Category Archives: Foreign affairs

BNP European Election Fund Raiser

From the BNP:

[W]e have all the £5,000-a-time deposits for all the English regional seats and a truly amazing donation of £2,000 from one patriot has guaranteed us standing in Scotland as well!

Wales is the only country in doubt; and if you want to make the difference of a full country having the chance to vote BNP, we need £5,000 for Wales in the next 4 days! Can we do it? Is there anyone who can jump up to this last challenge and we will have a full slate in every country?

The less principled UKIP has of recent fallen in popularity, granting the BNP an opportunity to reassert itself this 22nd of May. Under Nick Griffin’s leadership, the BNP has upheld Christian values (not the same as zealotry) amidst a growing atheist culture, opposed immigration, and fought to improve the quality of life for all Britons.

Putin is credited with defeating the neocons in Syria, but Nick Griffin played an important role as well. It was Griffin, and other BNP, who flew to Syria to help draft a letter which successfully convinced MPs to vote against allowing Prime Minister David Cameron to bomb Syria. In the words of Griffin, the letter helped “undo, to at least a small extent, the deliberate dehumanisation policy of Western pro-war propaganda”.

Griffin drew attention to the Islamic grooming of very young English girls for prostitution years before the British media dared to, finally forcing the media to concede. Like Pat Buchanan in the 90s, Griffin was then dismissed as “racist”; and today his original position is mainstream and widely acknowledged. Nick Griffin in this and in many other ways is the Pat Buchanan of the UK, deserving of our support.

Griffin has lost an eye, been accused of having been raped by a homosexual adult at 16 (the now happily married Griffin denies this), been called a Nazi (Griffin defeated NS-leaning Tyndall to take over the BNP and is often blamed for having condemned British war crimes (Are war crimes ever acceptable?)), suffered death threats, endured eggs thrown at him, been denied a previous *personal invitation* by the Queen, been betrayed by supposed compatriots, been labeled a “fascist” (a word none can define except as “person I don’t like”), and more recently been driven into bankruptcy. Yet still the rooster stands, managing even to raise four children and maintain a marriage.

Some say the BNP is ineffective, but the stances Griffin takes (such as opposition to the homosexual lobby, albeit while rightly tolerating homosexuals) always appear (to this American) necessary even if unpopular. There are times even in politics when selling out isn’t worth the price, and it’s telling that so many in the UK fear debating him! Griffin is probably most feared for his revelations that the EU is corrupt. And he’s most loved outside the UK for having shared his valuable, hard-earned experience.

If a superior man abandons virtue, how can he fulfill the requirements of that name? – Confucius.

U.S. could free Israeli spy in deal to save peace talks

One thing’s for sure: The U.S. most definitely has a “special relationship” with Israel. It’s similar to the kind of relationship you see in the beaten wife syndrome, as this nauseating news nugget makes clear:

An Israeli spy serving a life sentence in the United States and groups of Palestinian prisoners could be freed under an emerging deal to salvage Middle East peace talks, sources close to the negotiations said on Monday.

The sources, who spoke as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry prepared to meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders, said under the proposed arrangement that Jonathan Pollard, a former U.S. Navy analyst caught spying for Israel in the 1980s, could be released by mid-April.

In addition, Israel would go ahead with a promised release of a fourth group of Palestinians, among the 104 it pledged to free in a deal that led to the renewal of peace talks last July. Another group of jailed Palestinians would also go free – and the peace talks would be extended beyond an April 29 deadline, the sources said.

What a deal – Israel gets its hero, the Palestinians get their people, and we get the greatest prize of them all: We get to maintain our “special relationship” with Israel. Win-win-win!

In case you’ve forgotten, here’s what Jonathan Pollard – an American citizen, at least on paper, if not in terms of loyalty – did to his country:

Pollard did more damage to the United States than any spy in history. And it was genuine damage, not just a mass of documents that had been routinely classified. Pollard’s Israeli handler, aided by someone in the White House who has up until now evaded arrest, was able to ask for specific classified documents by name and number. The Soviets obtained US war plans, passed to them by the Israelis in exchange for money and free emigration of Russian Jews without any regard for the damage it was doing to the United States. The KGB was able to use the mass of information to reconstruct US intelligence operations directed against it and a number of Americans and US agents paid with their lives. Pollard also revealed to the Israelis and Soviets the technical and human source capabilities that US intelligence did and did not have, which is the most critical information of all as it underlies all information collection efforts. Compounding the problem, the United States has never actually been able to accurately ascertain all of the damage done by Pollard because the Israeli government has refused to cooperate in the investigation and has not returned the documents that were stolen.

