Category Archives: Interventionism

The Neocons vs. Rand Paul’s Reading List

The Neocons clearly have Rand Paul in their cross hairs.

Now they are going after him for his suggested reading list.

Here is the initial Weekly Standard article.

The Washinton Free Beacon, which apparently specializes in neocon thought enforcement, ran this Weekly Standard inspired hit piece.

Tom Woods has replied to the Free Beacon piece here, in the sarcastic way that he has perfected.

The neoconservatives over at the Free Beacon, a thought-monitoring website in the mold of ThinkProgress on the left, took time out of their customary schedule of spreading Islamic radicalism around the world to criticize Rand Paul for recommending a few books on foreign policy whose conclusions are not “USA! USA!” and “they hate us for our awesomeness.”

I hope to have more to say on this issue later, but I wanted to get a quick post up now.

The Ron Paul Institute is Moving to Texas

Great news! The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has moved from its former location in Washington, D.C.’s Virginia suburbs down to its new headquarters in Clute, Texas. The Institute is setting up its office next door to Ron Paul’s FREE Foundation and not far from the Ron Paul Channel.

What a relief to escape the corrupt corridors of Mordor! A beachhead of peace and liberty is expanding in south Texas. And if you’re wondering why Texas and not D.C., it is because we are not trying to play nice with the Beltway elites. Our audience is informed readers like yourself, who continue to question the pablum served up by politicians and the mainstream media.

The move down to Texas means that the Institute will be working much more closely with its founder and CEO, Dr. Ron Paul. A book is on the near horizon as well as a couple of other media-related projects. And of course, the Institute will continue its main focus: bringing hard-hitting analysis of important news events that readers will not see in the mainstream media. As people continue to turn off the mainstream media, we want to be the resource they turn to.

Dr. Paul has also invited more Ron Paul Institute participation in the Ron Paul Channel — what a great new way to get our message out!

Read more here…

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m sure the move is a good thing for the reasons stated above, but DC really does need a non-interventionist presence. This is not a criticism, because everyone has there niche, it’s just an observation. If the Institutes audience is us readers, then it is doing a lot of preaching to the choir. Non-interventionism needs someone in the fray attempting to influence the debate. National politicians already have many organized voices pulling on their ear. There are very few organized voices for non-intervention countering that message.

Obama’s Two-Front War

Interesting, isn’t it, how tactics and objectives dovetail in D.C.’s ever-escalating war to impose multiculturalism at home and abroad? In defense of the principle of “inclusion” in Iraq, Obama is quietly ramping up efforts to prop up D.C.’s puppet regime in Baghdad:

Monday of this week, the first combat troops came, with the promise now shifting to a “no combat missions” one.

Even that seems absurd, as the Pentagon sends Apache attack helicopters into Iraq for the combat troops to use in these “non-combat” missions. The administration appears to recognize the unpopularity of a new Iraq War, but seems determined to escalate quietly until it is no longer a potential move to warn against, but a simple reality.

Similarly, Obama’s response to the invasion of our southwest border is to present defenders of traditional America with a fait accompli of a Third-World occupation that will impose “inclusiveness” on the American people:

“Either we’re going to enforce our laws and remain strong, economically or otherwise, or we ignore the rule of law and go to being a Third World country,” Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Republican, told Fox News. “You’ve got to follow the law. You cannot bring hundreds of thousands of people in this country without destroying the country. Then there’s no place that people can dream about coming.”

No one knows this better than Barack Obama. Making the United States over into a Third World country is exactly what this president is about. He is of the Third World. He spent his formative years in the Third World, and when his mother, obsessed with the Third World, brought him back to America, he sought out the company of those who dreamed of making America over into the world’s largest welfare state.

You have to feel for the patriotic protesters in Murietta standing up to the government’s importation of tax-consuming invaders. But they’re trying to defend a nation that NO LONGER EXISTS. It’s past time trying to reform D.C. and imagining we’re going to shame the federal government into protecting and representing us. That’s exactly the opposite of what the powers that be want.

It’s time for a hundred mighty secession movements to rise up and form governments that represent them and their interests. The first step is to recognize the utter illegitimacy of the corrupt regime in D.C. The good news is that only 21% of Americans believe the federal government is based on the consent of the governed. Do the math, and you’ll see that we’re half-way to the goal of self-determination.

Let’s re-invade Iraq! What could go wrong?

Just how insane and detached from reality are Neocons? Apparently, they’re sufficiently delusional to call for putting American boots on the ground in a country the US Embassy is now evacuating. And for what purpose? Why, to enforce “inclusiveness.” Sound like a worthy military goal to you? It does to Fat Freddy Kagan:

The U.S. has been pushing for an inclusive political settlement in Iraq that brings the Sunni into the government and denies ISIS popular support. The current crisis has resulted in considerable part, in fact, from Maliki’s sectarian actions and systematic exclusion of Sunnis from political power and influence.

