Open Borders: Lesser Threat to Life and Property than the Trump State

President Trump was the target for sharp criticism after enacting a temporary but ongoing ban on immigration from predominantly Muslim countries.  While President Trump has certainly earned his share of criticism for hostility to immigration, Americans shouldn’t forget that the Democrat Party plantation hardly cares for immigrants either.  Both parties want a central strong state and naturally oppose the libertarian concept of open borders.  It’s still a hardly-spoken of secret on the Left that President Obama’s administration deported 29% more undocumented immigrants than George W. Bush’s administration.

Democrats will oppose open borders just as easily as the most conservative Republican.  Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006.  Democrat Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren just recently introduced a bill that removes the per-country cap on H1-B visa applicants, but it also more-than-doubles the minimum salary of applicants to $130,000.  If passed, the only other way applicants can get their H1-B visa is for the company hiring them to pay the government an extortion fee of 200% the applicant’s annual salary.  Therefore, companies would be paying three times for the value of one highly skilled worker.  This economy-killing legislation could have been pulled straight from a chapter of Atlas Shrugged.

Physicist Michio Kaku claims that the ongoing Information Revolution has a weakness, and that weakness is America’s educational system.  “If the stupid index of America keeps rising every year… how come the scientific establishment in the United States doesn’t collapse?

Read more at The Libertarian Republic

# # #

Hillary Clinton's Iran-Contra Scandal

Originally published by Voices of Liberty

Back in the 1980’s, it was revealed to the public that the CIA under the Reagan administration had been selling weapons to the revolutionary Iranian government. The hopes were that the weapons sales would put the radical Islamic regime in a better disposition toward freeing the American hostages. Better yet, the funds generated from those arms sales funded the Contra rebels in their war against the communist regime in Nicaragua.

Judicial Watch published more of their hard-won documents regarding Hillary Clinton’s private Watergate scandal and 18 minutes of missing tape—excuse me, change that to 32,000 missing emails. It turns out the presidential candidate and self-appointed champion of peace and international cooperation has her own Iran-Contra scandal. It turns out that Libya was a stopping point for running guns to Syria!

When being grilled by the Senate for a massive leadership failure resulting in consulate guards and staff being killed, Clinton was asked over and over again to clarify whether it was a protest-turned-mob or an act of terrorism. Her response is infamous: “What does it matter?” Well, Secretary Clinton, what matters is that this is far from the first time lax security has gotten American diplomatic workers killed.

Instead of using U.S. Marines for their historical job of guarding embassies, or even using State Department Diplomatic Security guards, the State Department under Hillary Clinton outsourced consulate security to Libyan locals. It’s a shame that a former Senator who voted to invade Iraq in 2003 never read the 2006 Iraq Study Group Report, a U.S. government investigation that discussed terrorist infiltration of local security forces being a rampant problem in a war zone. “However, because of Libyan political sensitivities,” there were no armed Americans protecting their consulate in a war zone.

Free Syrian Army volunteers

The State Department made it seem like the U.S. government was wholly respecting the sovereignty of the new Libyan government, which issued restrictions on foreigners with guns. It’s astounding that the U.S. government would run guns from Benghazi, Libya, to rebel groups in Banian and Borj Islam, Syria, but it won’t take proper measures to protect its civilian workers in the same city. Apparently Obama’s government is all for spreading wars and raising war profits, but they won’t protect American diplomats in a war zone because of “political sensitivities.”

The documents from Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton was given hard intelligence within hours of the Benghazi attack. A memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency, prepared for State Secretary Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs, clearly stated that “the attack was planned 10 or more days prior on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for U.S. killing of Aboyahiye Al-Libi in Pakistan…”

This memo was prepared and delivered to its recipients within hours of the attack. Repeat: Hillary Clinton knew within hours that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack. Yet for weeks she would not contradict the White House’s line that it was a protest and eventually a “single act of terror,” but that the attack by a jihadist militia in a war zone was not “terrorism.” More intelligence followed, confirming the initial memo.