But what do you want to bet that the Israel-Firsters will meekly accept this outrage while screaming for Edward Snowden’s head?

Steven Seagal Hearts Putin

Dang! Steven Seagal has really gone rogue.

Mr. Seagal also took occasion in the newspaper interview to slam America for its policy on Ukraine.

“[I’m] an American, and I love my country,” but the current Ukraine policy from the White House is “idiotic,” he said, USA Today reported.

“It’s no secret that I have Republican views, and policies of Obama does not appeal to me,” Mr. Seagal said in the report. “In many ways, it is not even his fault, but the people who are in his inner circle who have views on world politics are diametrically opposed to Russia. In my opinion, a situation where the U.S. and Russia are on opposite sides of the fence is abnormal. And I see my task is to do everything to facilitate the normalization of relations.”

This shows some real insight. There is no reason we should have an antagonistic relationship with Russia. I’m going to rent a Steven Seagal movie the next time I use RedBox.

Students for Liberty vs. Ron Paul on Crimea

In case you haven’t been following this, there has been a bit of a dust up in non-interventionist circles. Students for Liberty President Alexander McCobin publically criticized Ron Paul over his statements on the Crimean situatuion. Since then, it has been time, as they say, to “get the popcorn.” I’m working on a longer response to this. As you probably guess, I side with Ron Paul. But I figured I need to cover this situation so here is a list of links.

Here is the original McCorbin post that got it all started.

Here is the original, as far as I can tell, reaction from BuzzFeed.

The (anti-Paul) Washington Free Beacon quickly picked up the story.

Reason chimes in.

Ron Paul’s Institute responds. (Perhaps too harshly?)

McCorbin replies.

Dave Weigel of Slate opines. (Weigel is interesting in cases like these. Weigel currently has anti-paleo biases, but because he once traveled in our circles before going a different dirrection, he gets the subtext better than most.)

Justin Raimondo is his typical firey self at

John Glaser says not so fast.

Raimondo steps on the gas.

Anthont Gregory calls for a truce.

Robert Wenzel sides with Ron Paul at

Whew! See what I mean about getting the popcorn?

Russia Pressured into Possible Trade Partnership with China, Maybe Wider “Asian Axis”

The latest from Zero Hedge is that Russia is being pressured into a trade partnership with China and possibly a wider “Asian axis”, which could result in the weakening of Europe’s economy and the undermining of the US Dollar as global reserve currency.

And if the US ceases to be the global reserve currency, widespread US economic collapse and rapid inflation would result. Warren Buffet’s warning about paper money might prove timely.

To top things off, the US Defense Department needs auditing, as does the Federal Reserve System (video).

Buy Gold? Well, Rhodium (in the store section of link), Palladium, or even (flammable) Ruthenium might all be more potent investments, since they’re historically more volatile and actually have industrial uses. And Silver is a more traditional currency for China and India. However, deep sea mining potentially threatens to wipe out scarcity – the technology does anyway, not that particular (extremely risky) stock.

Metals might be best regardless, and deep sea mining perhaps won’t be profitable this decade; but it will be eventually.

Buchanan on Putin

Buchanan nails it as usual.

But if Putin is not a Russian imperialist out to re-establish Russian rule over non-Russian peoples, who and what is he?

In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad … as people whose security is his legitimate concern.

Imagine that. A leader who actually looks out for the best interests of his people rather than trying to make the world safe for globalist banksters and other assorted fat cats.


Crimea Votes to Secede and Join Russia … America and Europe Call it Illegal

The Crimean vote is illegal … but the coup against the duly elected* President in Kiev was legal?

Fireworks exploded and Russian flags fluttered above jubilant crowds Sunday after residents in Crimea voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. The United States and Europe condemned the ballot as illegal and destabilizing and were expected to slap sanctions on Russia for it.

