John McCain's Attacks On Liberty

From Liberty Defense League:

John McCain’s Attack on Liberty


Thu, Aug 26, 2010

Chuck Baldwin, Federal Gov. Tyranny

by Chuck Baldwin

original found here.



Anyone paying attention knows that John McCain has been a Big-Government Globalist Neocon (BGGN) for virtually his entire senatorial career. As with many BGGNs hiding out in the Republican Party, McCain likes to talk about smaller government, but his track record is littered with the promotion of one big government program after another. But, what else would one expect from a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?



Lately, however, McCain has outdone himself. He has introduced two bills in the US Senate that are about as Machiavellian as they could be. I am referring to S.3081, a bill that would authorize the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without trial, and S.3002, a bill that would authorize the federal government to regulate vitamins, minerals, and virtually all health and natural food products.



According to Examiner.com, “John McCain introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate which, if passed, would actually allow U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely, all without Miranda rights or ever being charged with a crime.”



The Examiner report continued by saying “This bill, introduced by McCain, who despite overwhelming evidence, claims to be a ‘conservative,’ would not only take away our right to a trial, but would also allow the federal government to arrest and imprison anyone the current administration deems hostile.



“Of course, that would be the same administration whose Homeland Security Secretary has classified veterans, retired law enforcement, Ron Paul [and Chuck Baldwin] supporters, and conservatives as ‘terrorists.’”



The Examiner report concluded by saying “If it was not clear before, it should be now that John McCain has as little respect for the Constitution as he does for our borders.”



Amen!



If McCain gets his way, your constitutional right to a speedy trial by jury is gone, as well as your constitutional right to Habeas Corpus. But, of course, they would attempt to justify this by claiming it is being done in the name of national security and the war on terrorism.



See the Examiner report at:



http://tinyurl.com/examiner-mccain-s3081
Sen. John McCain wants to allow U.S. citizens to be arrested, held indefinitely


March 12th, 2010 4:21 am ET.

Sen. John McCAin

Photo: AP

Last week, John McCain introduced a bill into the U.S. Senate which, if passed, would actually allow U.S. citizens to be arrested and detained indefinitely, all without Miranda rights or ever being charged with a crime.



The stated purpose of S. 3081 (The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act) reads: “To provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for

other purposes.”



The bill has nine co-sponsors including Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA).



Section 5 of S. 3081 states:



“An individual, including a citizen of the United

States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent

under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article

5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of

Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal

charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities

against the United States or its coalition partners in which

the individual has engaged, or which the individual has

purposely and materially supported, consistent with the

law of war and any authorization for the use of military

force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities.”



This bill, introduced by McCain, who despite overwhelming evidence, claims to be a “conservative,” would not only take away our right to a trial, but would also allow the federal government to arrest and imprison anyone the current administration deems hostile.



Of course, that would be the same administration whose Homeland Security Secretary has classified veterans, retired law enforcement, Ron Paul supporters, and conservatives as “terrorists.”



If it was not clear before, it should be now that John McCain has as little respect for the Constitution as he does for our borders.








Regarding McCain’s desire for the federal government to take over the vitamin industry, attorney Jonathan Emord wrote, “If you had any doubt about whether John McCain is a limited government conservative, you may put that doubt to rest–he is not. On February 3, 2010, John McCain introduced to the United States Senate the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010. Reflecting upon this poorly written bill, I am struck by the fact that John McCain apparently sees little difference between fissile material and dietary supplements. He is intent on regulating supplements as if they were radioactive enriched uranium rather than bioactive vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and botanicals that more often than not help people.



“The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 enjoys support from the most liberal members of Congress. It is an invitation for the FDA to assume broad new powers and replicate here the system now operating in Europe over dietary supplements where dietary ingredients are presumed adulterated and unlawful to sell unless pre-approved by the government. In short, good bye free enterprise, good bye limited government, and hello more heavy handed, arbitrary and punitive FDA bias against the beleaguered dietary supplement industry.”



See Emord’s column at:



http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan118.htm
McCAIN TO FDA: REGULATE JOE THE PLUMBER








By Attorney Jonathan Emord

February 15, 2010

NewsWithViews.com



If you had any doubt about whether John McCain is a limited government conservative, you may put that doubt to rest—he is not. On February 3, 2010, John McCain introduced to the United States Senate the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010. Reflecting upon this poorly written bill, I am struck by the fact that John McCain apparently sees little difference between fissile material and dietary supplements. He is intent on regulating supplements as if they were radioactive enriched uranium rather than bioactive vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and botanicals that more often than not help people.



The Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 enjoys support from the most liberal members of Congress. It is an invitation for the FDA to assume broad new powers and replicate here the system now operating in Europe over dietary supplements where dietary ingredients are presumed adulterated and unlawful to sell unless pre-approved by the government. In short, good bye free enterprise, good bye limited government, and hello more heavy handed, arbitrary and punitive FDA bias against the beleaguered dietary supplement industry. Yes, this is the same John McCain who unsuccessfully tried to rally Reagan Republicans on the notion that he was the true Reagan clone. If you believed that rhetoric, let me assure you, John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. He is very wide of the mark of that great man.



Now lest you think the FDA lacks power to remove dietary supplements from the market when sold in forms or dosage amounts that present a risk of illness or injury, let me also assure you that it has that power. It is codified in statute and embedded in regulation. FDA can halt the sale of any dietary ingredient that presents a risk of illness or injury, can get an injunction blocking the sale, and can prosecute those responsible. The power already exists. But McCain’s bill gives FDA power beyond the necessary. He apparently wants the FDA to function outside the bounds of due process of law and the separation of powers.



Consider the provisions of the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010. Under it, every year every person or entity that manufactures, packages, holds, distributes, labels, or licenses a dietary supplement has to register with FDA and identify who they are and all of the products they sell or become a federal felon. Remember McCain’s rather pedestrian “Joe the Plumber” example during the campaign? Well I would not be surprised if Joe the Plumber keeps his large family above the poverty line during these hard economic times by selling vitamins from his house as a multi-level marketer. Well, Joe, the same McCain who promised you regulatory and tax relief is now offering you the chance to comply with a whole host of new federal regulations and, if you don’t, to learn what it is like to have three square meals given you year after year in a prison cell at the federal penitentiary.



Under Senator McCain’s bill everyone from Joe the Plumber to the local health food store owner to the large multi-national supplement manufacturer and distributor must report to FDA their names, addresses, dietary supplement products they held and sold, and the ingredients of those products, or go to jail. For the first time in American history, every person who distributes supplements will be tracked by the federal Food and Drug Administration, subjecting him or her to inspection and to the panoply of regulatory restraints that the FDA now uses against wholesalers and large retailers. Joe, call your lawyer.



Under Senator McCain’s bill, the FDA Commissioner (in the same manner as the European Food Safety Authority) will create a list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients.” If a dietary ingredient is not on the Commissioner’s accepted list, it will be unlawful to sell in the United States. In other words, all supplements are presumed unlawful unless and until the FDA Commissioner says otherwise. Forget about requiring the government to prove food elements unsafe before removing them from the market. Under McCain’s bill, at her whim or caprice FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg can ban the ingredient as unsafe. She can do it summarily without a hearing, without a rulemaking, and without any due process.



Senator McCain’s bill renders all who sell these products instantaneously second class citizens who must get down on bended knees before the new federal Dietary Ingredient Queen (the FDA Commissioner) and beg and plead for dear mercy to sell the very same substance that yesterday were sold without serious adverse reactions.



Oh, speaking of adverse reactions. Senator McCain’s bill imposes even more reporting requirements, and they are imposed on everyone who manufactures, packs, holds, distributes, labels, or licenses a dietary supplement. I guess John McCain likes red tape after all. The law already requires manufacturers to report any serious adverse event and has a liberal adverse event reporting system that invites through the Medwatch system every doctor in the country to report on any suspected injury arising from a dietary supplement. Not enough says the Senator. Now “non-serious adverse events” have to be reported. What in the world are “non-serious adverse events/” The bill does not say.



Lets think about this for a moment. If the cat swallows your multi-vitamins, is that a non-serious adverse event? If the supplement is designed to promote regularity and you have more frequent bowel movements than you would like, is that a non-serious adverse event? If you fail to drink water with your multi-vitamin and it gets lodged in your throat, is that a non-serious adverse event? If you experience a niacin flush, is that a non-serious adverse event? If you don’t like the taste, color, or consistency of the product, is that a non-serious adverse event? If you think the name of the product stupid, is that a non-serious adverse event?





Advertisement



How could you include such an inherently ambiguous invitation to over-regulation as requiring the reporting of “non-serious adverse event reports” and not even define the term in the statute? What is FDA going to do with all of these reports of “non-serious adverse event reports.” Who cares about non-serious adverse event reports? Why should taxpayers fund government employees to mull over, file, and write regulatory letters about non-serious adverse event reports? What next, mandatory inspections for those who file non-serious adverse event reports? Why should we take non-serious adverse event reports seriously?



