Is This The Only Way the Democrats Can Win?
OrthodoxNews
Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally
announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on
Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes
away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the way
Ralph Nader's campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr was
a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since breaking
with the Republican Party two years ago. He has claimed that a McCain
victory would be a "third term" for the Bush administration. On issues of
national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or
Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be
running well to his left - perhaps even further left than the Democratic
nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is
far-leftist Mike Gravel.
At his announcement, Barr claimed he was "in it to win it," echoing Hillary
Clinton's losing campaign. But his positions indicate, like Gravel, Barr is
"in it to lose it" when it comes to the War on Terror, or any contest
against America's foreign enemies.
In a video posted on the left-wing Huffington Post the day of his
announcement, Barr says, "Only a fool would signal to whatever our
adversaries are, whoever our adversaries are, exactly how and when we would
be drawing down our troops. But I do believe that it is extremely important,
and in the best interests of America's defenses and our security, and our
relationship with our allies, that we do begin immediately setting in place
a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and
the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq." Barr's vagueness about
who the enemy is in Iraq, be it al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias, makes
it easier for him to ignore the consequences of his proposed withdrawal of
all tools of American influence from the region. Allies and those
considering whether to align with the United States, are not going to be
favorably impressed by a demonstration of American weakness; nor is
crippling political divisions at home a persuasive argument for democracy.
Only five months ago, Barr noted, "Regardless of how one feels about the war
in Iraq - and I am among those believing the invasion and continued
occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ('nation building,' if you will)
was and remains ill-advised - the performance of our armed forces in Iraq
improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the
year." Barr's advocacy of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless
of the situation on the ground or the consequences, is the manifestation of
ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naīve desire
to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually
exists. As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the
world won't go away.
Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges
Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. In a
column last October, he called for "strengthening economic and political
pressure on Iran" without offering any specifics. At the same time, he
argued "What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic
blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed
to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would be
putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed at
the Ahmadinejad administration." In the months since his column, Iran has
shown that it has no respect for the diplomatic approach of the U.S. and its
European allies. Not only is the Tehran regime moving ahead with its nuclear
program, but it has felt secure enough to unleash its Hezbollah proxy army
against the Lebanese government, which is supposedly backed by the same
Western powers.
Dennis/Justin Raimondo has written on AntiWar.com - a site he edits in the
name of isolationism, "Bob Barr's announcement that he is making a run for
the White House on the Libertarian ticket has many advocates of a
non-interventionist foreign policy hopeful, even excited - and I include
myself among them." The United States only flirted with isolationism once in
its long history of growth to Superpower status, and that was in the 1930s
when the movement helped paralyze opposition to growing global threats that
finally exploded into World War II. Raimondo, however, is on record
writing, "I believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific" and labeling
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill the real "fascists"
for opposing Nazi and Communist aggression. If Raimondo is the kind of
person who gets excited at a Barr campaign, McCain has nothing to worry
about.
But Barr is not just opposed to foreign wars. He is opposed to defending the
United States itself from terrorist attack. He joined with Bruce Fein, a
notorious critic of the Bush administration who has called for the
impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, to form the "American Freedom
Agenda." The most consistent theme running through left-wing opinion since
September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy, who
must be protected from American counter measures. The Barr-Fein agenda thus
calls for extending habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants and amending the
Espionage Act to permit journalists to reveal classified national security
information without fear of prosecution. Its ten-point agenda would
prohibit:
military commissions, allowing civilian trials for terror-collaborators;
the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by "torture" or coercion in
any tribunal;
the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants, although
the law appears to allow this;
the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or
emails, thus crippling Homeland Security measures and surveillance of
terrorists in our midst;
the Executive Branch from invoking the state secrets privilege to anyone
claiming to be a victim of "constitutional violations" perpetrated by
government officers or agents;
the president from detaining terror collaborators abroad, with the
assistance of foreign governments; and
the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United
States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on
secret evidence - that is, lawyers would have to reveal classified
information to those terrorists.
