I think it's time for Republicans to redefine their foreign policy ideals. I do acknowledge that we have enemies abroad; however, the terminology many neoconservatives use or otherwise allow in our political dialog is dangerous and misinformed. Below is an opinion article I have written on http://InterestOfTheState.com, which reassesses the language used when explaining our foreign policy.  Hearing Mitt Romney and the rest of the neocons ramble on about foreign policy is like watching an Adolph Hitler speech in 1939. Eloquent at face value, the scare tactics of a neoconservative foreign policy couldn’t contain more fallacies. But my favorite of this litany of spooky words is “Islamofascism.” The term, when left to its own devices, is an oxymoron at best. When used the in the phraseology of an ignoramus like Rudy Giuliani, the term becomes a hostile world of hate in American dialog. It’s not that I do not recognize we have enemies abroad. Instead, it’s the way neocons inflict fear in a rather ignorant demographic. Giuliani said in 2007 that our enemies “follow a violent ideology: radical Islamic fascism, which uses the mask of religion to further totalitarian goals and aims to destroy the existing international system.” That sounds scary, doesn’t it? Of course, I’m sure there are some in the world, non-Muslims most certainly included, who wish to see the destruction of this “international system” that Mr. Giuliani speaks of. What that international system is, I’m not entirely sure. Perhaps he meant international trade? Islam within itself is anything but fascistic. Fascism was a government system designed by Italians prior to Benito Mussolini’s reign in the 1930’s. Fascism was a response to the failed democratic experiment in Weimar Germany after the First World War. Mussolini sold the system as a necessity for Italians to progress away from democratic failures and stimulate the Italian economy through unity. The idea of the collective being a dominant force against the individual sold rampantly throughout Europe, but especially strong in a weakened Italian state. Fascism was a term that originated from the Latin “Fasces” which meant “bundle” or what ancient Romans referred to as “a bundle of tightly packed sticks.” Analogous to the collective, a bundle of sticks represented a bundle of people, in which the individual stick, or person, was ineffective in relation to a group that sacrificed individual freedoms for security (sound familiar?). This security was economic and national. Islam, on the other hand, by nature is very market-driven. In Islam’s early beginnings, hundreds of “Silk Roads” littered the Arab world where trade and commerce dominated the climate. Sultans and Caliphs often appointed a “muhtasib” who served as a market supervisor at bazaars to eliminate fraud and ensure a balanced and fair trade. They were officers of public morals. Today, several Middle Eastern countries function through heavily regulated and restricted markets due to a hundred years’ worth of interference from the West. From British and French conquests of Arabia and North Africa to the manipulation of oil markets and the propping up of rogue states in the Middle East, the United States has manifested “Islamofascism” for itself, if it even exists. Our enemies abroad don’t necessarily even have an economic policy as they’re more concerned with the withdrawal of American occupation troops. And of course, you’ll always have the crazies of any movement or organization who call for total destruction; however, I feel that even leaders that neocons dub as enemies and threats like Muqtada al-Sadr understand that state boundaries exist for reasons and the United States isn’t going away as a superpower anytime soon. To call our enemies abroad “Islamofascists” is awkward and wrong on historical, philosophical, and political bases. Fascism is a European invention, exported by the West under the mask of regime change, and requires the total surrender of a nation’s economy to the government. The Kuwaiti government actually pays its people to live in Kuwait (kind of like reverse fascism). Fascism is a government system that denotes total control of a state’s economy. I highly doubt our enemies abroad are concerned with economic policy when half the Middle East is in flames due to an insurgency angered by the presence of American soldiers harassing their property. Islamofascism is a scary term at best, misused by political figureheads to promulgate their own agendas abroad. Roy Antoun is a Rutgers University undergraduate student double majoring in History and Political Science. He believes in peace, prosperity, and liberty.
|
On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama told us not to question whether government is too big or too small, but if it works. Well, it's no coincidence that a government that continuously grows, continuously fails as well. The Democrat solution to societal problems is more intervention. They have successfully developed a Keynesian take on economics and a Leviathan take on government as a whole. When markets "fail," they say we need more regulation; and the regulation passes with little legitimate opposition. The sad part to the story is that we've been heavily regulating markets since the turn of the last century. From the creation of the Federal Reserve to the Wall Street bailout, government's sole response to any problem is more regulation. The practices of free market Austrian economics of the 19th century are but a footnote in history text books. Those who tell us that the "free market has failed" are ignorant to the fact that we haven't practiced a free market in over a hundred years and every financial downturn we experience today is a direct result of government intervention in the market. Crony Capitalism has friends from both the Left and the Right. And Republicans are still no better than their Democrat counter parts in most instances.
