Liberty Forged

the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ` Nock

Posts Tagged ‘president’

June 3, 1997: PNAC, Obama’s Statement of Principles.

Posted by Jesse on March 5, 2008

This is actually from PNAC.

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Project for a New American Century
Ok. So it’s not Obama. But come’on. It’s a one party system folks.

Letter to President on Iraq
January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, government, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, obama, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, Rothbard, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Who’s lying and why?

Posted by Jesse on February 26, 2008

we know ron paul is for the people. he is not lying. why not vote for him?

still don’t believe me? listen to the CIA’s Head of the Bin Laden Unit

Posted in abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, democrat, economy, Education, election 2008, free market, Gold, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, mccain, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Ah yes….Democrats and lobbyists….one big happy family

Posted by Jesse on February 17, 2008

Seeking Superdelegates

As the Democratic Party’s superdelegates decide whether to support Clinton or Obama, will they take into account the $904,200 they’ve received from the candidates?
By Lindsay Renick Mayer

“…….Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, “non-super” delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven’t held elected office recently and, therefore, didn’t receive campaign contributions from him.

Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates and their endorsements, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.”

A Horse of a different Color
March 5, 2007
“It had to happen sooner or later, and Barack Obama’s startling rise to near the top of the Democratic presidential pack made it sooner – I’m talking about his speech to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

…….The Democratic candidates have all prostrated themselves before the Lobby and pledged their undying fealty to a foreign policy distorted by its pro-Israel bias. This distortion was given full voice by Obama, who declared that our interest in the region “begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel.” Yes, begins – and ends. That has been the story for far too long, and a major cause of our troubles with the Muslim world. Obama has just signaled that this will not change under his leadership. How his antiwar supporters will take this – especially Obama’s stated willingness to go to war with Iran – is an open question, but my guess is that many are bound to be sorely disappointed.”

AIPAC is “the core of the Lobby’s influence in Congress.” Money is used as a weapon to bring down perceived anti-Israel candidates, such as former senator Charles Percy. Mearsheimer and Walt even bring up Jack Abramoff (naughty, naughty!) as an example of the power of lobbyists in Washington, and echo Pat Buchanan’s famous line that the place is “Israeli-occupied territory”:

The Lobby
March 20, 2006
“The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on the U.S. Congress. Open debate about U.S. policy towards Israel does not occur there.”

The authors detail the penetration of the Clinton administration by the Lobby, which meant that the American delegation to the Oslo “peace process” negotiations basically took its orders from Tel Aviv. Yes, the delegation supported Oslo, but only within the limits determined by the Israelis. Palestinian negotiators had every reason to believe that, as they put it, they were “negotiating with two Israeli teams: one displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag.”

And things only got worse when Bush II took over.”

Posted in abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Gold, healthcare, internet, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Posted by Jesse on February 14, 2008

obama_was_against_the_patri.jpginvade_pakistan_obama.jpgdont_you_get_it_the_democra.jpgold-left-new-right.jpgyoure_going_to_be_very_disa.jpgwhat-good-fortune-hitler.jpgread-the-constitution.jpgfull_mb00453.jpgfull_mb00574.jpgindividual-liberty.jpgoneofthehardestparts.jpgyou-cant-even-name.jpgNotice Ron Paul is the only one with a NEGATIVE number!!! spendingntu-thumb.jpg

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, antiwar, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, Gold, healthcare, internet, Libertarian, old right, Politics, Pro Market, republican, Rights, Ron Paul, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

It is a revolution, get used to it.

Posted by Jesse on February 14, 2008

Now y’all can’t tell me nothins goin down in the good ole USA.
It’s called ‘the establishment’ as it is, soon to be as it was.
Yes, we want change. But I am not going to rely on Obama.
Ron Paul is tha man and he’s leadin the charge.
Thank you for running, and thank you for voting!!

How often do the people’s of the world have a chance to have a ‘peaceful’ revolution by using the system?!

It’s time to put the freedoms we have in this country to good use while we still can!!
See y’all in DC to march for liberty and Ron Paul 2008!

February 14, 2008

How did the Ron Paul Congress Do in MD?
Posted by Nick Bradley at February 14, 2008 08:22 AM

According to the Freedom Democrats Blog, the nine Ron Paul Republicans running for Maryland Congressional seats did pretty well and won four out of the seven primary races:

Joe Arminio, 2% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 1st. Lost.
Richard Matthews, unopposed in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 2nd. Won.
Christopher Panasuk, 15% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 3rd. Lost.
Robert Broadus, 22% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 4th. Lost.
Michael Starkman, 26% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 4th. Lost.
Peter James, 39% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 4th. Won.
Collins Bailey, 44% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 5th. Won.
Mike Hargadon, 73% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 7th. Won.
Jay Roberts, 12% in the Republican Primary in the Maryland 8th. Lost.

Posted in *Take Action, abortion, Constitution, Current Events, economy, Education, free market, healthcare, Libertarian, Libertarianism, old right, Politics, republican, Rights, Ron Paul | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »