Saturday, July 22, 2006

The Jacksonian Party and "proportionate response" in War

A look at who is calling for 'Proportionate Response' in War:

[19 JUL 2006] Catholic News Service - Washington -- "Lebanon's Maronite Catholic patriarch said he told U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney that Israel has a right to defend itself, but its reaction to Hezbollah actions is not proportionate."[Google Cache , Catholic Online News updated post]

[14 JUL 2006] Jerusalem Post Online Edition - Meanwhile, President Jacques Chirac said that the IDF was "totally disproportionate" and asked whether destroying Lebanon was not the ultimate goal.

[12 JUL 2006] Ynetnews - UK Foreign Office Minister, Kim Howells said, “We condemn this morning’s infiltration and rocket attacks by Hizbullah on northern Israel. We are particularly concerned by reports that Israeli soldiers may have been kidnapped or killed.

“Hizbullah’s actions will further escalate an already tense situation in the region. A further escalation is in no one’s interest. We call on all parties to take actions to promote a rapid and peaceful resolution of the crisis and urge that any Israeli action be both measured and proportionate,” he said.
There is one and only one way to look at this from the Jacksonian viewpoint :
"Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." - Andrew Jackson
And the other quote of Jacksonians which explains WHAT Israel should do:
'We did not start this fight, but we sure, as hell, will END IT.' - Heard many times in many battles involving the Citizen Soldiers of the Republic
Indeed, peace and equitable peace... but fight until your enemy is vanquished or they have vanquished you. There is no other just way of it when one has been attacked. The only response is full out war, to the bitter end and defeat of the enemy. Leave 'Proportionate Response' to debates, but leave it OFF the battlefield.

Friday, July 14, 2006

The Lack of Foreign Policy

The following is a position paper of the Jacksonian Party.

President George Washington had a foreign policy for the United States that he counseled to the Union upon his stepping down from office: commonality between internal political factions so as to present an outward uniform Foreign Policy by leaving domestic disputes at the shoreline, friendship and trade with all Nations, and against involvement in foreign affairs and alliances. For the young Republic and even over two centuries later these words still ring true today as they did in 1797.

President James Monroe expanded upon that, calling upon European powers not to attempt to expand their Empires into the New World, but leave it free to its own affairs, thus giving the Monroe Doctrine as an outlook by the US upon the World. This outlook was drafted by John Quincy Adams during his time of Secretary of State and pushed forward hard when he was elected as President. President John Quincy Adams tried to get other governments in the Western Hemisphere to join together with the US so as to present a unified outlook upon European expansionism and to exclude such expansion from the New World. This outlook held so well that only in 1904 did President Theodore Roosevelt give its Corollary:

"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power."
Yes, this is where folks started looking to the US to be a Policeman! But do note the proviso given that things would really need to get out of hand before the US would look to intervene in the Western Hemisphere. This, however, did not last long and in a bit more than a decade President Woodrow Wilson looked towards a *new* Foreign Policy for the US that involved the World. Having won re-election on an isolationist and 'protect American interests and shipping' concept he soon found himself dragged into the World War that was going on. He also carried on the tradition of actually getting *involved* in the affairs of Western Hemisphere governments and sending troops to 'Banana Republics' to bring them into order. The "walk softly and carry a big stick" had been expanded to include "and swing that stick hard on anyone that doesn't agree with you." Be that as it may, President Wilson could see that his own policy and that of staying disentangled from foreign affairs was starting to lead to more global problems that could be ameliorated *if* the US could be involved. The idea of an International Counsel was put into the Treaty of Versailles and called forth the League of Nations.

The track record of the United States, being that of an isolationist nation that espouses trade and National Sovereignty, but no foreign entanglements could not be overcome, and the US did *not* join the League of Nations. Many accredit this for a direct cause to the Second World War, but, in truth, the League was toothless, moribund, catered to dictators and had hard problems getting any sort of agreement on *anything*. Just like the UN. The expansion of Communism, Fascism and Japanese Imperialism all went on unhindered by the League and there was nothing that any Nation was willing to do about it, especially the US. The structure of the League or UN in, and of, itself cannot lead to *any* form of good policing of worldwide problems that had NOT been previously and BETTER addressed by International Diplomacy between Nations. The later UN did NOT prevent the rise of the Warsaw Pact nor of NATO nor of protecting the 'rights of man' when put under the Communist heel of oppression. And the UN has proven inept, cowardly and abusive of peacekeeping missions, actively exploiting and neglecting those they are meant to care for.