Like all apologists for empire, Kagan is mortified at the prospect of self-determination. “Inclusion” is how proponents of Big Government justify their one-size-fits-all ideology. What people like Kagan cannot comprehend is that the people of the Middle East had little to say about the borders they have to live in, and are resorting to violence to win what has been denied them. The brutality going on now is the direct result of past interventions by those who thought they knew what was best for the people of the Middle East. Kagan thinks we haven’t done enough harm to these people, and like the kid with nothing in his tool box but a hammer, wants to intervene yet again:

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required.

Why not? Why, it’ll only take a few regiments. It’ll be a cakewalk. Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion. And the American people will cheer on the troops once news of easy victories come rolling in. Yeah.

Fat Freddy Kagan is calling for an unwinnable fight for an impossible goal that has no popular support.

Tony Blair Blames Non-Intervention for Iraqi Chaos

From Tony Blair’s website:

Highlights:

Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.

Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.

My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.

——-

Additional:

Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.

My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.

This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.

Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.

Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.

My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.

Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.

My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.

Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.

Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.

My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!

Can Someone Convince Rep. John Duncan to Run for President?

Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?

*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.

The text of the speech is available here.

#BringBackOurGirls

Anything, anywhere in the world that’s bad MUST be made right by the Doers of Good ® in DC. That makes everything and everyone DC’s business. Michelle Obama heartily agrees it’s her husband’s duty to rescue Nigerian girls kidnapped by, uh, mysterious extremists of no discernible religious views:

Michelle Obama has taken the unique step of delivering her husband’s weekly presidential address to express outrage at the kidnapping of the Nigerian schoolgirls. …

“I want you to know that Barack has directed our government to do everything possible to support the Nigerian government’s efforts to find these girls and bring them home. In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters. We see their hopes, their dreams, and we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now.”

Why, these girls could be Trayvon’s sisters.

Since no crisis should go to waste, what do you want to bet this kidnapping becomes the justification for importing a few dozen boatloads of Nigerian immigrants? After all, we have limitless capacity here in this country, and it is our obligation to do whatever we can for OUR GIRLS. Because America.

24 Commentary

**** SPOILER ALERT ****

#JackisBack was all the rage yesterday on FaceBook, Twitter, etc. I says screw Jack. I’m rooting for the new blonde chick!

Kidding aside, I do think there is some truth to the criticism that 24 operates on neoconish/security state premises. That its routine to subvert laws against torture by turning captives over to extra-national entities for “enhanced interrogation techniques.” That the release of classified information in an attempt to bring transparency is bad. That major existential terrorist threats exist and are plausible/likely. That beefed up intel can prevent such things. Etc. I did find it interesting that they cast the generally well like and sympathetic (if annoying) character of Chloe in the Edward Snowden role.

That said, sometimes you just have to put politics aside and relax and enjoy something for what it is. I like 24 and will no doubt watch and enjoy it. I think the first couple of seasons of 24 was some of the best series television ever. It did get repetitive after a couple of seasons, so I think this extended break has been good for the series.

Oliver North Gets Story Credit on an Episode of The Americans

Here is a little gee whiz fact I missed at the time. It was the episode from last Wednesday, not yesterday, and it involved a Contra training base so they asked North to consult. Apparently his involvement has caused some anger.

At the time all the Oliver North/Iran Contra stuff was going on, I was still a big anti-Communist interventionist. (Hey, I was a teen. Cut me some slack.) While now I would say we should have been minding our own business and not have gotten involved in the affairs of Nicaragua, I don’t bear any hard feelings against North in particular for his involvement. I just wish he and the rest of organized conservatism would convert to non-interventionism. But apparently some lefties still get their panties in a wad about North. Who knew? You would think they must have been rooting for the Sandinistas or something.

Hard times for Neocons

The most vivid illustration of how unnatural and unstable the DC regime has become was the orgy of mutual recrimination that followed the collapse of the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures. As the flimsy lies that united the bizarre coalition of war supporters became too glaring to deny, public support evaporated. Those who had convinced their constituencies to overlook their differences and rally ’round the flag quickly resorted to demonizing their former bedfellows. It got nasty at times.

You can deny reality for only so long. Really now: How long could we pretend the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan could hide behind such fantasies as Andrew Sullivan’s War of Global Gay Liberation, Charles Johnson’s Crusade against Tradition, and Free Republic’s Great Patriotic War?

Little wonder that the War Party is descending these days into increasingly shrill and unhinged attempts to revive public support for perpetual war. The silliest in recent memory is Michael Gerson’s warning that Americans have  “overlearned” the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, to paraphrase Gerson, “Americans made a huge mistake in 2003: They trusted us Neocons. But that doesn’t mean you should never trust us again when we want to attack another country that has not threatened or attacked us.”

Even worse, says Gerson, by not invading Libya, Georgia, and Syria, just to name a few countries begging for another US-led “liberation,” Americans are increasingly showing “tolerance of crimes against humanity.” Yes, that’s what he said.