Republicans in the past century have increased the size of the Federal government in ways unimaginable by the Framers of this country. From increased healthcare benefits at taxpayer expense (See G.W. Bush 2003 Medicare Legislation), to undeclared wars of outright aggression, Republicans have taken the philosophy of small government and essentially threw it down the trash.
Third Parties today hold little legitimacy in the political culture of America. In States like New York, which have co-opted the parties, it's extremely hard for Third Party candidates to get on the ballot and campaign. This system is flawed. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that Americans should be limited to a two-party system. What's worse is that our "two-party system" has fortified what I like to call, the Republicrat. Both Republicans and Democrats have endangered our freedoms at home for their personal gain and the expansion of big government. So, in essence, Americans have little choice in the system and that is why I outwardly encourage Third Parties to rise. A more diverse political setting will give Americans more choice in representation and will also shake and challenge the establishment in DC.
 Yesterday, I had the privilege of meeting Congressional Candidate Tom Vendittelli, running on the Libertarian Party line in the 13th Congressional District which covers Brooklyn and Staten Island (gerrymandering? You bet). A young, enthusiastic champion of liberty, Tom expressed his distaste for establishment politics and wanted his campaign to shake things in the political culture of New York. He pointed out one major flaw: it was lacking some liberty. For a city that is entrenched in a history of revolution, reform, and industry, most people in New York are so wrapped up in their 9-to-5 that government regulation and intervention seems either status quo or another obstacle to just go around before reaching their home or apartment to relax for the night. The Tea Party is ignored or laughed at and the small Tea Party that does exist is actually George Bush relic of neoconservatism at its finest; it's standard hypocrisy. The Tea Party, which supposedly stands for limited government, apparently supports a very expensive, expansive, and interventionist foreign policy that has been "draining a third of the entire Federal budget that could otherwise be refunded back to the taxpayer," said Vendittelli. And I couldn't agree more.
Tom also brought up issues like the Federal Reserve, something Republican candidate Michael Allegretti knew practically nothing about. Vendittelli told me of a time he ran into Allegretti and asked him what he would do about the Federal Reserve. Allegretti's response? "Well... I know that the Federal Reserve is a bank... but that's pretty much it." And that's pretty much what's wrong with the Republican Party and the Federal Government. Little did Allegretti know the vast, unchecked power that the Federal Reserve has. It audits itself every two years, has complete control over how much money is printed in the U.S., can take or give loans to foreign countries at its own discretion, and regulates interest rates without any forewarning, all at taxpayer expense. Vendittelli, who was aware of the Federal Reserve's unconstitutional powers, knew that something had to be done with the political climate whereas Allegretti did not. A Congressman should, at the very least, have expansive knowledge of the monetary beast otherwise known as the Federal Reserve. The system plays with your money, the fruits of your labor and Congress should be seeking to protect your property, not devalue it. Vendittelli understands this concept whereas Allegretti does not.
Tom Vendittelli was a genuine individual with a knack for political philosophy that you otherwise don't get in New York. He's extremely principled in the ideals of liberty and economic freedom and comprehends the notion that a large government equates to a restricted marketplace, something New Yorkers are being choked by on a daily basis. I know Tom Vendittelli is getting my vote. The other establishment hacks have already proven themselves to be... establishment hacks. To all my conservative and Republican friends, please remember that conservatism as a political theory is deeply rooted and founded in the tenets of libertarianism. I fully support Tom and his efforts to run for Congress.
Last Updated ( Friday, 16 July 2010 17:00 )
 It’s quite evident that a tenet of a free society includes the ability of the individual to own property. That property includes a gun. One of the first things Nazi Germany did to secure its power in the Reichstag was seize all weapons from every German’s home. Czechoslovakia was next and, soon enough, the Gestapo became social law. I do believe that we would be living in a safer world if individuals were allowed to carry weapons. Criminals will find ways to acquire firearms regardless of whether they are legal or not. I would rather be ready than dead. Individuals would inevitably learn firearm responsibility because they will understand that using it irresponsibly will result in punitive measures; government does have the obligation to protect an individual’s life and if you start firing aimlessly at a crowd or begin to use your gun for reasons beyond self defense, then government must intervene for the victim’s safety. However, government also has the obligation to protect an individual’s property and that includes my right to own a weapon and land.
