In the Republican debates Jeb Bush had the gall to claim that George W. Bush kept us safe, even though more than 3,000 Americans perished nearly a year into his brother's Presidency.
If we in the West must feel so guilty, let's feel guilty about the children we've killed in Muslim lands -- rather than about protecting ourselves from "Muslims" -- and others -- who would kill us in our own.
In the last few days, Donald Trump in his folksy manner again is defaming the Bush brand. This time, it's this: 9-11 happened under President George W. Bush's watch, so "W" should be held responsible.
After over five hours of debate complete with character jabs, Ronald Reagan invocations, conservative tax proposals and Obama bashing, the Republican presidential nominee field has been shaken up yet again as Establishment candidates stood their ground.
As an activist for liberty, I am pained by the failure of the similarly anti-establishment and still-largely-insurgent liberty movement to replicate either Ron Paul's successes of four years ago, or the successes of its present political opponents -- a democratic socialist, Sanders, and I'm-not-sure-what-to-call-him-but-he-looks-like-a-populist-fascist, Trum
As Rand Paul alienates those who supported his father, based largely on his foreign policy beliefs, a vacuum has developed for a candidate with a foreign policy belief system close to Ron Paul's.
The Republican Party doesn't seem to understand the fact that threats to the United States originate from the actions of human beings. These human beings resort to violence when they are marginalized by society to the point where they believe that the only way to better their country is to work around the democratic system through violence.
Bernie Sanders, to put this another way, doesn't need a focus group or a poll to tell him what he ought to stand for. He already knows what he stands for, and he'll freely tell you exactly what that is.
The idea of the "conservatarian" is all the rage these days in Republican circles. Conservatarian is a philosophy that is something of a hybrid between conservatives and libertarians. It doesn't have a firm ideological statement, but it does have some guiding principles.
Of course if the "short-fingered vulgarian" -- to borrow a Spy Magazine term of endearment for Mr. Trump -- runs as a Independent, then, as in 1992 (when Ross Perot stole huge numbers of the GOP vote), the Republicans don't have a prayer, no matter whom they run.
Artful advocates advise this about addressing the court: if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if the law is on your side, pound the law; if neither is on your side, pound the table. Adding to that adage, pusillanimous politicians propose undressing the court: if you fear its decision, strip it of jurisdiction.
At the root of the culture wars lies a fundamental dichotomy in worldviews. Which is more essential to humanity: the individual or the collective?
A recent op-ed in the New York Times chastises Rand Paul for being insufficiently libertarian. His critics are particularly upset over his "hawkish" foreign policy, accusing him of abandoning the ideal of individual liberty. The reverse, however, is true
The younger Paul knows that in the political big leagues, candidates of conviction who refuse to moderate their message or refuse to adapt to the prevailing contemporaneous political sentiment, are often abandoned at the alter by the electoral consumer.
By and large, Americans have come to believe, although erroneously, that Patriotism is tantamount to support for the Constitutional system of government and the policies instituted by the government. In truth, an American Patriot can love his/her country while opposing the polices of the government.
Ex-New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said that Obama doesn't love America. But you know who actually doesn't love America? Secessionists don't. And it wasn't too hard to figure that one out.