Barr apparently wants God to protect us from terrorism. Barr opposes the
proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, to create
a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism. "Never content to rely on the Good Lord to deliver us
from those things that might do us harm," he argued, "one Congress after
another - going back at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 - has
considered legislation or held hearings to highlight perceived threats and
to then limit individual freedom to battle things that might bump us in the
night." He dismissed "this century's Red scare - terrorism," although
neither threat was illusory. Simple reliance on the Good Lord did not save
the victims of 9/11, nor did faith alone end the Holocaust or bring down the
Berlin Wall. If there was divine intervention, it was in providing the
resources and the will to act against the enemies of civilization. God helps
those who help themselves.
Is this only naivete on Barr's part? In regard to the Collins-Harman bill,
Barr understands that "Any person or organization that might have even
contemplated the use of 'violence' (not itself a defined term in the
legislation) ought to be genuinely frightened of this language. Any
'extremist belief system' (not further defined) that might facilitate
'ideologically based violence' would be a targetable activity for the
commission." Why would anyone not want those contemplating violence to be
afraid, and thus hopefully deterred from spilling blood to advance their
extremist agendas? The answer is found in the Left's mythology of bloody
revolution in the style of Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, or Castro.
Although the Constitution to which he constantly appeals charges the federal
government with preserving our borders, he has no such interests. He opposes
the Real ID, which Congress enacted in 2005 to standardize state drivers
licenses and non-driver identification cards to reduce the ability for
illegal aliens, terrorists or other criminals to obtain and use false
documents or establish fictitious identities. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner,
R-WI, said at the time he introduced his Real ID act, "American citizens
have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say
they are, and that the name on a drivers license is the holder's real name,
not some alias." Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 terrorists, had obtained
a Florida drivers license, which he used as ID to board the jetliner he
hijacked. This is why the 9/11 Commission recommended increased security for
state drivers licenses. Licenses that meet the Real ID standard will be
needed for boarding commercial airline flights and for entering federal
buildings and nuclear power plants. But Barr thinks improved licenses will
interfere with "the right to travel free of government constraints," which
"has long been considered a fundamental freedom in America." But such travel
is a privilege, not a right; and should be denied to criminals.
There is no authentic conservative tradition of turning against one's
country in a time of war. Patriotism and the desire to see one's country
secure, strong and in charge of its own destiny are core conservative
values. Anyone with the shameful inclination to undermine policies that
serve the national interest has to move to the Left to find arguments and
support. This is what Bob Barr has done in his quest for the Libertarian
Party presidential nomination.
--------------------------------------
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the
U.S. Business and Industrial Council in Washington, D.C.
Alexander Arnakis
<Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote:
>
>Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It
>
>By William R. Hawkins
>FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
>
>Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally
>announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on
>Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes
>away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the way
>Ralph Nader's campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr was
>a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since breaking
>with the Republican Party two years ago. He has claimed that a McCain
>victory would be a "third term" for the Bush administration. On issues of
>national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or
>Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be
>running well to his left - perhaps even further left than the Democratic
>nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is
>far-leftist Mike Gravel.
>
Barr is a classic libertarian (pro-individual rights, anti-big
government), even more so than Ron Paul. To call him "leftist" or
"rightist" misses the point entirely. The left-right continuum, as
defined by today's Democrats and Republicans, is an artificial
construct, designed to entrench their disparate coalitions.
We're overdue for a realignment of parties in America.
Joe Orthodox
FrontPageMagazine.com is an extremist neoconservative web site. They
never saw a failed war and a pile of body bags they didn't like.
--
"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve
experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign." -
William F. Buckley, Jr.
David
In addition to that he is also a shameless liar.
OrthodoxNews
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:49cee407-d8db-457c...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
***Be specific.
David
>
> By William R. Hawkins
> FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
>
> Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally
> announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on
> Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes
> away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the way
> Ralph Nader's campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr was
> a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since breaking
> with the Republican Party two years ago.
Lie #1 Barr really hasn't moved at all, and he certainly hasn't moved
left. The Republican Party has moved. It has dramatically increased
spending and brought in new government programs. They grew the
government more than the Democrats under Clinton.
>He has claimed that a McCain
> victory would be a "third term" for the Bush administration. On issues of
> national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or
> Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be
> running well to his left - perhaps even further left than the Democratic
> nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is
> far-leftist Mike Gravel.
>
Lie #2 McCain, not Barr, will be running left. McCain is a moderate
Republican that allies with Democrats. McCain votes for new programs
for government and new powers for government.
> ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naïve desire
> to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually
> exists.
Lie #3 Barr does not exude isolationism, he is an interventionist,
advocating sanctions for Iran and he wants troops in South America.
>As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the
> world won't go away.
>
Lie #4 Americans in the 1930s did not want the rest of the world to
"go away", they figured if Europeans wanted to kill each other
again(WW 1) they could do it without them. Americans were perfectly
happy doing business with other nations, they just weren't going to
die for them.
> Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges
> Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups.
Lie by Omission #1 Barr does support sanctions and claims the US is a
stakeholder in Iranian political decisions.
(not that Barr's claim is a good thing or sane, but William distorts
Barr's position.)
> In a
> column last October, he called for "strengthening economic and political
> pressure on Iran" without offering any specifics. At the same time, he
> argued "What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic
> blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed
> to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would be
> putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed at
> the Ahmadinejad administration." In the months since his column, Iran has
> shown that it has no respect for the diplomatic approach of the U.S. and its
> European allies.
Lie #5 Iran has made numerous diplomatic initiatives to both US and
Europe, has bent over backwards not to react when provoked with
threatening military actions by US naval ships, and has even helped
quell the latest fighting in Iraq by stepping in as a mediator.
> Not only is the Tehran regime moving ahead with its nuclear
> program, but it has felt secure enough to unleash its Hezbollah proxy army
> against the Lebanese government, which is supposedly backed by the same
> Western powers.
Lie #6 Hezbollah is no mere cat's paw of Iran, but a fiercely
independent-minded movement that is Lebanon's dominant political and
military force.
>
> Dennis/Justin Raimondo has written on AntiWar.com - a site he edits in the
> name of isolationism,
Lie #7 The antiwar website is about opposing war, not isolationism.
> "Bob Barr's announcement that he is making a run for
> the White House on the Libertarian ticket has many advocates of a
> non-interventionist foreign policy hopeful, even excited - and I include
> myself among them." The United States only flirted with isolationism once in
> its long history of growth to Superpower status, and that was in the 1930s
> when the movement helped paralyze opposition to growing global threats that
> finally exploded into World War II.
Lie #8 The "opposition to glowing global threats" was not opposition
at all, it was advocacy whether in favor of one global threat or
another. Some people wanted the US to enter World War II to aid the
Communists, others advocated war to protect their favorite country.
>Raimondo, however, is on record
> writing, "I believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific"
Lie #9 By taking words out of context, the full quote is below(note
the objective of the paragraph is sarcasm and irony)
"The great horror is that this heinous deed was committed against
Japan, a civilization as far removed from our own as the streets of
New York are from the African savannas. It's at times like these that
I tend to believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific. Just
think: if we all woke up one day living in some alternate history, as
in Phillip K. Dick's The Man in the High Castle, our cultural malaise
would disappear overnight. Instead of listening to the latest loutish
lyrics of Eminem, American teenagers would be contemplating the subtle
beauty of the Japanese tea ceremony. If contemporary Japan is any
clue, the crime rate would be cut by 95 percent, and the literacy rate
would skyrocket. Certainly everyone's manners would improve. All in
all, life would be far more civilized, imbued with a gentility that
would make the New York Post an impossibility."
>and labeling
> Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill the real "fascists"
> for opposing Nazi and Communist aggression.
Lie #10 Raimondo did no such thing. And for the record, FDR didn't
oppose Communist aggression, he liked Stalin.
>If Raimondo is the kind of
> person who gets excited at a Barr campaign, McCain has nothing to worry
> about.
>
> But Barr is not just opposed to foreign wars. He is opposed to defending the
> United States itself from terrorist attack.
Lie #11 William makes that up.
>He joined with Bruce Fein, a
> notorious critic of the Bush administration who has called for the
> impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, to form the "American Freedom
> Agenda." The most consistent theme running through left-wing opinion since
> September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy, who
> must be protected from American counter measures.
Lie #12 The concern is that the government follow its constitutional
restraints and not assume new powers for itself that can be abused
against the people. The second concern is that as human beings we must
expect our fellow human beings with power over anyone to observe a
bare minimum of respect for other human beings, even thieves and
murderers. This is because torturing and sexually humiliating
prisoners is not only an offense against God because of the dignity of
His creation, but also because it puts the souls of the torturers and
captors in jeopardy.