President Harry S. Truman put forth the post-WWII Doctrine for the US of emergency aid to keep a failing Nation independent so it could reorganize itself. This also supported the concept of Containment for the USSR and Communism as a whole, so that it would not use resources of one Nation to destabilize another Nation. As Communism is based on a global and transnationalist ideal, this put the US into direct Foreign Policy conflict with the USSR and Communist regimes. As these philosophical battlelines were drawn and took hold, the world started into a period of armed stasis in which Nuclear Weaponry gave rise to Mutual Assured Destruction as a de facto outlook between these two sides. This was the reductio ad absurdism of nuclear devices: once used by either side, the other promised unlimited and wholesale use of their arsenal. By doing this Deterrence came into being as a way to keep expansionism in check and crystallized faultering Nations to one side or the other.

What this engendered, however, for US Domestic Policy, was a slow erosion of the political basis of the Truman Doctrine. To stop the expansion of Communism the US would have to get involved in smaller foreign wars so as to support faltering regimes, beyond mere relief aid. South Korea and South Viet Nam are two such wars that embodied this, but the shift in public opinion as the post-war generation came into the voting segment of the population was one of denial and horror at this. Fighting foreign wars to *stop* Communism actually put the US as an *ally* to totalitarian, dictatorial and even fascistic regimes. They did not see that the *other side* brutally 're-educated' populations, impoverished them and then used them as pawns for further expansionism. The loss of American lives brought home by the new media of television, gave graphic depiction of war as it had not been seen in the US since the Civil War. A re-alignment took place as those that had supported 19th Century liberalism were overthrown in one of the two major political parties in the US and replaced by transnationalists and those wishing to put forth a globalist agenda.

That tectonic shift in the late 1960's opened up a rift in US politics then and is still felt to this day. The Truman Doctrine, for all of its faults, actually *worked* but by means it was NOT expected to: economics. The USSR and China needed to support new communist regimes and had to do so from a limited and near pre-industrial base. The Soviet Union, in particular, found itself draining economic lifeblood into North Viet Nam and further into Laos and Cambodia after the US left. This left the USSR with a *victory* but one that was draining their economy white. Still, the Cold War continued and to get any benefit from expansion they actually had to *expand* and thus moved to export revolution to various Central and South American Nations and, once Viet Nam was won, almost immediately into Afghanistan. That fast shift of fronts to exploit a Western weak area proved to be the last thing the USSR needed and US support of asymmetrical warfare in which one individual with a high tech weapon could take out multi-million dollar aircraft proved to be too much for the USSR. But, as seen elsewhere, this stagnation and decay led to greater problems as those involved in radical Islam used fighting the USSR as a means to coalesce together. Further, the USSR started to suffer internal criminal activity at a large scale and even problems with old internal and external religious sects. Of this latter the AUM Shinrikyo has still proven to be the most unsettling as they used a potent brainwashing combination to gain entree to heavy military industrial capabilities.

The actual blows struck by Poland to disintegrate the Warsaw Pact and the entire Communist Bloc brought the edifice of the USSR down. Unfortunately, in that post-Cold War era, President GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush all have not put forth *any* coherent and understandable foreign policy framework with which the United States may actually apply fairly to the World. The supporters of Transnationalism are degrading the Nation State system and offering only Elite Utopian Tyranny in its place, or, even worse,a Dystopic Fantasy of a Caliphate.

Those that support the concept that Free Trade Everywhere encourages liberty have *still* to address the problem of China, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Cuba, and a host of smaller failed Nations that are dotting the global landscape under oppression *with* Free Trade. In point of fact, Free Trade and 'low cost goods' have given the enemies of the US cheap and easy access to goods to HURT the US and liberty as a whole. Further, NAFTA has only served to export Mexican unemployment to the US even while the 15% of US companies in Mexico EMPLOY 40% of its workforce. This, must end as such agreements without harsh enforcement lead to the decay of industry, agriculture and sovereignty for the US.

