate. Casualties under such circumstances still are heartbreaking, but they are understandable. Casualties that occur in undeclared, unnecessary wars, however, are bewildering. Why must so many Americans be killed or hurt in Iraq when our security and our liberty were not threatened?

Clichés about supporting the troops are designed to distract us from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war. Anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon.

Many now agree that we must change our policy and extricate ourselves from the mess in Iraq. They cite a mandate from the American people for a new direction. This opinion is now more popular, and thus now more widely held by politicians in Washington. But there's always a qualifier: We can't simply stop funding the war, because we must support the troops. I find this conclusion bizarre. It means one either believes the "support the troops" propaganda put out by the original promoters of the war, or that one actually is for the war after all, despite the public protestations.

In reality, support for the status quo (and the president's troop surge) in Iraq means expanding the war to include Syria and Iran. The naval build up in the region, and the proxy war we just fought to take over Somalia, demonstrate the administration's intentions to escalate our current war into something larger.

There's just no legitimacy to the argument that voting against funding the war somehow harms our troops. Perpetuating and escalating the war only serve those whose egos are attached to some claimed victory in Iraq, and those with a determination to engineer regime change in Iran.

Don't believe for a minute that additional congressional funding is needed so our troops can defend themselves or extricate themselves from the war zone. That's nonsense. The DOD has hundreds of billions of dollars in the pipeline available to move troops anywhere on earth – including home.

We shouldn't forget that the administration took $600 million from the war in Afghanistan and used it in Iraq, before any direct appropriations were made for the invasion of Iraq. Funds are always available to put our troops into harms way; they are always available for leaving a war zone.

Those in Congress who claim they want the war ended, yet feel compelled to keep funding it, are badly misguided. They either are wrong in their assessment that cutting funds would hurt the troops, or they need to be more honest about supporting a policy destined to dramatically increase the size and scope of this misadventure in the Middle East. Rest assured one can be patriotic and truly support the troops by denying funds to perpetuate and spread this ill-advised war.

The sooner we come to this realization, the better it will be for all of us.