Tag Archives: empire

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to journalist Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Why Ron Paul Is the Best Candidate for President

By Daniel Downs

Ron Paul is one politician America needs in the top spot of American government. Paul may not be the best-looking candidate but he is the most qualified. Besides, a stately appearance is too superficial a criterion by which to elect any candidate. If it were not so, Romney or Santorum would be the two best choices. Maybe that is one reason why they are promoted by mainstream media, but not by XCJ.

Oratory is an important skill required of any political leader. It is especially important our president possess it. The president is not only commander-in-chief of the military but he is also the top executive overseeing our nation’s business and the chief public and foreign relations officer. The president must speak to many different types of audiences including hundreds of Congressmen and women, thousands of White House staff, thousands of military leaders and their soldiers, thousand of foreign officials and millions of their people, as well millions of Americans. Although during some of the debates, Ron Paul seemed to conduct him as if in Congress. Yet, his campaign speeches demonstrate him to be a capable statesman.

As a competent statesman, the president must a model representative of America’s best. He must be the best at protecting and defending the rule of law as defined by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul is America’s finest example because he has over 20 years of proven experience.

As defender of the Supreme law of the land, the President’s function is to review every legislative act of Congress ensuring conformity to Constitutional law. This Ron Paul has been practicing since he entered politics.

As top executive of our national government, the president creates administrative law and institutional means through which congressional laws will be carried out efficiently and effectively. It’s true only executives of states, municipalities, and corporations could possess such experience. However, passing laws, making treaties, committing acts of war, and writing executive orders that in effect make laws in order to thwart the authoritative will and law-making power of the legislature and thus defy the rule of law are acts that should disqualify any candidate. Ron Paul has proven he is not among those who condone or performs such extra-legal acts, but some past presidents and most current presidential contenders have or says they would. For example, Romney’s solution to ending Obamacare would be to issue an executive order.

Excellence at articulating the American vision informed by the principles that our laws are meant to implement is another quality the president should possess. Over the course of his public service, Ron Paul has and is articulating that vision of life, liberty, happiness by means of a government limited to enumerated powers, laws limited to constitutional conformity, maximum freedom for states and individuals, and sound fiscal and monetary policies that ensure responsible prosperity for all. These define American democracy and moral capitalism and they distinguish our principled democracy from the socialist and humanist versions of Europe and many who espouse them in America. Ron Paul is an ardent proponent of America’s form of democracy.

While the media and political opponents want Americans to believe that the views of Ron Paul are ludicrous, his views actually are in-tune with historical and current realities. For example, Paul says we should close our military bases around the world because doing so would increase American prosperity by reducing our national economic burden. It would also reduce global animosity that has resulted in increasing violence against us, which in return would reduce the growing economic burden of homeland security while increasing the freedom and prosperity of Americans.

A good historical example showing the effects of big government is the Roman Empire. Like America now, Rome had strategically placed military bases throughout the world. The economic burden of maintaining a colossal effort at policing the world eventual led to it falls. In the process of decline, many other aspects of life also declined. Moral decadence added to the decline and fall of Rome. Roman elites delighted in the uniqueness of other cultures and embraced those cultures in Rome. According to Amy Chua, the disunity created by multiculturalism also contributed to its eventual demise. Like aids in Africa, deadly disease depopulated native Rome, which increased Rome’s dependence on foreign militias and foreign workers. This opened the door to those who hated Imperial Rome and who eventual conquered her. Moreover, because Rome readily employed military intervention to create peace and economic stability, Rome experienced the same kind violent blowback America now faces. As with Rome and the USSR, American interests of this nature costs millions of Americans a very high price: increased poverty, public debt, and alienation. All others candidates favor maintaining the economically disastrous efforts of world policing. Keeping a strong military policing force is not the same as maintaining a strong national defense. Ron Paul knows this and wants the opportunity to help change course of America’s future.