In a September 13 statement on the attack, Clinton did what any good spokesman should do: strongly condemn the attack. However, she made a specific mention of the scapegoated internet cartoon video to subtly lay on it the blame for the terrorist attack. That silly video was used by the administration, Clinton included, over and over as an explanation for the “spontaneous protest” in Benghazi.

Journalist Glen Greenwald made waves when he published some of Edward Snowden’s revelations about the NSA and government surveillance of citizens under the auspices of wartime security. In a recent Q&A session, the topic moved to Candidate Clinton, terrorism, and surveillance. Says Greenwald, “Hillary Clinton is the ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption.”

It seems as if Clinton thinks We the People are too stupid to put two and two together. She would have us believe that radical Islamic terrorists murdered American diplomats over a silly cartoon. She would have us believe that it had nothing to do with avenging a fallen jihadist commander, or the weapons being transported from Libya to Syria, or the American paramilitary black ops being run in Libya.

If it turns out that Clinton also knew about the weapons being smuggled from Benghazi to Syria by U.S. agents, she’ll have a major problem on her hands. It could even be today’s Iran-Contra Scandal, which would be even more embarrassing, as it implicates the administration of a man who was elected on promises of peace and a humble foreign policy. For more Clintonian deceit and corruption, America will have to wait and see what Judicial Watch will publish next.

* * *

Hillary Clinton images courtesy of Voices of Liberty.  FSA image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain.

Hillary Clinton - So Transparent, She Won't Talk to the Media

Originally published by Voices of Liberty

Sometimes candidates want to keep their cards close to their chest while they wear a poker face. They do this when they have strategies they don’t want to give out to the public. They especially don’t want their game plan leaked to competitors. Then there’s the self-appointed champion of transparency, Hillary Clinton, who’s not talking to reporters AT ALL.

National Journal and NPR reported that, since launching her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has answered a whopping 13 questions from reporters. The fact that some of these are softball questions is obvious.

Q: “How are you liking Iowa?”

A: “I’m having a great time.”

This is one question that Hillary chose to answer directly, as opposed to questions she’s deflected or dodged altogether.

ABC News’s Cecilia Vega asked Hillary a real question: “Did foreign entities receive any special treatment for making any kind of donations to the foundation or your husband?”

Clinton’s response: “Well, we’re back into the political season and therefore we will be subjected to all kinds of distraction and attacks. And I’m ready for that…”

THAT’S NOT A DIRECT ANSWER!

How is that question a distraction, anyway? The American people have a right to know that a potential President hasn’t been using the power of federal office to sell political favors. It’s a simple “yes” or “no” answer. Perhaps I’ve been a Boy Scout way too long, but any answer other than “Hell no!” is unacceptable for someone who wishes to hold the highest office in the land.

Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill calls this the “ramp-up period” of Hillary’s campaign. In this ramp-up phase, Hillary will completely avoid talking to the media and instead she’ll be “engaging in hours of public question and answers sessions,” which are not public but actually closed-door events. NPR’s Tamara Keith has been following the Clinton campaign and attended one of these Q&A sessions with “the public.” Says Keith, “All we saw was the back of her head as she walked out of the room, to applause from a small hand-selected group of participants and observers.”

At another occasion in Iowa, Cecilia Vega asked Clinton a vital question: “What would you say to Americans who want to know why you are running?” The deep, thoughtful response was this: “I’m running to be the champion to Americans and their families, so that we cannot just worry about treading water, but you can get ahead and you can stay ahead.” (It sounds as if Hillary has been borrowing from the Barack Obama campaign play book of empty slogans.)

If someone were to ask Rand Paul why he was running, he would give specific policy goals and milestones like “I want to audit the Federal Reserve, I want to abolish the TSA and the NSA so the government stops spying on American citizens, I want to end America’s drug war which is killing the black community…” The list goes on. Hillary, on the other hand, will be “the champion” so you can “get ahead” and “stay ahead.”

All these forehead-smacking pearls of wisdom have been brought to you by Hillary Clinton, self-appointed “champion of Americans and their families.” She also holds the reigning (self-awarded) title of champion of transparency. As we can see from her conduct in Iowa (and the federal investigation on her 18 minutes of missing tape—err, make that 32,000 missing emails and a server)—she is so transparent, she won’t talk to the media and keep everyday Americans informed.