*As duly elected as any person in that region can be given rampant corruption and outside meddling.

Hmmm … maybe I was on  to something when I pointed out neocon hypocrisy on this issue here.

Is the New Zealand Flag Too Ethnically British?

Though only 2% of New Zealanders view changing their flag as the most important issue, Prime Minister John Key has declared there shall be a referendum on the flag sometime in the next three years.

While the current flag of New Zealand is easily confused with Australia’s, any change to the flag should reflect New Zealand’s British heritage. New Zealanders are today and will for all time be a race of Brits, however shameful they might find it. If immigrants flood the country, New Zealand will become a new nation just as it did when the Brits settled in Maori lands.

A 2013 census shows New Zealand as: 15% native Maori and 74% European, the majority being British.

Compare this with Sweden: 14.3% of the population there is foreign-born. No one has seriously proposed changing Sweden’s flag.

The example of Canada changing its flag is given by Mr. Key, however Canada was once overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic-French. Since changing its flag, Canada has declined from being 98% white (mostly British). And the once strong French-Quebec secession movement has been permanently ended by flooding that particular province with foreigners. What this means is the Canada of old is increasingly going the way of the Amerindians. The nation isn’t changing so much as dying.

One of the proposed New Zealand flags, wholly lacking in British heritage: New Zealand

In the 2011 Chinese-language movie The Dragon Pearl, Wu Dong, keeper of a temple, addresses an Australian boy as “English boy” (even after being corrected), and he’s right in doing so.

Neocon Things That Make You Go Hmmm…

As a Southern paleocon who has often argued with Unionist neocons over the virtue of the Union invasion of the South and the merits of Lincoln, the current events taking place in Ukraine and the neocons’ reaction to it has me scratching my head. Let’s see…

Neocons, especially those of the Straussian variety, allegedly oppose secession. They oppose the historic secession of the South and reject secession as a legitimate political option for US states at present.

As a result of their inherent nationalism and opposition to secession, neocons venerate Abraham Lincoln above any other American.

Ukraine is a product of a quiet recent, historically speaking, secession from the former Soviet Union.

Putin is reoccupying part of Ukraine.

Therefore, if neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they support Putin as a Lincolnesq figure attempting to restore a political entity, the USSR, that traitorous upstart secessionist in Ukraine have recently ripped apart? And just as they should view Putin as a modern day Lincoln, shouldn’t they view the Russian Army as a modern day equivalent of the Union Army, and the Ukraine military as a modern equivalent of the Rebel Confederate Army?

But instead, the neocons are supporting the former secessionist Ukrainian revolutionaries and opposing Lincolnesq Putin’s attempt to reoccupy a former Soviet territory.


In a similar situation, Bill Clinton’s ordered American troops to intervene in the Balkans.

In the Balkan intervention, American troops were facilitating the secession of Bosnia from part of the former Yugoslavia.

If neocons are to be intellectually consistent, shouldn’t they have opposed the secession of Bosnia? Shouldn’t they have likened the US forces in the Balkans to the Confederate Army for facilitating secession and Clinton to Jefferson Davis?

Instead, neocons enthusiastically supported Clinton’s Bosnian intervention even while many conservatives at the time were returning to their non-interventionist roots and opposing the action.


Perhaps it isn’t really secession that neocons oppose. They seem quite happy with secession when it is breaking up countries that they view as challenging US hegemony. Perhaps the real problem they have with the secession of the South or the modern secession of US states is that it challenges their (mistaken) conception of America as a unitary modern state with a special mission to spread the values of liberal democracy across the globe.


Originally posted at Intellectual Conservative.

Archived at

A Christian/Biblical Case for Non-intervention

Joel McDurmon has an article up at the American Vision website discussing a Greg Bahnsen lecture on the Christian perspective on war. He links to the article from his FaceBook page, which is how I came across it.

Those familiar with Bahnsen and McDurmon will know that they are arguing from a theonomic premise, but one does not have to be a theonomist to understand the importance of making an explicitly Biblical case regarding the proper justification for and conduct of war. Too many evangelical Christians have been cheerleaders for our current interventionist foreign policy. While they may not end up being persuaded, they at least can’t reject out a hand an argument that is based on Biblical exegesis. They will at least, if they are sincere, be forced to examine their beliefs. It is important to have an explicitly Christian argument against war that is not just pacifism out there.