If elected, Ron Paul will seek to right America’s wrongs with the goal of restoring America’s future.

Crucifying Jesus: Killing a Radical

By John W. Whitehead

“[Jesus] was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The Sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His ‘turn the other cheek’ anticipated Gandhi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called ‘Atheists for Jesus’ (and was delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend).”—Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (2006)

For those who profess to be Christians, the week leading up to Easter is the most sacred time of the year, commemorating as it does the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet while Jesus is a revered religious figure, he was also, as atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes, a radical in his own right whose life and teachings changed the course of history.

Too often today radicalism is equated with terrorism, extremism and other violent acts of resistance. Yet true radicalism, the kind embodied by such revolutionary figures as Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, actually involves speaking truth to power through peaceful, nonviolent means. Separated by time and distance, Christ, King and Gandhi were viewed as dangerous by their respective governments because they challenged the oppressive status quo of their day.

Jesus, in particular, undermined the political and religious establishment of his day through his teachings. For example, when Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers,” exhorting his followers to turn the other cheek and give freely, he was telling us that active peacemaking is the way to end war. Indeed, if everything Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount is true—a message that King, to his peril, adopted in protest of the Vietnam War—there’d be no need for wars, war budgets or military industrial complexes. Imagine that.

Unfortunately, as the gruesome torture and crucifixion of Jesus make clear, there is always a price to pay for standing up to one’s oppressors. While the New Testament Gospels are the primary source for accounts of Jesus’ suffering, crucifixion and death, his ordeal at the hands of Roman soldiers has been the topic of scholarly research for years. Indeed, as Time magazine reports, the latest topic of academic scrutiny involves claims by an Israeli television journalist that he may have uncovered the crucifixion nails used on Jesus—“smallish iron spikes with the tips hammered to one side.”

Certainly, the torture Jesus endured was agonizing. Yet what was it about him that caused the Romans to view him as enough of a threat to make an example of him and have him crucified?

In the time of Jesus, religious preachers and self-proclaimed prophets were not summarily arrested and executed. Nor were nonviolent protesters. Indeed, the high priests and Roman governors in Jerusalem would normally allow a protest, particularly a small-scale one, to run its course. However, government authorities were quick to dispose of leaders and movements that even appeared to threaten the Roman Empire.

The charges leveled against Jesus—that he was a threat to the stability of the nation, opposed paying Roman taxes and claimed to be the rightful King as Messiah of Israel (the gravest charge, for which Jesus was ultimately crucified, as inscribed on the cross: “The King of the Jews”)—were purely political, not religious. To the Romans, any one of these charges was enough to merit death by crucifixion. Crucifixion itself, usually reserved for slaves, non-Romans, radicals, revolutionaries and the worst criminals, was not only a common method for execution by Romans but was also the most feared.

The Gospels recount how, after Jesus’ arrest, temple guards brought him to the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas, who declared him guilty of blasphemy. He was then ushered before the Sanhedrin, a Jewish council, which sought permission from the Romans to execute him. Whether an actual “trial” took place before Jesus was handed over to the Romans is uncertain. But more than likely, as he was moved from place to place, he was spat upon and beaten.

It is telling that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who alone had the authority to execute Jesus, focused on his political identity: “Are you the king of the Jews?” (Matthew 27:11). This seems to be primarily what mattered to Pilate, whose job it was to uphold the religious, as well as the temporal, power of the deified Caesars.

Jesus does not deny the allegation which, if true, will lead to his death. He answers: “You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (John 18:37).

In other words, Jesus told Pilate—the one person who held Jesus’ life in his hands—to stick it. The cruel torture and killing of Jesus were certain to follow after that. The fact that Jesus was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews was not an afterthought pinned on the cross above his head. The Roman soldiers commissioned to prepare him for execution knew this was the issue. That is why they gave him the burlesque of coronation, clothing him in royal purple with a mock crown and scepter. Then they abased themselves and called out, “Hail, king of the Jews!” (John 19:3). Afterward, they beat Jesus.

