Mediaboss Marketing

In a hearing for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offered a much-needed critique of the interventionist foreign policy pursued by the bipartisan establishmentin Washington for the better part of two decades.

Paul used U.S. intervention in Yemen a war many Americans do not even know our government is fighting as the launching pad for his argument. Central to Pauls comments, posed as a question to Dr. Dafna H. Rand of the National Defense University, who was testifying, is the issue of whether the United States present foreign policy is dictated more by what wecan do than what weshould do.

RELATED:President Trump is amping up Barack Obamas worst Middle East war

The United States has the technical ability to kill anyone anywhere anytime, Paul began. Yet, he continued, just because we can doesnt mean we should, and I think we dont have enough discussion about the practical ramifications of whether or not we kill more terrorists than we create. He continued:

I think Yemen is a perfect example of this. Were supplying the Saudis with bombs, refueling the planes, picking the targets. I assume that we didnt pick the target of a funeral procession, but we wounded 500 people and 140 people I say we; the Saudis did it, but with our armaments. You think that Yemenis dont know where the bombs are coming from?

We recently had a raid and I dont blame our soldiers. I mean, I have members of my family who actively serve. They do what theyre told. But were the policymakers. I mean, we sent them into Yemen. Ive still not been told while we went to Yemen. Someones got to make a decision: Did we in killing a, you know, a few of the al Qaeda [members] in that village was that worth the fact that we had to kill women and children, or women and children were inadvertently killed in that, including an American citizen?

I guess my question to Dr. Rand is: Do you think were adequately weighing whether were creating more terrorists than we kill, whether were doing more good than we are doing harm, whether we are safer or more risk? I think your testimony was at least reasoned in the sense that [it asked] will we be better off. Yes, we can take a new port in Yemen. We can do anything. But in the end, will we be safer, better off if we continue the way were continuing?

In her response to Paul, Rand largely agreed with his point, noting that some military actions may be lawful without being wise.

Shes right, but since Congress has not authorized U.S. military action in Yemen at all, Id suggest it is unlawful specifically, unconstitutional too. Though the executive branch has, under Presidents Obama and Trump alike, claimed authority to intervene in Yemen under the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed in the wake of 9/11, the Yemeni civil war has nothing to do with 9/11; and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the branch of al Qaeda in Yemen, did not exist until eight years after 9/11.

RELATED:Rand Paul can save health care reform

Unless Congress magically knew the future back in 2001 and Im going to go out on a limb here and say that is not what happened this war is illegal and unwise at once.

It is also mostly unquestioned in Washington, which is why Pauls questions here are so important. This willingness to ask questions about our foreign policy that others wont is why, whatever our differences, Im glad to see Paul back in the Senate for at least six more years.

More:
Rand Paul on Yemen: Are US interventions doing more harm than good? Are we actually any safer? - Rare.us

Washington Post

Rand Paul on House GOP health-care proposal: 'Sounds a lot like Obamacare Lite' Washington Post March 7, 2017 12:39 PM EST - A day after House Republicans released a plan to supplant the Affordable Care Act, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) outlined the issues he has with their proposal, indicating it might be unconstitutional. (Alice Li, Jayne Orenstein ...

Read the original post:
Rand Paul on House GOP health-care proposal: 'Sounds a lot like Obamacare Lite' - Washington Post

Definition of libertarian: 1) an advocate of the doctrine of free will. 2) A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty, especially of thought and action.

Ladies and gentleman there you have it, straight from Merriam-Webster. It is with a sad heart that I write this article, but I feel I must. Many of us liberty minded people need to be reminded of what and we stand for.

Libertarianism is non-aggressive. We dont steal, we dont bomb, and we dont forcefully impose our will on others. We are the only political group that can honestly say we support real liberty. I use the word group instead of party, because you dont need to support a party to support a principle. We can support a member of any party, or an independent. It is principle that matters. That same core principle, called non-aggression, is at the heart of every stance we take. While we make jokes about the N.A.P. and endlessly debate about how it applies to certain issues, on most issues it is quite clear.

So why is it, that some libertarians are so supportive of Trump? Sure, the TPP exit was a solid win for liberty, and the repeal of the ACA sounds great. Hell, Trump even supports an audit of the Federal Reserve. There is more too, like his Department of Education appointee. In fact, if you cherry pick certain issues he doesnt sound half bad. However, with that logic I can make any president or politician a libertarian. Small government is only a part of what libertarianism is about.

Some libertarian social media campaigns have even started using slogans like Are you tired of winning yet? when they post about these supposed victories that have come out of Trumps administration. But lets make something clear, we have not won anything at all.

By saying we have, you are further discrediting the libertarian movement and reinforcing the myth that we are pothead republicans. To be brutally honest, many of us are acting like that is true.

Authoritarian government, by nature, violates the core principle of libertarianism. Donald Trump is authoritarian, and there is no argument against that which holds any merit. That does not mean we cant give him some credit where it is due. Reducing regulations and government power is good. A handful of good things however is not winning.

By saying Trump is the most libertarian president ever, you are doing serious damage to the message that we are finally starting to get out.

Lets not lose sight of the core principles we stand for, or throw them away altogether. Dont sit back and talk about how you are happy with Trump. Not when he supports civil asset forfeiture, or appoints someone like Jeff Sessions. Dont talk up the same guy who already is dropping bombs, or the guy who appointed Mike Pompeo to head the CIA.