Isolationism, however, has died a death of 3,000 in the Transnational Terrorist attacks of 9/11. Returning to *simple* isolationism will NOT work and the concept that leaving foreign Nations to their own problems since they will *not* be visited upon the US is now one of burying one's head in the sand and denying the world exists. And leaves your behind as an easy target for passers-by.

Globalism has failed TWICE via the League of Nations and the United Nations and *must* be given up as a conceptual framework for Foreign Policy. The UN, in particular, serves only as a support mechanism for tyranny and a way to export armed abuse to those who have fallen victim TO tyranny. The UN must be abolished as it no longer serves any good, save as banking for tyranny and support of same.

The United States should adhere to its Foreign Policy roots and re-instate them in new and harsher form than ever before. These roots, as previously talked about by the Jacksonian Party are simple to understand, but NOT simplistic in how they would be applied. In overview they are adhering to the concept that the ONLY law between Nations is that which is agreed to via DIPLOMACY between them and then enacted by their Governments. This includes a return to Jus ad bellum and the entire system of citing and waging Just War.

On Free Trade the simple policy of giving it to the Friends and Allies of the US so as to support them and encourage their growth is one that is honorable in both its outlook and conception. Those that wish mere *trade* with the US, but hold neither pro-/anti- views towards the Nation may pay a TARIFF upon their goods for ENTRY into the US market. If they will not honor the US with friendship, then they shall BUILD us with their MONEY. So long as they are not an enemy and if they go through Friend or Ally those goods gain no tariff as this SUPPORTS our Friends and Allies as middlemen with their 'cut'. And to those that are against the US: no trade of their goods either directly or via Our Friends and Allies to Our shores. We can do without those who hate us.

In support of our Friends and Allies, every means necessary to bring opposing, belligerent or just plain lax regimes into line should be used. Two modern examples of this approach are given for thought:

1) North Korea - China saved North Korea from destruction during the Korean War and should be held accountable for that activity. As they supply the bulk of ALL North Korean food and goods, China is a key to ending the threats from North Korea. To that end, China should be told that they OWN this problem on the 'You wanted them then, they are Yours now', concept. Further, China should be told that if they do *nothing* then the US will seek to encourage its Friends and Allies in the region to arm themselves with advanced attack and defense capabilities. These Nations would include: Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. If China further refuses to deal with North Korea's proliferation and threats problems, then China shall be de-listed for US trade and Taiwan added for full and FREE TRADE to exclude all of Red China's products and companies. China can pay a 10% entry to market tariff for selling in the US. North Korea is NOT the problem of the US and we do NOT appreciate being dragged into this abdication of responsibility amongst Communist regimes. You wanted that sorry place, now You clean it up.

2) Iran - Many say that the US has *no* levers to pull in Iran. They are incorrect. Iran has been suffering a number of internal uprisings and demonstrations and has had to crack down with its only reliable forces to keep the Nation together. As the US has strong Kurdish affiliation, we should encourage the Kurds to work with their brothers across the border to join together. This would require secession of the Kurdish lands in Iran and the US would *also* guarantee that any ethnic minorities in that area that JOINED with the Kurds would also get protection. As the US currently has 23,000 troops that will not be deployed from Germany to Iraq, they are now available for re-deployment. Iran should also be brought to trial in Iraq for their involvement with militias, sending non-uniformed military and establishing Intelligence operations on Iraqi soil. By supporting this, the US and New Iraqi Army can finally extinguish the Shia militias and seal the Iran/Iraq border, while shifting troops into the Kurdish provinces to support the Iranian Kurds and other minorities. This becomes an issue of protecting minority rights and human rights and National sovereignty and NOT one of a nuclear armed Iran. Now that Iran has moved Israel and Lebanon to the front pages, it is time to move Iran to them. Hurting TWO allies in the region: Israel and Iraq. Plus looking to destabilize the nascent democracy of Lebanon. Iran 'deserves' this sort of treatment and to have their bluff called and the stakes raised.

As a superpower the US can 'raise' stakes beyond anything that other Nations can do, even China. Still, by acting respectfully, responsibly and ADHERING TO PRINCIPLES the US can work its way through troubled times by doing things other Nations do not *expect* us to do. We must find ways to SUPPORT those Nations and Peoples who support US and give them Our Friendship and Support so that they may embrace freedom, liberty and democratic governance.