* * *

First Hillary Clinton image courtesy of Voices of Liberty.  Second Hillary Clinton image courtesy of Voice of America and in the public domain.

Hillary Clinton - Transparent Like a Brick Wall

Originally published by Voices of Liberty

[On May 10,] the Washington Post reported that a federal judge re-opened a case to go after some of Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Reggie B. Walton, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia, agreed to a 2012 request for records. This request was filed jointly by the State Department and Judicial Watch.

Judge Walton has an impressive, balanced record of political neutrality. Though appointed by George W. Bush, the Judge didn’t spare the Bush Administration from justice. He even presided over the trial of Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby. Now the Judge is helping Judicial Watch go after Hillary Clinton.

According to Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, “It’s a significant development. It points to the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.” South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy said, “The State Department… cannot certify that it has turned over all documents responsive to the committee’s request regarding the former secretary’s emails.” Congressman Gowdy is still investigating other missing emails regarding Clinton’s colossal leadership failure which got U.S. diplomats killed in Libya.

In a nutshell, the great Clinton email scandal of 2015 is that Hillary, while serving as Secretary of State, knowingly used her private email account and private server to send and receive emails regarding official U.S. government business. Using her private account instead of her .gov account kept her untouchable by open-source and Freedom-of-Information-Act requests. This is simply another case of crooked career politicians acting like the Wizard of Oz, telling We the People to ignore the man behind the curtain.

The great irony is that Hillary Clinton has been campaigning and calling for more transparency. She seems to believe that We the People are too stupid to fact check her words against her actions. She said last month in Iowa, “We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all.”

This call to get rid of “unaccountable money” comes from the person whose Foundation received millions from foreign governments while they were trying to lobby the State Department during her tenure. The pro-Clinton super PAC, Priorities USA, continues to receive millions in “unaccountable money” to promote Clinton and tear other candidates down.

Now, while gallivanting around the country and blowing smoke of “transparency” in people’s ears, the self-appointed champion of transparency continues to hide her activities. She made a show of turning over 30,000 private emails to the federal investigation, but also deleted 32,000 other emails and wiped the server clean. She refuses to turn over the server for analysis.

Let readers consider this: After the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon was taken to federal court over 18 minutes of erased audio tape. Today, a current presidential candidate refuses to allow federal investigators to find 32,000 emails from an account used for official government business. That’s all that We the People need to know. The self-appointed champion of transparency is really as transparent as a brick wall.

* * *

Both Hillary Clinton images courtesy of Voices of Liberty.

2 out of 3 are Liberty Candidates!

This article makes the assumption that Rand Paul will remain the frontrunner in the presidential race and be the Republican Party’s nominee on the November 2016 ballot.  No other Republican candidate will be good enough for a stalwart libertarian like me.

2016 will be a much better election year for the liberty movement than 2012.  Back then, Ron Paul had to claw and scrape his way to getting two minutes of speaking time out of two-hour-long debates.  Moderators and major networks never took him seriously, except for the times they’d briefly mention him to drive home how ‘crazy’ he was, or to remind themselves that he was ‘unelectable’.  Worst of all, the libertarian ideas Ron advocated were deeply misunderstood. 2012 wasn’t our year.

This time, our libertarian ideas actually have a shot at being heard and accepted.  Rand Paul is being taken much more seriously than Ron was.  This is due in no small part to Ron blitzing America like a kamikaze in 2012, with ideas like “end the Fed,” “end foreign aid,” and “legalize drugs”.  Because Ron took the full blast of heat in 2012, America in 2016 can find it more palatable when Rand pushes ideas like “let’s fully audit the Fed,” “we can start cutting aid to this list of countries,” and “let’s end the War on Drugs, which is really a war on the black community.”

To make a long story short, Rand Paul’s candidacy excites me.  Sure, he isn’t a pure libertarian like his father, but making that constant comparison is getting silly.  ‘Conservatarian’ Rand Paul will take mainstream America MUCH closer to libertarianism than Hillary Clinton, that’s for damn sure!