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing for this legislation to further limit the capacity to which a gun owner can use his gun. Now they want to “microstamp ammunition” which is basically bullet tracking. If we truly want to crack down on crime, perhaps alleviating taxes on the poor and revamping the New York City welfare system will keep the impoverished off the streets and, instead, working and producing capital for society. Although “abject poverty” is somewhat of a different topic, it is somehow interrelated in that those unemployed in impoverished neighborhoods tend to find havens in gangs and misconduct to pass the time or provide for themselves (because the State clearly is not facilitating that process anyway…). You can even find this in war-stricken countries. Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, for example, are poor farmers or students who have lost their jobs because of the war and have picked up firearms because a local elite is paying them to do so. Yemen, which has recently gone bankrupt is now a haven for “terrorists” because Al Qaeda is paying the unemployed to do their bidding. Violence is usually a byproduct of poverty. What is more disappointing is that the Brooklyn GOP has given Mayor Bloomberg an endorsement when he ran for reelection in 2009. Mayor Bloomberg founded “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” in 2006. Something didn’t click in GOP Chairman Craig Eaton’s head; perhaps something clicked in his wallet instead. Luckily enough, the State Senate stopped the bill from passing.
Last Updated ( Sunday, 20 June 2010 15:43 )
As seen on RoyAntoun.com 
Apparently, there’s a Republican Primary for the 13th Congressional District and the incumbent is… well I don’t know what he is. New York politics can sometimes be sadder than a 60 year old attorney trying to make a name for himself by parading with Michael Bloomberg. And while I respect each candidate’s eagerness to “run our country,” I have to say, all the candidates are simply awful… and for many reasons, partially because people run this country and not some bureaucrats in DC. There are three people vying for the 13th Congressional seat: Michael Grimm (R), Michael Allegretti (R), and Michael McMahon (D- Incumbent). And why do all of them colloquially “suck”? Because they all stand for the same things. Taking a look at their websites’ listed issues, you’ll find very neatly organized lists of essentially crap that dictate the same things coming from all sides. It’s the same sound-bite garbage that forces the voter to choose a candidate based on specific issues rather than a principled philosophy.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 19 June 2010 15:02 )
Saturday, 23 January 2010 00:00
Paul Klenk
The Herd -
Herd Opinions
Raymond W. Kelly's remarks Thursday to The New York Young Republican Club started out sounding very boilerplate - like a speech by any of the City's mayors, police officials, and tourism execs: "Crime is down, tourism is up, come to Times Square and see a show." So why had the NY Post's Maggie Haberman announced his appearance as "unusual" and "surprising"? By the time it was over, it was clear why. We had witnessed this politically independent, world-class police commissioner quietly employ a few dry statistics and facts to slide an anvil off a ledge, allowing gravity to deliver its full weight upon Barack Obama's head. New York, "a shining city upon a hill," has just surpassed Orlando as the number one tourist destination in America, we learn from Mr. Kelly. It is a city so increasingly safe that when crime is rising elsewhere, we are setting new low records for murders-per-million. But it is still under such a severe and constant threat that its streets are crawling, at any given moment, with 1500 to 2000 highly sophisticated radiation detectors, and crammed with live-monitored surveillance cameras downtown (and soon to reach to 60th Street). A city evidently so safe, prepared, and teeming with carefree tourists that the President of the United States has unilaterally decided it should - no, must - play host to terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's upcoming "criminal" trial in lower Manhattan. Obama, hiding behind the singularly unserious Eric Holder, has recklessly painted an enormous target on NYC's back, and feverishly directed the attention of our most lethal enemies to its bull's-eye - against the wishes of its residents and leaders. "We were not consulted," Kelly said tersely of the decision. He stated that the trial "will raise the threat level of this city," a threat that "will not fade any time soon." And it affects more than lower Manhattan, we learned. "We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target." The audience was stunned. Then Kelly opened the floor to questions. Every audience response which followed - if my memory and others' is correct - was about terrorism in general and the KSM trial in particular. One man asked about neighborhood block-watching, especially in light of the unmarked van that recently went unnoticed in Times Square for at least two days. We were assured such strategies are still relevant, and that Kelly and the City are tuned into citizen input. A woman in the audience confirmed the City's credibility in this regard. She related that after witnessing suspicious activity, she was greeted with ho-hums (and zero follow-up) by every Federal agency she notified, but was taken very seriously by NYPD, and assured that her report was being sent straight to intel. It was obvious who is listening to 3 a.m. calls, and who is snoozing. The evening's high point occurred when Marion D.S. Dreyfus rose to her feet and literally begged Kelly to advise the crowd what we could all do - in addition to our unheeded calls and letters - to force Obama to scrap his KSM & Co. showcase in lower Manhattan. Her question sparked thunderous applause from the young professionals. Kelly's answer included a faint "Ray" of hope: Michael Isikoff's recent Newsweek report of whispers that the trial plan is "potentially in jeopardy." Isikoff had made this known well before the January 19 Senate Dem-olition, so in the post-Brown climate, what senior officials were leaking anonymously may soon appear on the record. It cannot help that lower Manhattan's Community Board 1 is likely to unanimously reject the trial next week, and demand that Holder move it to a non-residential location. What does Ray Kelly know that Obama, Holder, and Napolitano don't? Clearly, a great deal. The Vietnam combat veteran and gifted security heavyweight is celebrated and trusted by the people responsible for keeping New York safe - at least those outside this administration. This cannot be said of Team Obama. Club president Lynn Krogh, likely unaware what Kelly was planning to say, had reminded her members moments earlier that Scott Brown's Tuesday victory is proof of the people's power in 2010, and that what happened in Massachusetts can happen in New York. Let's hope the crowd recognized that this includes the power to shake the White House out of its current coma, so it abandons its outrageous plan to endanger us all for ideology's sake.
Last Updated ( Saturday, 23 January 2010 14:02 )
Several trends have emerged during the last 2 days, on how the Democrats view Massachusetts. 1. Obama was too centrist and the Democrats need to abandon bi-partisanship. -this view is clearly delusional, but it is being mentioned more and more.
2. Americans are angry over Bush and Obama needs to move faster to correct Bush's wrongs.
-Another delusional view, and president Obama is clearly pushing this line.
3. Coakley was a very poor candidate. -There is some truth to this, but she didn't lose this seat all by herself. She clearly had some help from a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and the White House. .
.
... Scott Brown clearly ran as the voice of opposition to the Democratic juggernaut in Washington. There is a very clear reason why people at his HQ on Tuesday were chanting "41". Yet all these spins continue to ignore reality, and the reality is that America is a center-right country, and Americans do not want to live under an the kind of government the Democrats are trying to create. On the one hand, it may seem strategically prudent to allow such delusional thoughts to perpetuate among the Democrats. On the other hand, there are many voters who were once deluded by con-men and voted irrationally. These folks should not be allowed to drown in a sea of delusional proclamations. We need to fight these nonsensical statements. We need to speak up with clarity and we need to get louder.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 21 January 2010 04:32 )
Thursday, 14 January 2010 00:00
Luke Vander Linden
The Herd -
Herd Opinions
A good guest column by conservative blogger Bill Pascoe at U Va's Crystal Ball today reminds us that it's almost time for that the great political tradition of twisting and turning our legislative districts into increasingly complicated tentacles and slivers called redistricting is almost upon us. The once-a-decade census starts in a few weeks, the results of which will be used to gerrymander and protect thousands of elected officials nationwide. Pascoe is only the most recent voice calling for reform of this process. And like most, he trots out Iowa as a great example of how it should work. What Pascoe adds this time is that usually Republicans are on the short end of the stick when it comes time to redraw. Historically, Democrats have been in charge of statehouses and therefore benefit the most. He argues that Republicans now should be the ones calling for reform and that the Dems will be left defending a corrupt and cynical status quo. This would put Republicans in the odd position of being aligned with the New Yorks Times which editorialized back in November on this topic (click on their interactive feature where they amusingly note some of New York's most twisted districts). It's a little inside baseball and maybe a bit too much about the 'process' but I feel something that could gain even more traction for the GOP in 2010.
|
|
The Herd