>The Barr-Fein agenda thus
> calls for extending habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants
Lie #13 Habeas corpus already applies to everyone according to the
Constitution, there are no exceptions. The agenda here is to restore
that which was illegally and unconstitutionally denied in the first
place.
>and amending the
> Espionage Act to permit journalists to reveal classified national security
> information without fear of prosecution.
No lie here, but this is also known as restoring protections under the
First Amendment that were illegally and unconstitutionally denied.
> Its ten-point agenda would
> prohibit:
>
> military commissions, allowing civilian trials for terror-collaborators;
As required under the Constitution.
> the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by "torture" or coercion in
> any tribunal;
> the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants, although
> the law appears to allow this;
> the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or
> emails, thus crippling Homeland Security measures and surveillance of
> terrorists in our midst;
Lie #14 Warrants could still be used to intercept phone conversations
and emails, thus no crippling.
> the Executive Branch from invoking the state secrets privilege to anyone
> claiming to be a victim of "constitutional violations" perpetrated by
> government officers or agents;
> the president from detaining terror collaborators abroad, with the
> assistance of foreign governments; and
Also known as kidnapping.
Lie #15 That is only the excuse for Real ID. The purpose of Real ID is
to allow the government to further track and monitor the citizenry.
> As Rep. James Sensenbrenner,
> R-WI, said at the time he introduced his Real ID act, "American citizens
> have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they say
> they are, and that the name on a drivers license is the holder's real name,
> not some alias."
Except that you and I won't be allowed to look at the Real ID
database. Only people like James Sensebrenner, who can snoop on his
enemies.
> Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 terrorists, had obtained
> a Florida drivers license, which he used as ID to board the jetliner he
> hijacked. This is why the 9/11 Commission recommended increased security for
> state drivers licenses. Licenses that meet the Real ID standard will be
> needed for boarding commercial airline flights and for entering federal
> buildings and nuclear power plants. But Barr thinks improved licenses will
> interfere with "the right to travel free of government constraints," which
> "has long been considered a fundamental freedom in America."
Which it is.
>But such travel
> is a privilege, not a right;
Lie #16 Travel is a right, not a privilege. We have no freedom if we
cannot travel where we need to for work, rest, etc. We are endowed by
our Creator with inalienable rights, not endowed by our government by
privileges which they can take away at a whim.
>and should be denied to criminals.
>
Criminals are individuals who have some of their rights denied them
because they have committed crimes(which, presumably, were actions
which deprived other people of their rights through the use of force
or the threat of the use of force, or fraud).
> There is no authentic conservative tradition of turning against one's
> country in a time of war.
Lie #17 The American Revolution was exactly that, turning against
one's own country in a fight for freedom and independence. Americans
had possessed rights under the British crown which began to be eroded
as King George decided that the colonists needed to pay for his
foolish wars. They fought to preserve those rights as the British
crown attempted to take them away.
>Patriotism and the desire to see one's country
> secure, strong and in charge of its own destiny are core conservative
> values. Anyone with the shameful inclination to undermine policies that
> serve the national interest has to move to the Left to find arguments and
> support. This is what Bob Barr has done
Lie #18 That is not what Barr has done. He is undermining policies
which do not serve the national interest, but only serve the interest
of neocons and liars like William R Hawkns
OrthodoxNews
On May 15, 9:49 am, "OrthodoxNews" <OrthoN...@nospam04.net> wrote:
> Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It
>
> By William R. Hawkins
> FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
>
> Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally
> announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on
> Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes
> away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the
> way
> Ralph Nader's campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr
> was
> a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since
> breaking
> with the Republican Party two years ago.
Lie #1 Barr really hasn't moved at all, and he certainly hasn't moved
left. The Republican Party has moved. It has dramatically increased
spending and brought in new government programs. They grew the
government more than the Democrats under Clinton.
***Keep in mind that military spending under Bush is but a fraction of the
total government programs that keep going up and up...a prospect that show
no prospect of being reversed under either party. And, one of the news
magazines a week or so ago noted that Americans of all political bents want
increased spending and more government programs and handouts.
***Note, too, that Bush's budget increases were heavily influenced y
hurricane relief spending...in the trillions.