I’m also excited that Gary Johnson will be running for president again on the Libertarian Party ticket.  Though I’ve long-since agreed to actually cast my general election vote for Rand, I can see the importance of Gary’s candidacy.  Many in the liberty movement are concerned that Gary running against Rand will ‘divide’ the libertarian vote in America.

I disagree.

If there exists any 'division' within the liberty movement, it runs along these lines:

1. Most libertarians will ultimately swallow their pride and support Rand. They realize that, despite his ‘impurities’ he’s worlds above the other rabble playing the Ronald Reagan name card.
2. Libertarian Party members will vote for Gary Johnson because the Party needs to run candidates in order to function as a Party and not as a weekly tea social.  For some of these folks, Rand might not be ‘good enough’.  They have every right then to run a candidate that better represents them.
3.  Libertarians and libertarian sympathizers who don’t much care for either Rand or Gary will stay home and find creative life hacks that defy government regulations.  Their focus is on advancing liberty through action, not politics.

Judge Napolitano recently said, "I want Rand to win."

Frankly, the liberty movement needs all three groups of people.  We NEED Rand, we NEED Gary, and we even NEED a liberty-advancing alternative for those who are sick of politics.  In the long-run, people are already aligned for what they’ll do or who they’ll support in 2016.  Because libertarians are notorious for sticking to their principles, there'll simply be no arguing with these three groups.

I’m still incredibly excited just to know that I could be seeing Rand Paul and Gary Johnson both on the general election ballot.  Though the Libertarian Party is a smaller party, it’s still the third largest party in the United States.  This means that, of the three biggest American political parties on the November ballot, two out of three candidates will be liberty candidates.

I say again, two out of three general election candidates will be representing libertarian ideas and policy objectives.

Only the Democrat candidate, probably Darth Hillary, will be the candidate representing corruption, government surveillance, and corporate fascism.  The other two candidates will starkly contrast; their platforms will differ from tyranny and instead offer a mostly-libertarian option (Rand) and a super-libertarian option (Gary).

Absolutely nothing about the 2012 election looked like this, and I count all of our lucky stars that years of hard work and activism are finally starting to pay off.  I can only imagine one day in the future when libertarian ideas will have so deeply infiltrated politics, that all three parties’ candidates will be different shades of libertarian.

* * *

ENTER the Rand Paul writing contest!

Images courtesy of aLibertarianFuture.com

Hillary Clinton: Champion of Wall Street

Originally published in April 2015 by Voices of Liberty

A month ago the Washington Post disclosed a juicy tidbit of information: the Algerian government made a contribution of half a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation.  This just happened to be at the exact time the Algerian government was lobbying Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Other than the eyebrows it raises at first, this might not seem so scandalous if it weren’t for the fact that Americans get punished for the same thing.  In 2011 and 2012, multiple American companies were charged and heavily penalized under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.  The corruption they were penalized for was making donations to foreign charities.

The Obama administration acted on the assumption that charitable donations abroad were meant to influence civil servants to take a more favorable stand towards the American businesses.  Therefore, American businesses get charges and heavy fines levied against them, but it’s alright when the beneficiary of foreign corrupt practices is a sitting member of the Cabinet.  And this isn’t the first foreign charitable gift the Clinton Foundation received during Hillary’s Cabinet tenure.

“The U.A.E. gave us money,” Bill Clinton said to the Miami Herald.  “Do we agree with everything they do?  No, but they help us fight ISIS.”  It looks like the former President would have us believe foreign corrupt practices are okay if foreign governments are helping America prolong the Iraq War…

One thing is crystal clear: when vying for Hillary Clinton’s loyalty, money talks.

Her top political contributors have historically included, and still include, big Wall Street firms like Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, and Time Warner.  These numbers don’t include any foreign or domestic groups that donated to the Clinton Foundation to sway the Secretary of State.

As a Senator, in her statement on the 2008 bailouts, she noted “the prevailing dynamic of corporate America, where the sole priority was the dividend, the inflated bonus and the quarterly earnings report…”  She clearly had words to say about “corporate America,” yet one can’t help but think this may have just been political theater.