The mob must have played a key role in Jesus’ condemnation, although there is little extensive historical evidence to support the scene played out in films and movies in which Pontius Pilate asks the crowd to choose between Barabbas the robber and Jesus. Most likely the pressure to appease the masses would have forced the Romans to act. As author A. N. Wilson writes, “If the crowds could be pacified by the release of Barabbas, they could perhaps be cowed into submission by a cruel public display of what happens to Jews who use words like ‘kingdom’…to the Roman governor.” Surrendering to the people’s will, Pilate granted an execution by crucifixion.

Matthew 27:26 indicates that Jesus was severely whipped in accordance with a Roman requirement that there be a scourging before each execution (except for those involving women, Roman senators or soldiers). A Roman flagrum, a leather whip consisting of three thongs, each ending with two lead balls designed to tear flesh, was the weapon of choice for inflicting scourgings. The Romans may have even used a similar instrument, a flagellum, in which small rocks or bone fragments were also attached on the end of the thongs. This instrument was typically used to tenderize a piece of meat.

Mayo Clinic scholars note that repeated floggings to the upper and lower back with iron balls that cut deeply into his flesh would have caused Jesus to nearly go into shock from blood loss: “As the Roman soldiers repeatedly struck the victim’s back with full force, the iron balls would cause deep contusions, and the leather thongs and sheep bones would cut into the skin and subcutaneous tissues. Then, as the flogging continued, the lacerations would tear into the underlying skeletal muscles and produce quivering ribbons of bleeding flesh. Pain and blood loss generally set the stage for circulatory shock. The extent of blood loss may well have determined how long the victim would survive on the cross.”

In addition to the scourging, Jesus was also crowned with thorns. Scholars have observed that the thorns digging into his scalp probably severely irritated major nerves in his head, causing increasing and excruciating pain for hours.

Medical experts speculate that the iron spikes used to nail Jesus to the cross measured from 5 to 7 inches long (the size of railroad spikes). The spikes were driven through his wrists (between the radius and the ulna and the carpals in his forearms), not his palms, and between the second and third metatarsal bones of his feet in order to support his body weight. Though the spikes were not nailed through major blood vessels, they were designed to sever major nerves, rupturing other veins and creating great pain. Added to this, hanging on the cross would have made it agonizingly difficult to breathe.

Doctors generally conclude that a combination of factors contributed to Jesus’ death on the cross: He had already lost an incredible amount of blood. He was exhausted from the beatings and from carrying his cross. Because he could only attempt to breathe by pushing his body upward with his knees and legs (often, Roman soldiers would break their victims’ legs with clubs), death by asphyxiation was inevitable. However, their most critical observation is that Jesus was already dead when Roman soldiers thrust the spear into his side.

Within a religious context, Jesus’ death was a sacrificial act of atonement for the sins of the world. In a historical context, his crucifixion sent a chilling warning to all those who would challenge the power of the Roman Empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor, the Maxwell M. Upson Professor of Theology and Culture at Princeton Theological Seminary, observed in an interview with OldSpeak, “The cross within Roman politics and culture was a marker of shame, of being a criminal. If you were put to the cross, you were marked as shameful, as criminal, but especially as subversive. And there were thousands of people put to the cross. The cross was actually positioned at many crossroads, and, as New Testament scholar Paula Fredricksen has reminded us, it served as kind of a public service announcement that said, ‘Act like this person did, and this is how you will end up.’”

Unlike the modern church that drowns in materialism and supports the military empire, Jesus advocated love, peace and harmony. As it did in his day, this message when adhered to undermines the ruling establishment. Unfortunately, it is rare for the church today to challenge the status quo—a failing that Martin Luther King Jr. recognized in his famous “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” when he castigated the modern-day church for being “so often the arch-supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent and often vocal sanction of things as they are.”