As an aside, as I said in the FaceBook thread, I’m curious what the American Vision boss, Gary DeMar, thinks about this. My FaceBook comment is below:

As a long time conservative non-interventionist, I’m thrilled that Dr. McDurmon is making this case, and glad it is finding a home on the American Vision website. But as a blogger who often covers intra-paleosphere conflicts, I am very curious to know what the boss thinks of this. As far as I can recall, Gary DeMar has been generally supportive of America’s interventionist foreign policy, or at least hasn’t spoken against it. If I’m wrong about this or if DeMar has a had a change of heart I would be glad to know that, but for certain he has vocally spoken out against third party voting which has unfortunately been the only option for conservative non-interventionists for many years.

Buchanan Acknowledges Paleo Putin Love

There has long been some admiration of Putin in paleo circles. Here, Buchanan asks “Is Putin One of Us?

Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us? While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president’s state of the nation address. With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.” “They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.” Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil. No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.

See more here…

I love that Buchanan mentions paleoconservatives by name, as the word seems to be used less frequently these days.

I think it is important that we acknowledge that Putin is likely far from pure lest we sound naive. You don’t serve in the KGB or rise  to power in Russia by happenstance. But I do think Putin really does recognize that modern Western style progressivism and globalism threatens a traditional nation state like Russia, and his resistance to it is genuine. Putin appears to get “the big picture” much better than do a lot of mainstream conservatives who still harbor grudges from the Cold War.

We need a dictator!

David Brooks is frustrated. Congress won’t grant amnesty to all those potential Americans “hiding in the shadows,” it can’t pass gun control, and it hasn’t given us any fun wars lately. Brooks is also disappointed by the American public’s lack of enthusiasm for DC’s military adventures. Members of Congress, always mindful of the next election, aren’t about to further alienate voters. That makes Brooks sad. Brooks, a thorough Neocon, gleefully backed the Iraq War as a means to achieve “national greatness.” To him, a strong central government is the answer to everything, since, in his own words, “ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington.”

The solution? Brooks says it’s time for the president to assume more power and get things rolling again. Here’s his argument, from an opinion piece entitled Strengthen the Presidency:

Here are the advantages. First, it is possible to mobilize the executive branch to come to policy conclusion on something like immigration reform. It’s nearly impossible for Congress to lead us to a conclusion about anything. Second, executive branch officials are more sheltered from the interest groups than Congressional officials. Third, executive branch officials usually have more specialized knowledge than staffers on Capitol Hill and longer historical memories. Fourth, Congressional deliberations, to the extent they exist at all, are rooted in rigid political frameworks.

What should Obama do, in Brooks’s opinion? Simple: “So how do you energize the executive? It’s a good idea to be tolerant of executive branch power grabs and to give agencies flexibility.”

Yeah — nothing like a few “executive branch power grabs” to liven things up.

Don’t dismiss this as just the ravings of a typical government supremacist. What Brooks is advocating is a very real, very frightening possibility. Obama is already taking steps to do exactly what Brooks is talking about. Obama has appointed long-time DC insider John Podesta to his senior staff. Podesta has long been an open advocate of a powerful chief executive. In a Center for American Progress paper in 2010 entitled, “The Power of the President: Recommendations to Advance Progressive Change,” Podesta wrote: “Concentrating on executive powers presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”

Liberty activists should fear this man. Podesta’s progressive ideology is a blueprint for the welfare-warfare state:

In 2008, Podesta authored his book The Power of Progress: How America’s Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country. In it, he articulates a vision of progressive values based on four core lessons: 1) Progressives stand with people, not privilege; 2) Progressives believe in the Common Good and a government that offers a hand up; 3) Progressives hold that all people are equal in the eyes of God and under the law; and 4) Progressives stand for universal human rights and cooperative global security.

(Catch that last line? And some people don’t believe me when I argue that civil rights and militarism are DC’s yin and yang.) Like all DC insiders, John Podesta knows how to deploy his noble-sounding ideals to turn a buck:

Since President Obama entered office in 2008, Boeing has spent $840,000 on The Podesta Group’s services, relying on the firm to lobby in favor of lucrative defense appropriations at the White House and on Capitol Hill.

