Rand, like Ron, decries the folly of US foreign policy toward Israel

From the American Spectator:

During his Senate campaign, Rand Paul walked a careful line on foreign policy: he shared his father's basic skepticism of interventionism but tried to be much more respectful of the majority viewpoint within the Republican Party. Sometimes that led him to state his positions differently from his father; sometimes it led him to take different positions than his father.

So it was interesting to read the Kentucky senator's statement on President Obama's Middle East speech. As expected, Paul slammed Obama's liberal interventionism: "Our mistakes in foreign policy have always been from hubris. We somehow believe that we can dictate the policies of the world, and enforce them with our military and economic strength. While this might sound like a good idea to many, it has its limits and its consequences." Yet even in opposing the Libya war, Paul took a pro-Israel line: "For example, instead of seeking proper authority from Congress and the Constitution to go to war with Libya, President Obama empowered the United Nations and the Arab League, two bodies that together endanger the security and sovereignty of our ally Israel."

Senator Paul continued his criticism of Obama's stance on Israel:

It is the United Nations who is threatening to impose a Palestinian state without a guarantee of safety for Israel. It is members of the Arab League who foment hostilities or refuse to recognize the right to safety and security of Israel.

But far worse than that, today it was an American President who stood before the world and once again demanded Israel act against her own strategic interest in the name of a false peace.

Peace from weakness or peace from outside coercion of Israel is a fool's errand. Unfortunately, the President today proved himself willing to play that fool.

Israel and her enemies have fought wars for the better part of the past 60 years. And terror-supporting countries in the region have spent the better part of those years feigning interest in peace while lobbing rockets across borders.

For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy.

Paul then concludes on a noninterventionist note:

I agree with the President. This is in fact a moment of opportunity. It is time to seize control of our foreign policy from those who have spent the past decade policing the world, trying in vain to build nations after destroying them, and bankrupting our children and grandchildren in the process.

This opportunity will pass us by if we simply repeat the same mistakes, over again.

UPDATE: Ron Paul's statement is strikingly similar, with some twists (the elder Paul is tougher in his antiwar language and hints he thinks it might be in Israel's long-term interests to voluntarily make concessions).

emphasis added.

Washington Post columnist smears Southerners, Ron Paul, Tom DiLorenzo

 ...You may be thinking "So what else is new?"

Dana Milbank is a columnist and author of the rabid progressive tribe that dwells in Washington DC. He known for bashing Glenn Beck and the Bush Administration, and formerly worked at the New Republic magazine. He is also a graduate of Yale and a member of the secretive Yale Skull and Bones society.  Skull and Bones members have traditionally been members of the oligarchy of the United States.  He was also a member of Trumbull College, the Yale Progressive Party.


So it's not surprising that Mr. Milbank has a certain agenda, every time he puts pen to paper or opens his mouth (as I do, on the opposite side of the Constitutional coin, ;-)).  

Thing is, Milbank is not fair and he is not interested in objective journalism.  I operate under the delusion that I am fair and rational.  He is a polemic of the Olbermann type.

Milbank posted a new column in yesterday evening's edition of the Washington Post.  He expended several hundred words ridiculing Rep. Ron Paul, Tom DiLorenzo of the Mises Institute, the League of the South, and by association, anyone who advances the cause of fiscal responsibility and sound money.


How did he smear Ron Paul and Tom DiLorenzo?  The title of his piece commemorating Paul's assumption of the House Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy was:  "Ron Paul's economic Rx: a Southern secessionist."


Rep. Paul chose Tom DiLorenzo, a Lincoln historical revisionist, economic historian, and adherent to the Austrian School of economics, to be the first to testify about the current state of Domestic Monetary Policy.

Rep. Paul, who is known for his protection of civil liberties and adherence to the Constitution, is brushed off as a gadfly.  Milbank then spends several paragraphs attacking DiLorenzo.


Milbank is not interested in the substance Mr. DiLorenzo's testimony.  He focuses solely on DiLorenzo's association with the League of the South and his historical revisionism of Abraham Lincoln.  


Vilification of all things Southern predates Mr. Milbank for 150 years (at least). So Milbank only feels obligated to list DiLorenzo's associations with the League and DumpDC.org to imply to his readership DiLorenzo is inappropriate to be a witness before Congress. Milbank also implies that because DiLorenzo was chosen by Ron Paul as the lead off witness, Ron Paul is a weak-minded choice to head the important Subcommittee.


I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the WaPo, a known shill organ of Statism and federal expansion, would feature a writer like Mr. Milbank, Skull and Crossbones Yalie Progressive blowhard.


The article pushed too many of my buttons to be ignored.


Progressives like Milbank are maddening for many reasons.  They don't understand the economic effect of their ideas and policies.  In their youth, their goal is to do "good" for "society" or one's "fellow man".  Later, as they gain cynicism and experience in government, they consciously or unconsciously work to expand the size of the State. They are not conscious that their policies of "fairness", so adroitly explained in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, require a creep towards totalitarianism to accomplish their goals.  The large coercive State that they create in their quixotic quest for a fair and equal society only ends up in (our present) unjust society of legal plunder, redistribution of wealth, and diminished Liberty.


And now it is time for my Southern rant:


These people, these Yankees, will never ever stop vilifying the good people of the South.  If you look in the dictionary under "Yankee", there is a picture of Dana Milbank there.

It has been145 years since all slaves were freed. Anyone standing up for the South, anyone proud of their Southern heritage and culture is a "secessionist." Perhaps you've heard Progressive Yankees like Milbank lump Southerners as mad murderous racist Klansmen who cannot wait for slavery days to return, or lurk about ready to lynch any African American, or who spend their waking hours raising their stupid ignorant children on hatred.  

It does not enter the mind of the Yankee that Southerners are a kind generous people, infused with Christian charity, and the backbone of our military.  It does not enter their mind that slavery persists in their minds only to diminish the Southerner.  We have left slavery far behind us.  We seek only to preserve our culture that we treasure.  


The Yankee/Progressive cries tears over endangered species, endangered cultures, lost civilizations, and genocides the world over.  They forget that the destruction of the native American populations, language and culture was a systematic sustained effort by their ideological forebears.  

Are they conscious they have sustained a successful 150 year campaign at cultural/ethnic cleansing and political disenfranchisement against Southerners?  


Every time the Progressive laughs at the mainstream media portrayal of the Southern man as stupid and ignorant, every time the Progressive snickers smugly at the efforts of ridiculing Southerners trying to preserve what little of their culture remains, they become what they claim to despise: an oppressor.  


Mr. Milbank preaches to his choir in his article.  

In his dismissal of Austrian economic policy, he ignores a viable alternative economic theory as our entire economy is on the brink of catastrophe.  

In his dismissal of DiLorenzo and Paul, he ignores the substance of their argument or that they have anything to contribute.  

In his attempt to diminish and defame Mr. DiLorenzo because of his past association with Southern heritage organizations, he denigrates and alienates Southerners.  In so doing he also actively participates in ethnocide, a crime against humanity, and appears to do so intentionally.

Where can I get a stamp like this?  Mr. Milbank, you've inspired me!

Five reasons I don't vote

Here are five reasons why I don’t vote:
1. I don’t live in Ron Paul’s district.
2. I have a greater chance of slipping in the bathtub and cracking my skull than my vote counting.
3. The Republicans are not the lesser of two evils.
4. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
5. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2).


From Laurence Vance at LewRockwell.com/blog today.

I won't sanction the system that consumes more than half of my wealth each pay period by legitimizing the system with my vote. Voting for Predator R instead of Predator D implies you actually agree with the statist agenda, even when you don't in reality. Wait for a real third alternative.