Written on April 16, 1963, while King was serving a jail sentence for participating in civil rights demonstrations, the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” was a response to eight prominent white Alabama clergymen who had called on African-Americans to cease their civil disobedience and let the courts handle the problem of desegregation. King’s words reminded Americans that the early church—the church established by Jesus’ followers—would never have been content to remain silent while injustice and persecution ruled the land:

There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period when the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Wherever the early Christians entered a town the power structure got disturbed and immediately sought to convict them for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators”…. They brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contest.

It is unfortunate that the radical Jesus, the political dissident who took aim at injustice and oppression, has been largely forgotten today, replaced by a congenial, smiling Jesus trotted out for religious holidays but otherwise rendered mute when it comes to matters of war, power and politics. “Christianity today often resembles an egg into which someone has poked a hole and sucked out all its contents,” writes author Richard Smoley in Forbidden Faith (2006), “and then taken the shell, encrusted it with gold and jewels, and set it up as an object of veneration. In many ways, it remains a beautiful shell, but more and more people are finding that it no longer offers any nourishment. If they complain, they’re usually told that they just need to have more faith—which is of course no answer at all.”

Yet for those who truly study the life and teachings of Jesus, the resounding theme is one of outright resistance to war, materialism and empire. As Mark Lewis Taylor notes, “The power of Jesus is one that enables us to critique the nation and the empire. Unfortunately, that gospel is being sacrificed and squandered by Christians who have cozied up to power and wealth.” Ultimately, this is the contradiction that must be resolved if the radical Jesus—the one who stood up to the Roman Empire and was crucified as a warning to others not to challenge the powers-that-be—is to be remembered.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

U.S. Bailout Foreign Companies, but What Happened to Peace and Prosperity?

Yesterday, Newsmax ran a story about the federal government bailout of overseas banks and other foreign corporations. Part of the reason was attributed to global reach of AIG. Because we are all part of a global economy, a global bailout was to be expected.

I don’t remember hearing the Obama administration, Congressional politicians, or the media ever mentioning that part of $787 billion would help save foreign banks or General Motors, do you?

To save the world, globalists on Capitol Hill seem to believe Americans on Main Street should welcome state approved robbery. The Washington-run Empire, like all past empires, impoverishes millions of its people for the grand cause of power, status, and the flow of wealth. Remember, most of the imperialists on Capitol Hill are millionaires.
Anyone familiar with the history of bailouts funded by the federal government (including the Federal Reserve) knows this has been going on for decades.

In one sense, global economy is just another nice but deceptive phrase for the increasing reach of American economic empire. It appears that the goal of Democrats is to increase the burden of empire to the point of America’s bankruptcy.

That is one important factor that led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

Are the elites among the Republican Party any different? I doubt it. Can you remember any America president or Congressional majority ever proposing to end the American military presence around the world? Only Ron Paul proposed such a thing. Doing so would put billions of dollars back in the pockets of Americans. A large scale-back of U.S. military’s global presence would also mean leaving America’s global corporation vulnerable to the dictates of foreign governments and the interests of their people. Not that the wealth given to foreign government by American corporations is used to prosper all of their citizens, but its does keep foreign dictators willing to dance to America’s green tunes. Think of how much that would save taxpayers if Congressional politicians were not so willing to travel to all of those subjected nations.

I know; we are the leader of the world. World peace and prosperity is dependent upon our government. Millions at home and certainly abroad are still are wondering when real peace and prosperity will be achieved. Maybe the elite’s utopian vision is flawed. Just consider the achievements of that bastion of global peace, the United Nations–not very impressive. No lasting peace in Israel, genocide in Sudan, massacres in Africa, wars in the Middle East, Europe, Central America and elsewhere, and now terrorism. Don’t misunderstand me, sincere efforts toward peace are honorable, but repeating failed policies and strategies of the past is to demonstrate stupidity.