Senator Clinton’s pro-working-class, pro-middle-class approach would have been a lot more credible had her top campaign contributors been anyone OTHER than corporate America.  And guess what!  She voted for what the WSWS calls “the largest single transfer of wealth to the financial elite in US history,” and it was financed on the dime of struggling families.

Hillary Clinton talks a good game about being for the interests of the working class and middle class, but that’s just another li from another politician.  Hillary may certainly believe in empowering women, the LGBTQ community, and ethnic minorities.  However, her actions show how she just wants some of those people to be among the ruling elites.

Hillary Clinton is with Wall Street, not Main Street.

* * *

Hillary Clinton photo courtesy of the Munich Security Conference via CC BY 3.0 license.

Rand Paul Writing Contest UPDATE!

In light of Marco Rubio announcing his presidential candidacy, the Stand With Rand Writing Contest has a new category option for submissions.

Rand Paul supporters who want to be published in a book about Rand can choose to write on any of these six topics:

1)      Why Conservatives should vote for Rand

2)      Why Progressives should vote for Rand

3)      Why Independents and the politically homeless should vote for Rand

4)      Rand Paul is a better Republican candidate than Ted Cruz

5)      Rand Paul is a better Republican candidate than Marco Rubio

6)      Rand Paul is a better candidate for America than Hillary Clinton

Multiple submissions are allowed, but each one should be on a different topic.  Each topic will be its own individual book.  The eBook editions will be distributed free of charge.

If you do choose to submit your work for the contest, it would be published it under the Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) license, so you still retain the rights to your work.  Not only are you allowed to re-publish your work, but the Creative Commons license gives you permission to independently re-publish the entire book!

Submit your work to politicalzachfoster@gmail.com with the subject line 'WRITING CONTEST'.  The final deadline is 11:59 P.M. Pacific, June 1, 2015.

See the full contest guidelines here.

* * *

Picture courtesy of Politico and used according to Fair Use.

Stand With Rand Writing Contest

Four years ago I launched a special writing contest.  Contestants were to write an essay to any audience—liberals, conservatives, independents—about how Ron Paul best represents them and is the best candidate for the Presidency

The best essays were compiled into a campaign book in support of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, and it was written by We the People.  This book was published as VOICES OF REVOLUTION: Americans Speak Out for Ron Paul (download it for free).

Nearly four years later, I’m pleased to announce to you the Stand With Rand Writing Contest.

This time, we’re going big and we’re going long. We understand that the mainstream media will attack Senator Paul ceaselessly as he campaigns and spreads a message of individual liberty, sound money, and peace.  They’ll attack him on TV, on the Internet, and in print.

Our plan is to flood the eBook market with books that are pro-Rand and pro-liberty.  In order to do this, I’m calling on fellow patriots and lovers of liberty to put pen to paper and speak from the heart.  I’m calling on YOUR essays on why fellow Americans should vote for Rand Paul.

The essays can be any of these five topics:

1)      Why Conservatives should vote for Rand

2)      Why Progressives should vote for Rand

3)      Why Independents and the politically homeless should vote for Rand

4)      Rand Paul is a better Republican candidate than Ted Cruz

5)      Rand Paul is a better Republican candidate than Marco Rubio

6)      Rand Paul is a better candidate for America than Hillary Clinton

If you do choose to submit your work, it’ll be published it under the Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) license, so you still retain the rights to your work.  Not only are you allowed to re-publish your own work, but the Creative Commons license gives you permission to independently re-publish the entire book!

Remember these guidelines to make your writing most effective:

·       Multiple submissions are allowed, but each submission has to be on a different topic.  The above 5 topics will be 5 different books.

·       Write from the heart. Don’t preach to strangers.  Tell them from the heart why a Paul presidency is important to you AND to the reader.

·       When writing to Conservatives, back up your arguments with Bible verses. Also mention Ronald Reagan and the “conservatarian” philosophy of Reagan and Barry Goldwater that Americans overwhelmingly supported. It wouldn’t hurt to mention Rand’s response to Benghazi, or Glenn Beck leaving the GOP in disgust.

