Lust For War

[original post - 4.13.11]

"Lust for War." Has a nice ring to it, no? Makes us think of Sean Householder's Warrior Song.

These three words were used by Judge Napalitano on the Glenn Beck show Monday night. Probably most didn't catch it, or nodded in agreement as they misunderstood the Judge's intended meaning.

Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters - 

you may want to stop reading here.

How can Libertarians be so right on so many things, yet so wrong on national security?

Judge Napalitano's use of the phrase "Lust for War" was in a bullet-point list of things he says are wrong with both parties. He is spot on with solutions to spending, the Fed and other areas, but he is dead wrong in the area of war and the use of our military.

The Ron Paul/Judge Napalitano view on national security is a 'let's not get involved' military posture. For those who nodded in agreement as Napalitano said "Lust for War", you likely did so out of war fatigue, not out of policy agreement.

We've been at war a long time and history shows the American population's support for an otherwise just war drops fast after about 5-6 years. We're in year 10 of fighting. 20, if you count the Clinton years of not responding to the first World Trade bombing, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc. That is a long time, and even the most patriotic are at a loss for reasons to continue the fight.

This post is not a judgement on those who have lost the fight.

This post is about those Ron Paul freaks - that's right: freaks - who argue for legal marijuana and an end to war in the same breath. These people can accurately discuss the tenth amendment and all its virtues, then assume the same moral superiority for their argument to rein in our military. They might be able to sway online polls in favor of Ron Paul, but they fall flat on national security.

Force Projection. We hear The Warrior Song when we hear these two words too!

Force Projection = Navy and Marines. Force Projection = Stable World.

Napalitano should show a bullet-point list of traits shared by liberals and Libertarians. One would be to adopt the false premise that they can do better in foreign affairs. They point to the world and say "we can do better". Or Obama's line, "We can be smarter." Voters like to be told they are smart.

We went to public school, so we REALLY like to be told we're smart!

The false part: their policies will create a vacuum of power and will destabilize, thus requiring the choice between two evils - more military use while the enemy has the initiative, or let the world burn.

The false premise is: things will continue as they are today, but we'll end these wars and pull our forces back. Further, we'll ignore aggressions that those War Lust'ers, the Democrats and Republicans, would have used to throw us into a new war. Sounds warm and fuzzy.

The Communist Party USA posted a list of 22 requests for Obama when he was elected. The last time we looked, Obama was pursuing, or had met, 20 of those requests. One of the two unfinished tasks: Pull out of Afghanistan. The Communist Party USA and the Libertarian Party are in agreement, albeit for different reasons - the US must pull out of Afghanistan.

The CPUSA wants the US out of Afghanistan because they do not like Force Projection and do like destabilization. It is like community organizing, but on a global scale. And it will show the US as weak, just like our retreat from Vietnam and Somolia.

The Libertarians want the US out of Afghanistan because Force Projection is contrary to their views. The fact that the region would descend into an al-queda-led anarchy means nothing to them. The fact that WMD's - YEP, I SAID WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION JUST LIKE GEORGE W. BUSH! - are now easily made with a vast network of state sponsorship means nothing to them. Murder on a grand scale + mayhem + terrorist havens across an entire continent + WMDs = destabilization. Add an ambitious Russia or China to that mix for bigger flames. Correcting this destabilization would require a military that we do not have.

Libertarians are to the GOP what the hippies are to the DNC - tolerated dope-smoking intellectuals who would destroy our way of life if given power.

If Ron Paul is the nominee, and he doesn't get right on national security, we'll stay home on election day to clean our guns.

UPDATED 11.8.11

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugged agrees.

UPDATED 11.23.11

Last night's GOP debate exposed Ron Paul's failure to grasp the threats we face.



UPDATED Thanksgiving Day

Doug Ross agrees.

• A man who claims that bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists are morally equivalent to Americans?

• A man who vocally encourages the despicable 9/11 Truther movement?

• A man who embraces virulent anti-semites and is inspired by those who despise Jews?

• A man whose foreign policy prescriptions are so "far left" that they are outright dangerous?

• A man whose strongest supporters vilify Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Ed Meese, Sarah Palin, etc.?

• A man who despises Israel, a beacon of freedom in an otherwise barbaric Middle East?

• A man so power-hungry that he refuses to rule out a third-party run, which would very likely help reelect Barack Obama?

UPDATED 12.6.11

Allen West, owner of our Commie Obama Hat, agrees, at NewsMax

UPDATED 12.22.11

Dorothy Rabinowitz agrees in the WSJ today: What Ron Paul Thinks of America

There can be no confusions about Dr. Paul's own comments about the U.S. After 9/11, he said to students in Iowa, there was "glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq." It takes a profoundly envenomed mindset—one also deeply at odds with reality—to believe and to say publicly that the administration of this nation brought so low with grief and loss after the attack had reacted with glee. There are, to be sure, a number of like-minded citizens around (see the 9/11 Truthers, whose opinions Dr. Paul has said he doesn't share). But we don't expect to find their views in people running for the nation's highest office.

UPDATED & BUMPED 12.27.11

[We'll periodically bump this post until Ron Paul is history.  Our focus is on defeating Obama, so we're officially done reacting to Ron Paul and his pot-smoking zombie followers.]

Rob Taylor at Redstate agrees:

Weakness encourages aggression from our enemies. Ron Paul’s fantasy will lead us on a collision course with those forces who have been waiting for the right moment to seize what they see as their destiny. America is the last stand for Western civilization and now is the time when we must be willing to fight every battle to keep our values and country strong.

UPDATED 12.28.11

Newt Gingrich agrees.

Ann Barnhardt agrees:

My take on Ron Paul? If I suddenly have the urge to vote for an islam-appeaser who wants to see Israel wiped off the map, has no problem at all with a nuclear weaponized Iran, and thinks that the United States is an imperial force of evil in the world, I'll just vote for Obama...

 (Just kidding. If it came down to Obama or Paul, I'd vote for Bill Still. I would never, ever vote for Obama.)

Zombie agrees:

Joke candidate. Wrong, wrong, wrong. If he gets the Republican nomination, I would actually stay home on election day, as would most voters forced to choose between a communist and a madman.

UPDATED & BUMPED 12.29.11

Via IOTW, Amb. John Bolton, owner of our furry ushanka hat, agrees.

Skip to 2:30 & 3:45.



UPDATED 12.31.11

Wild Bill, a proud owner of our hat, agrees.

UPDATED 10.24.12

A collection of Ayn Rand opinions of Libertarians.