Again, the lessons of failed empires of the past demonstrate egalitarianism, multiculturalism, moral relativity, immorality, and much debt are all co-factors in what social scientists call structural violence, which includes poverty. The peace waged by all empires has been most won and maintained by the merciless power of their armies. Empires have never been very effective at creating real peace or prosperity for masses of non-elite peasants. America is no exception.

American exceptionalism inherited from its founder’s vision has been fading away for a long time. Maybe it’s not too late to revive it.

Re-thinking the War on Terrorism

By Andy Myers

”Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all . . . The Nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.” (George Washington, Farewell Address, September 17, 1796)

I hate that term: “The War on Terror.” I hate using the word “hate.” But I feel so strongly that our foreign policy has gone awry that I can’t help but speak out. We should all feel a duty as Americans to protect and defend the Constitution the limits of which are made a mockery of by the misguided “intellectuals” in Washington and their taxpayer funded “think tanks” who call the shots and continually get it wrong. Their punishment is a promotion to some other bureaucratic agency where they can wreck more havoc and again disregard the rule of law. Even congress, who’s authority it is, doesn’t even have the fortitude to “declare war” as outlined in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution anymore.

Can you imagine what our founder’s would think of our foreign policy exploits and the executive powers held by the President today?

Death, destruction-reconstruction, and the bankrupting of behaving as an “empire” will only garner additional support for those who despise our overreaching foreign policy behavior.

Nations don’t hate us because of our way of life or our freedom. They despise our government’s never ending meddling in their internal affairs. Ask yourself how you would feel if a “foreign” nation were on our soil doing what we are doing in over 130 countries and over 700 bases around the world. You know all too well you’d be fighting mad!

“Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes-known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” (James Madison, Political Observations, 1795)

Our military overstretch and the liberties and freedoms we are losing everyday is frightening. Even President Eisenhower’s prophetic warning to the American people of the threat from an ever increasing military industrial complex hardly garners attention and yet today this warning stands as true as ever. Don’t get me wrong I’m no isolationist, and I don’t think there aren’t any credible threats out there that shouldn’t be dealt with. But, I firmly believe that what we are doing today in terms of dissipating the threats to our country are wrongheaded and misleading the American public along with exacerbating the threat of another possible attack all the while bankrupting this country.

“I’m not upset that you lied to me, I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Like most think tank propaganda carefully chosen by the government and it’s cohorts through mainstream media pulpits, the average “patriotic” American along with elected leaders and worse-our children-are easily indoctrinated into believing we must do “everything” in our power including military occupations, torture and renditions to make America safe from those who would seek to harm us. But, where do you draw the line? Do two wrongs make a right? Madeline Albright’s infamous interview on 60 Minutes is a perfect example of reprehensible logic and sadly is very common place with today’s foreign policy “experts.” Here is the excerpt:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price we think the price is worth it.” (60 Minutes, 5/12/96)

“We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds… [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our mismanagers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers… And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]… til the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery… And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.” (Thomas Jefferson)

I am also convinced that the American people cannot remain free and prosperous with over 700 military bases around the world, troops in over 130 countries, and a steady diet of war propaganda. Our military overstretch is undermining our national security and bankrupting our country all the while making us here at home less free and safe. I believe that those who have been calling “the shots” are terribly misguided. And, that if something isn’t done soon to educate and change the way the grassroots movements across the country think about our overreaching empire abroad, our constitutional republic, our children and their children will pay a punishing price in both lives and treasure.

“Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies.” (Congressman Ron Paul)

Something that is a “fundamental must” in understanding if we are even to be able to grasp what role America should adhere to here at home and abroad is in the theory of natural rights that was espoused by our forefathers and by John Locke (1632-1704). In his Second Treatise, Locke stated that every man was entitled to life, liberty, and property (his “natural rights”) provided that exercising those rights does not intrude on others rights, and that the role of government in natural-rights theory is to protect those rights.

Without staying true to this tenet, America will be damned just as every other civilization has been in it’s pursuit of “empire.”