If we really cared about the people in other countries, we’d bomb them. Keeping out of other people’s wars demonstrates a lack of compassion.

Of course, Gerson somehow forgets the ACTUAL results of past US interventions. Just to list a few:

- Vietnam, 1960-75 — Two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war.
 - Indonesia, 1965 — CIA-backed overthrow of Sukarno in 1965 resulted in estimated death of one million people.
 - Cambodia, 1969-75 — US carpet bombing killed two million people.
 - El Salvador, 1981-92 — troops and air power assisted death squads, 75,000 people killed.
 - Serbia — Clinton’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Air War in 1999 killed 6,000 Serbian troops and 2,000 civilians.
 - Iraq — US-led sanctions result in the estimated deaths of over one million civilians, from 1990 to 2003. And the Iraqi invasion and occupation has killed over 700 US troops, 5,000 Iraqi troops, and 8,000 civilians.

But Neocons, like the leftists from which they mutated, are at war with reality. We’re supposed to focus on the nobility of their theories, not the real-world consequences of their policies.

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 Anti-War.com.

John Glaser says not so fast.

Raimondo steps on the gas.

Anthont Gregory calls for a truce.

Robert Wenzel sides with Ron Paul at LewRockwell.com

Whew! See what I mean about getting the popcorn?

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.

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.

Hmmm…?

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.

Hmmm…?

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.

Hmmm…?

Originally posted at Intellectual Conservative.

Archived at www.danphillipsmd.com.

Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?

My new column “Is Rand Paul the Best Non-interventionists Can Hope For?” is up at Intellectual Conservative. I plan to submit full length columns there more often. Here is an excerpt:

Bolton and King are clearly attempting to counter Rand Paul and his perceived libertarian tendencies, but this says at least as much about the paranoia and absolutism of the uber-hawks as it does about Rand Paul. Among non-interventionists, Rand Paul is widely viewed as a disappointment. The reasons for this warrant a separate article, but suffice it to say that while Rand Paul is better on foreign policy than your average Republican, he is not his father by a long shot.

Principled non-interventionists are often lectured by more pragmatic types that Rand Paul is the best we’ve got so we should make the best of it, but if the uber-hawks want a clear messenger like King or Bolton for their hawkishness despite the presence of more credible candidates who are mostly with them, why shouldn’t non-interventionists yearn for a clear messenger for their cause? While I think the super hawks are dangerously wrong, I admire that they are pro-actively seeking a spokesman to their liking for their message.

Read more…

I would prefer that you comment at IC if you would like to comment, so it looks like my articles are attracking interest. Registration is required. Thanks.

Update: This article has now been added to my personal blog.

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.

Resistance to DC rising

“The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around.” Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN

Pat Buchanan has a must-read piece that is perfect in every way except for its inappropriate title, “Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring.” My nit-pick is that “isolationism” is what interventionists use to slam those who question their endless wars. It’s the equivalent of the use of “racist” to put down anyone who objects to socialism — which is exactly what that term means. And as I’ve argued before, the interventionist abroad validates and reinforces the interventionist at home. Both have an other-worldly ideal that mere humanity never quite lives up to, requiring the noble idealists to spill a little more blood. All in the name of doing good, you see.

Pat points out that the interventionists have directly harmed this country. The facts he presents cannot be argued:

We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.

Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya.

Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:

A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.

While America was caught up in these wars, China swept past Britain, France, Germany and Japan to emerge as the second largest economy on earth. Using her $250-$300 billion annual trade surpluses with the United States, she has been locking up resources across Africa, Latin America, Australia and Asia.

Now Beijing has declared its own Monroe Doctrine to encompass the East and South China seas and all islands therein and to challenge the United States for hegemony over the Western Pacific.

The Afghan and Iraq wars, we should note, were supported by big-government interventionists of both the left and right. What’s scary is that the same coalition is still at it today, demanding war on Iran, and blasting those who courageously uncover illegal surveillance by the federal government. Despite their differences, the left and right interventionists are united in their support of a powerful centralized government and the demonization of dissent.

The bottom line is that they’re both cheering while the federal government chips away at what’s left of our liberty. That makes them part of the problem, not the solution. Let’s not forget that.

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.

A Couple of Links on the Budget Deal

We criticized Jack Hunter here for his PC inspired backtracking, but that doesn’t mean he is no longer capable of good commentary. Here is a Hunter column on the budget deal. The GOP can’t be trusted to cut spending because they are too wedded to big spending on the military. Military spending is the untold story behind why so many Republicans went with Ryan’s budget cave. On a side note, I guess Hunter is back with a regular column at The Daily Caller. I suppose his Politico mea culpa was the price of re-admission.

We also recently criticized Jim Antle for his attempt to finesse the Mandela issue, but he is still capable of good commentary as well. Here he is on the budget deal. He sees the budget deal as what it is, a big cave-in for the House GOP.