What can we expect from Obama in the coming months? More wars, more forced multiculturalism, more authoritarian government.

In other words, what we can expect from ANY administration.

Heavyweight Boxing Champion Running for President … of the Ukraine

Vitali Klitschko has stepped down as WBC Champion in order to run for President in the Ukraine, which has recently been experiencing political turmoil. The neocons favor the opposition so I’m not sure that Klitschko is necessarily the good guy in this situation, but I thought this was worth pointing out for two reasons. First, not every Presidential candidate has to come through the typical elected official route. (He has been a member of the Ukrainian parliament for 1 year.) America could learn something from this. Second, the US market has shamefully underappreciated the Klitschko brothers. His brother, Wladimir, is the heavyweight champion of every major boxing organization except the WBC.

Obama Sends Fresh Aid to Syrian Rebels

From the Washington Post:

The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

Although the Obama administration signaled months ago that it would increase aid to Syrian rebels, the efforts have lagged because of the logistical challenges involved in delivering equipment in a war zone and officials’ fears that any assistance could wind up in the hands of jihadists.

U.S. officials decided to expand nonlethal assistance to Syria’s armed rebels after they delivered more than 350,000 high-calorie U.S. military food packets through the Supreme Military Council in May. The distribution gave U.S. officials confidence that it was possible to limit aid to select rebel units in a battlefield where thousands of fighters share al-Qaeda’s ideology, U.S. officials said.

“We feel we’re able to get these local councils off to a good start,” said Ward, a veteran U.S. Agency for International Development official who has worked in Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan. “We vet individuals who are getting our assistance to make sure they are not affiliated with terror organizations.”

The initiatives are part of a $250 million effort to support moderate factions of the Syrian opposition. Of that, the United States has earmarked $26.6 million in aid for the Supreme Military Council.

Meanwhile, Russia Today reports on Syrian government fighting jihadists to win back Christian village of Maaloula:

Some residents, who claim rebels have resorted to looting, executions and forcing residents to convert to Islam, chose to join the Army to defend their village. Among them, Saba Ubeid, a store owner, said when filmed by RT in 2012 that he was sure the rebels would never come to the village. This time he was armed with a gun and fought alongside Syrian soldiers.

“They sent terrorists here from all corners of the world to kill Syrian people and each other. Why? I ask the world, why?” he cried out. “While in Europe if a citizen is simply slapped in his face, there’ll be a scandal. While Syrians – how many victims, how many hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered? When it will stop?”

Maaloula, a mountain village of 2,000 people, is the center of Christianity in the region. Alongside with Catholic and Orthodox monasteries there are the remains of numerous convents, churches, shrines and sanctuaries. It is also one of the very few places in the world where people still speak Western Aramaic, a Biblical language that Jesus is believed to have spoken.

The village, built into a rugged mountainside, is a major pilgrimage destination for Christians and Muslims from around the world. It is an ancient sanctuary on a UNESCO list of proposed World Heritage sites.

10% of Syria’s 22 million people are Christian, according to wikipedia. Obama isn’t going to protect them anymore than Bush protected Christians in Iraq.

Senator Isakson Is Going to Vote Against Syria Strike

One of the Senators I wrote to below, is going to vote against the Syria Resolution.

Dear Dr. Phillips:

You have recently written in to my office regarding the use of military force in Syria, and I wanted to provide you with an update. If you do not want to receive this type of update in the future, please fill out the webform on my website and choose “DO NOT SEND ISSUE UPDATES” from the drop down topic list.

On August 21, 2013, chemical weapons were used in an attack that killed over 1,000 Syrian citizens, including women and children. President Obama asked Congress for authorization to use military action against Syria in response to this attack on August 31, 2013. I believe it is appropriate for the president to seek authorization from Congress.

The decision to use U.S. military forces is not one that I take lightly . Over the past week, I have traveled my state and have talked personally to hundreds of Georgians. Thousands more constituents have contacted my office by phone and email. It is clear to me that Georgians overwhelmingly oppose our country getting involved militarily in Syria.