The US has NO Foreign Policy that anyone can articulate or even understand, and without that Our course amongst Nations is random and adrift and prone to reactions against hurts until the Ship of State is lost. An easy to understand Foreign Policy need not be simplistic, but it takes actual creativity and BELIEF in the ideals purported to make it work. Apparently this current and the past couple of previous administrations did not have either, and so we are without a course nor helmsman in the tempest of our times.

That must end.

Or We the People will be *at* an end.

Friday, July 07, 2006

Supporting Individuals

This is a position paper of The Jacksonian Party.

The Founder of this Party has firm and stated beliefs for not voting for any member of either House of Congress or the Elected Executives as they have abdicated their responsibilities and duties to the Constitution.

As a Party, however, The Jacksonian Party at this current time has to look at whatever the current Zero Party State coughs up, like a ragged hairball. So even while displeased with the Two Parties, The Jacksonian Party does support those individuals that appear to at least be in the same plane of existence and time-continuum and planet as the United States now occupies.

These individuals are rare.

One of them is Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn). Mr. Lieberman is facing a primary challenge in his home state by an individual that is a favorite of Leftists, but has few connections with reality and his actual State that he is running from, beyond being a wealthy individual residing there. Bull Moose sees this as some form of JFK vs McGovern ideological tussle within the Democratic Party, in which the Left seeks to oust Mr. Lieberman so as to gain ideological purity.

Luckily, Mr. Lieberman is gathering votes for an Independent run, should the Democratic primary go against him.

On the plus side Mr. Lieberman has always been strong on support of the Armed Forces, believes that Victory is a worthy goal in Iraq and has openly stated his support of the Armed Forces of the United States and has gained much ire from the Left in this doing. Further, he is NOT a Seatwarmer left over from the 99th Congress having first been elected to the 101st Congress. So at least he has not BROKEN that promise, although not been as strong a proponent as one could like on actually *fixing* the problem of illegal entry and staying in this Nation. On many other things Mr. Lieberman generally votes to the left of the midpoint between the Two Parties, but he is clear on the need for a viable Nation and the defense of it.

Thusly, while the individual who is the Founder of The Jacksonian Party could not, in good conscience, actually vote for Mr. Lieberman for *anything*, the actual Jacksonian Party urges individuals in Connecticut to support Mr. Lieberman's run for re-election as he is the closest thing to a Jacksonian within the entire Democratic Party. His staying power to those touchstones is admirable and commendable and speaks highly and deeply of his convictions to keep the Nation secure. In attitude and speaking ability Mr. Lieberman comes across as one's stodgy Uncle that everyone in the family dearly loves *because* he is plain and dependable and reliable.

Mr. Lieberman is one of the few individuals from either of the Two Parties in the Zero Party State that has those qualities that put him within that sphere known as 'Jacksonianism'. He does not adhere to that in words and often gives other indications to moderation and old style liberalism in his activities. For keeping to those things that make the Nation secure and supporting the Armed Forces and the need for Victory, Mr. Lieberman is one of the few *sane* voices left in either House of Congress.

If Mr. Lieberman merely dropped out of the race after losing a Democratic primary, one must think that the upcoming election would be one of meager turnout and close division between the ideologues who did come out to vote. It would be a 50/50 election... because the Center would have dropped out and wants no part of EITHER the Left or the Right. In that Connecticut is a microcosm of the Nation: close and nasty elections with the majority staying home.

The Jacksonian Party formally SUPPORTS the Candidacy and Re-Election to the Senate of Joseph I. Lieberman.

Give 'em Hell, Joe!

Or at least a *lot* of Heck.

"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error." - Andrew Jackson

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Our Union: It must be preserved

"Our Union: It must be preserved." - Andrew Jackson , President Jackson's toast at a Jefferson Day dinner, April 13, 1830.

On this day We the People gather to honor Our Nation, wherever We may be...

From lonely wastelands on foreign soil to Our own backyards.

We give honor and thanks to this Republic of Free People and pledge Ourselves once more to keeping it whole.

And give thanks to those that make such freedom possible, by guarding the Nation and giving those who oppose it reason to tremble in fear for denying that Free People shall be Free.

“Every good citizen makes his country's honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defence and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it.” - Andrew Jackson.