·       When writing to Progressives, don’t forget to mention the damage inflicted on the black community by the Obama administration and Democrat Party policies.  Also stress the Establishment Left’s betrayal of the working class and abandonment of the LGBTQ community.  It’s also good to refer to Howard Zinn’s populist histories and tie Rand in with empowerment of the working classes.  Also, don’t forget that Bill Maher is a huge supporter.

·       If writing about Hillary Clinton, focus on every documented lie, half-truth, and cover up involving Hillary, especially her hawkish support for George W. Bush's, Dick Cheney's, and Barack Obama’s wars. Stress that Clinton represents a new type of imperial/colonialist America.

·       When making a factual claim or referring to something that happened in real time—a historical event, words someone said or wrote, etc.—back it up with a citation in a footnote.  At least provide a url to make it easier for your poor editor.

·       The deadline for submissions is 11:59 P.M. Pacific Time, June 1, 2015.  Even though that’s 6 weeks away, don’t sit on this.  The liberty movement NEEDS your contribution and I'm accepting submissions NOW.

Send submissions to politicalzachfoster@gmail.com

Every bit of VOLUNTARY grass roots activism counts.  Will YOU stand with me?

* * *

'I Stand With Rand' banner courtesy of Latino Rebels.

So Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton Walk Into a Hearing...

Your typical Foreign Relations Committee hearing when chaired by Rand Paul

So two people who want to be President of the United States walk into a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; one is a Democrat and the other a Republican.  One plans to be heard while the other plans to do the hearing.  However, it turns out that rather than the Democrat be heard while the Republican does the hearing, the current Senator from Kentucky delivered an exceptional rhetorical falcon punch to the Democrat until-recently-Secretary of State regarding her questionable leadership over the embassy in Benghazi.  Realistically, it was more of a Dragon Ball Z-style mega punch by Senator Paul through the body of ex-Secretary Clinton.

“Had I been president at the time, and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

Ouch!  The standard operating procedure is to offer one some ice for that burn.  However, ex-Secretary Clinton should be content with procuring some ice either through her health care benefits as a federal employee or she could even settle for ObamaCare as tirelessly campaigned for by her former boss’ administration.

At this moment in time I feel it quite appropriate to make the case that a Paul presidency would take great strides in divorcing the ill-begotten marriage between government dollars and private sector health care which is responsible for driving the prices of health insurance and health care sky high.  Dr. Paul was even instrumental in establishing eye clinics in Kentucky that catered to patients without medical insurance.  Furthermore, Dr. Paul subscribes to Austrian economic theory, a school of economics whose leading thinkers have been providing ideas for privatizing health care completely and in a way that makes care and insurance easily affordable.  (See Mises.org and search “health care” because I’m too lazy to explain myself when others have already done it so well for me.)

Returning to the wrestling-style smack down of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it’s beyond redundant to state that Senator Paul thought Secretary Clinton handled the Libya situation poorly.  Defenders of Secretary Clinton may criticize Senator Paul for being overly critical or even for being partisan.  However, there is nothing partisan about Senator Paul’s views on foreign policy, including Libya.  Let’s flash back to the filibuster speech he delivered on the Senate floor on September 21, 2012.

“We gave money [to] dictators, from Saddam Hussein—who was once our ally receiving billions of dollars—to the Mujahedeen who were radical jihadists, but at the time we didn’t mind if you were a radical jihadist if you were our radical jihadist, because they were opposing the Soviet Union.  But the Mujahedeen eventually became the Taliban who are now our enemies.

“According to [scholars] Corey and Ryan, the world’s worst dictators have received $105 billion under the guise of official developmental assistance.  Instead of helping the poor, the assistance is aiding the ability of the dictators to remain in power.  In fact, it keeps them in power long enough that it enflames the populace that we end up having to... [go back] because of war.