After carefully weighing this very important issue, I have decided that I will vote against the resolution to authorize a U.S. military strike in Syria.

The administration’s lack of a clear strategy is troubling, and the potential fallout following a military strike is also troubling.

Thank you again for your interest in this subject. Please visit my webpage at for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter .

Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

We often don’t have much powers as citizens and voters. Often the Congress does what it wants despite the wishes of the people, such as with amnesty and immigration. But Senators and Congressmen are not entirely immune to public pressure. Sometimes our efforts can make a difference. Isakson is a very establishment figure. I have no doubt that had public sentiment not been so one-sided against intervention that he would have lined up behind the President. Let’s keep the pressure on.

America First Party Statement on Syria

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Monday, September 9, 2013

Looming Risk of Regional War Reflects Reckless and Poor Leadership

Boulder, CO -Ten years after the disastrous Iraq invasion, two years after
U.S. air strikes in Libya precipitated the fall of the Gaddafi regime, and
in the midst of widespread turmoil unleashed by the “Arab spring,” the Obama
administration and many Capitol Hill leaders persist in utopian efforts to
reshape the Middle East, thereby risking igniting wider regional conflict,
and possibly armed conflict with Russia and its allies.

While our sympathy and prayers go out to the people of Syria, use of U.S.
military power there seems likely to do more harm than good, an appraisal
shared by many desperate civilians in that war-ravaged nation.  Indeed, if
this assessment is true, initiating strikes on Syria would be gravely
immoral.  Will we replicate the results of immoral and unconstitutional
attacks on Libya and Iraq, by leaving a largely lawless state behind,
causing Christians and other religious minorities to flee, and creating yet
another haven for Islamic extremists?

Oaths of office notwithstanding, the simple policy solution of following our
founders’ constitutional blueprint seems off the radar of most leaders on
Capitol Hill.  Under truly constitutional praxis, the U.S. military should
never be seriously considered for any combat role not in the service of U.S.
national defense.  Since we have left that prudent outlook behind long ago,
we can expect more chaos in foreign affairs, and God forbid, perhaps another
world war.

AFP National Secretary John Pittman Hey commented, “This is Syria’s civil
war, not ours.  Let’s not take our cue from extremists in Washington D.C.,
who seem to care little about the consequences of their actions, both for
our country and on people far away.”

“Reversing today’s dangerous foreign policy trends,” states AFP Chairman
Jonathan Hill, “requires electing people who are both competent and decent.
Given the moral implications of the oath of office, this goes hand in hand
with electing people who respect basic constitutional principles.”

Jonathan Hill, National Chairman 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext 4
John Pittman Hey, National Secretary,

Crossposted at Independent Political Report

My Letter to My Two Republican Senators on Syria Intervention

Dear Sen.,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the resolution to attack Syria.

First, it is not at all clear that Assad was responsible for any chemical weapons attack that may have taken place. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. It makes no sense that Assad would order such an attack and invite reprisal. Even mainstream sources are suggesting the possibility that this was a false flag attack perpetrated by the Rebels. Pardon me if I don’t accept the “evidence” presented by my government at face value, but it doesn’t exactly have the best track record when it comes to evidence used to justify wars of choice.

Second, even if we knew with absolute certainty that Assad was responsible, there still would be no reason for the US to attack. Syria is not threat to the US and we should stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. Neither side here is the “good guys,” but if we had to chose a side we are better off with Assad than with the Islamist Rebels. As Sen. Rand Paul has pointed out, at least Assad has protected Syria’s Christian community. Our interventions in the Middle East have systematically been bad for Middle Eastern Christians.

Third, the Republican Party is supposed to be the conservative party. Contrary to the mistaken belief of many modern conservatives, foreign policy interventionism is not the authentic conservative position. The assumptions that underlie interventionism are profoundly not conservative. Interventionism is inherently globalistic, hubristic and downright Jacobin. This is not conservative. Non-interventionism and avoiding “entangling alliances” is the position that arises from a conservative mindset properly understood. Voting no on Syrian interventionism can be step one in righting the course of the GOP and the conservative movement so-called and putting them back on track toward the authentically conservative position of foreign policy non-interventionism.


“Red” Phillips
Managing Editor,