The conservative Trump wants to spend 20 billion dollars on a wall, rather than fix the issues that caused illegal immigration to be the problem it is. Isnt more government to fix government problems one of the things that Libertarians are against? How does this not qualify?

We should have the same outrage now that we had with Obama. You can make the argument that it is not as bad, but it really is no different. Authoritarian government is still authoritarian government. We are liberty minded, or at least we claim to be. Libertarianism and authoritarianism are polar opposites of each other.

It is almost scary how fast things went downhill. How can we lose sight of things so fast?

We complain about the inability for government to maintain roads, but expect them to maintain a wall? The Federal government cant even maintain the current fence that spans only a fraction of the border. Is eminent domain going to suddenly going to be acceptable when the construction of the wall begins, or will we still care about property rights?

How did we go from calling Edward Snowden a hero, to supporting someone who put an advocate of spying programs in charge of the CIA? How did we go from pointing out every flaw in the left, to ignoring flaws in the right? We are starting to ignore facts and issues that are hurting our cause, showing blind support to an authoritarian, and that makes us just as bad as the authoritarian regime.

To not stand up to injustice, is just as bad as causing injustice.

Maybe our memory is also a problem. We seem to have forgotten the support Trump has given to the progressive left, donating hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, from 1989-2010 he donated over $150,000 more to Democrats than he did to Republicans. Curiously that changed before he announced a potential run for the white house in 2011. Suddenly his donations went mainly to Republicans. Those Democrat donations included Hillary Clinton, who he swore would be in jail if he won, yet last I checked she is roaming free.

His other actions since the election have already proven to be contradictory to his campaign promises as well. I am still waiting for a big Ed McMahon style check for the price of the wall to be sent from Mexico. Instead, we will pay for it with a price increase in Mexicos products. Its okay though, because somehow we all decided that taxation isnt theft anymore and that taxes on companies arent passed onto the consumer, foreign or not. The laws of economics have been suspended so that the almighty Trump can be praised by libertarians for implementing a tax.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate what being a libertarian actually means. Is it small authoritarian government or is it non-aggression and personal liberty. Are we suddenly a mix of left and right ideas, or are we really something different?

With all of the infighting and drama stirred up in Libertarian groups, we certainly are not acting like the logical and rational people we claim to be.

Like Loading...

Read the rest here:
Donald Trump Is No Libertarian - Being Libertarian

STAUNTON Libertarian Will Hammer will take another crack at the House of Delegates 20 District seat this fall. The lifelong Staunton resident announced his candidacy on Friday evening, taking aim at the controversial Atlantic Coast Pipeline, and advocating for marijuana legalization.

The incumbent, Del. Richard Dickie Bell, R-Staunton, has held the seat since 2010. He easily won election in 2009, and has cruised in his three successive bids, winning at least 70 percent of the vote each time.

Hammer will try to break Bells grip on the seat in the November election this year, but he will likely have an uphill climb to do it. He polled 24 percent of the vote in 2015, a respectable showing for a third-party candidate, though he was also the only challenger on the ballot that year. The Democratic Party did not put up a candidate against Bell in 2015.

Hammer hopes to capitalize on voters frustration with incumbents from both parties, something that helped propel outsider Donald Trump to the presidency last year. While the rhetoric from the 2016 campaign has cooled somewhat, still-simmering skepticism from the electorate could open the door for a third-party candidate or independent in local and state races this fall, analysts say.

I believe that my strong showing in 2015 and the growing distrust and distaste for the two major parties, specifically incumbents, represents a great opportunity to go to Richmond as a third-party candidate, Hammer said in a press release.

He also hopes the controversy of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline will buoy his chances this year. Property rights a key issue for the Libertarian Party has been one of the defining issues in protests against the pipeline.

I will fight against the Dominion pipeline because property rights are sacred, Hammer said, referring to the company heading up the effort to build the conduit.

In addition, he vows to end gerrymandering and corruption, and to bring transparency to Richmond, if elected. Gun rights and marijuana legalization are also planks on his platform. While the former will no doubt play well in the conservative district, particularly in its more rural precincts, the latter may turn some hard-line law-and-order voters, especially senior citizens, off from his candidacy.

But Hammer sees legalizing marijuana as an economic issue, more than anything else.

[It] will reduce government expenditure and create a booming new industry, which means thousands of jobs, he said in the release.

A 2009 graduate of Hampden-Sydney College, Hammer describes himself as an entrepreneur and libertarian activist.

He was awarded the Patrick Henry Award by the Libertarian Party in 2016 for the campaign he waged a year earlier against Bell, in which Hammer raised the profile of libertarian issues.

If you are tired of business as usual and the duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats, Hammer said, join me and lets seriously drain the swamp known as Richmond.

See the rest here:
Anti-pipeline, pro-marijuana Libertarian announces bid for House seat - The Daily Progress

New York Times (blog)

Smart Republicans? New York Times (blog) Ryan isn't a skilled politician inexplicably losing his touch, he's a con artist who started to believe his own con; Republicans didn't hammer out a workable plan because there is no such plan, and anyway they have no idea what that would involve. Or ... and more »

Read more:
Smart Republicans? - New York Times (blog)