“Why is there such a widespread anti-Americanism?  Because we propped up and gave money to so many despots, to so many dictators…  Why are we seeing people burning the American flag?  Why are we seeing such great unrest in 30 different countries?  Because our foreign aid and our military aid has propped up dictators who become over decades despotic, autocratic, who torture their people, prevent freedom from occurring, and then there’s a backlash [against us].

The particular context of this speech was cutting foreign aid to Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya.  Like his father, retired Congressman Ron Paul, Senator Paul is ideologically opposed to foreign aid just as the founding fathers were.  His use of these three unstable countries as a gateway to cutting foreign aid is particularly clever, in my opinion at least.  The reasons he gave for cutting foreign aid to these countries essentially boils down to the following: the government of Pakistan has only made half-assed efforts to a half-assed approach in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan, extremism and civil strife are rampant in Egypt, extremists in post-war Libya killed American diplomats without ever being held to account for it, and American intervention in foreign affairs—especially in middle eastern countries torn by civil war and civil strife—only breeds hatred and ill will against America and Americans (hence the angry mob murdering the diplomats in Libya).

Had Senator Paul (or his father) been President, not a dime of American government money would have gone to the extremists infiltrating these governments, there would have been no Americans killed in Libya because there would have been no American presence there, and there would have been no incident over which to relieve Secretary Clinton.  The sad irony is that leftists are going to dislike Senator Paul even more now that “he was mean” to Hillary Clinton, even though Paul’s view that America shouldn’t police the world or tell other countries what to do is sharply in contrast to Clinton’s view yet very much in line with the left’s views of a humble foreign policy.  Oh well, the left’s hypocrisy doesn’t make Rand any less cool.

The best part for me in witnessing all of this is knowing that Senator Rand Paul will run for President in 2016.  This is especially sweet because Hillary wants to run as well—it’s no secret she’s wanted to be President for a long time—and the combined embarrassment from the leadership failure in the “Benghazigate” scandal with Senator Paul’s grilling only serves to shatter Clinton’s dreams of being POTUS while solidifying Paul’s foundation.  Because I’m currently killing downtime on a military base in the middle of nowhere, I will now entertain myself by applying Senator Paul’s awesome burn to the following film scenarios:

Star Wars: Had I been king of Alderaan and found out you ignored the beacon signals about the Death Star, I would have relieved you of your post.

The Lord of the Rings: Had I been Lord Elrond and found out you ignored the mystical signs that the Nazgul were hunting Frodo, I would have relieved you of your post.

Star Wars again: Had I been a general and found out you ignored the message signals informing us that the Empire was going to attack the rebel base on Hoth, I would have relieved you of your post.

Harry Potter: Had I been head of the Order of the Phoenix and found out you, as headmistress of Hogwarts, ignored the owl letters regarding death eaters onto the castle grounds, I would have relieved you of your post.

Star Wars yet again: Had I been Admiral Ackbar and found out it was a trap, I would have relieved you of your post.

Full Metal Jacket: had I found out you were not under sniper fire in Vietnam nor in Bosnia/Kosovo, I would have relieved you of your post.

Star Trek the Next Generation: Had I been head of the galactic federation and found out you ignored that giant Borg cube that flew by the Enterprise, kidnapped Captain Picard and turned him into a cyborg, I would have relieved you of your post as Number One.

The Sandlot: Had I been your father and found out you lost the Babe Ruth autograph ball in the Beast’s yard, I would have relieved you of your post.

Star Wars in real life: Had I been Steven Spielberg or Francis Ford Coppola and found out you were going to make prequels to the Star Wars Trilogy, I would have relieved you of your post.

Perhaps the only thing sweeter than seeing Senator Paul destroying Democrats would be witnessing him spearheading the effort to purge the neocons from Republican Party leadership.  Honestly, with friends like the “conservatives” who went out of their way to bring down Ron Paul’s candidacy, who needs enemies?

* * *

USMC photo 090214-M-4150N-112 is in the public domain. Rand Paul photo by Gage Skidmore and used via CC BY-SA 2.0 license.  Both images obtained from Wikimedia Commons.  If FUNimation wouldn't be inclined to sue my pants off for using Dragon Ball Z fight stills, I would have used them in a heartbeat.