Every person who, or entity that, manufactures, packs, holds, distributes, labels, or licenses a dietary supplement has to report once a year every “non-serious adverse event” that comes to his or her attention. So Joe the Plumber who supplements his income with the sale of supplements hears from Sally the Teacher that the berry flavored protein shake mix he sold her last week tasted awful, like wall paper paste she says. Dutiful Joe, get your Non-Serious Adverse Event Report form 723 out and fill it in carefully under penalty of perjury and file that in strict accordance with federal regulations or you, yes even you Joe will go directly to jail.



Knock. Knock. Who’s there? FDA. FDA who? FDA come to see if you, Joe the Plumber, are keeping for three years in a manner consistent with federal regulations all of your “non-serious adverse event reports.” Get out, says Joe, I voted for John McCain. We’ve got news for you, Joe, says FDA, John McCain sent us.



Yes, under Senator McCain’s bill every person who or entity that manufactures, packages, holds, distributes, labels, or licenses a dietary supplement has to keep records of “non-serious adverse events” for a period of three years to enable the government to inspect them. No, I am not making this stuff up.



For those more than a few Americans who still value their rights more seriously than John McCain, consider this provision of Senator McCain’s bill. Under the “Recall Authority” section, if in her sole discretion the FDA Commissioner thinks there is “a reasonable probability” (in other words, she needs no proof, just a hunch) that a supplement would cause an injury, she can order without going to a court of law that the product not be distributed, marketed or sold. That’s it.



Margaret Hamburg to Joe the Plumber: John McCain sent me. Joe to Margaret, “he did?” Margaret to Joe: Yes, and I, like Sally the Teacher, do not like your berry flavored protein powder. I hate the taste and, moreover, if the whole can spills on the floor and an infant laps it up that infant could die. So, because of that serious health risk I am ordering you Joe the Plumber to cease and desist selling the powder. But other people also sell supplement powders, says Joe. I don’t care, says Margaret, and to quote one of your fellow Republicans, “I’m the decider.”



There no safeguards in this bill to prevent an abusive use of the new regulatory powers—not a one. Apparently Senator McCain trusts the government. Indeed, he trusts the FDA completely in this bill and trusts those the FDA regulates not at all.



Senator McCain has a solution for those who object. After the FDA Commissioner has forced you out of business on nothing more than “a reasonable probability,” you can ask the Commissioner for a hearing. Now during the hearing, you still cannot market or sell your product and it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars and require a lot of scientists to testify and lawyers to defend you but in the end you will have a hearing. It may take months all the while you will not be able to sell your product, but that’s okay because if the hearing lasts long enough you will be eligible for social security and, if you do not eat, you can put that toward your legal bills.



So, without any proof whatsoever, but on a simple hunch, the FDA can ban the sale of any dietary supplement under Senator McCain’s very trusting bill (trusting of the regulator, not the regulatee). The ban can continue without any precise time limit. Government hearings can take years. After the hearing (before the very same party accusing you, the FDA) you will not be surprised to learn that the FDA thinks it was right and you wrong. You will then at the FDA’s election be required at your own expense to recall the product from the market.







Under Senator McCain’s bill, the FDA Commissioner has unbridled discretion to remove any dietary ingredient from the market on a mere suspicion that it causes harm. There is no separation of powers, so the party charging you with a violation (the FDA) prosecutes you and judges your violation. In other words, John McCain fully endorses the modern regulatory state and is opposed to the system of checks and balances and separation of powers prescribed as necessary to avoid tyranny by none other than the Founding Fathers of the United States.







Based on this pedigree I think John McCain would do well resigning from the U.S. Senate and becoming a member of the European Parliament. That legislative body has adopted a system of prior restraint very much like the one he advocates here, and Europeans are suffering from it right now. I hope the silent majority out there who think more like Ronald Reagan than John McCain will send McCain and all elected representatives an unmistakable message: Kill the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 in committee. It’s unsafe for freedom.



© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved






Please remember, this is the same John McCain who, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, said he would “order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America.” Of course, McCain didn’t explain where this authority would come from, because such a proposal has no legal or constitutional authority. And, by the way, this one little sentence, if implemented, would cost taxpayers some $300 billion.



McCain also said he wanted to tap Mr. Climate Change Wacko himself, Al Gore, “to work in his administration on developing a new and much tougher U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty.”



(Source: Cliff Kincaid. See his column at:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff260.htm )

McCAIN FOLLOWS OBAMA DOWN THE SAME SOCIALIST ROAD












By Cliff Kincaid



October 9, 2008

NewsWithViews.com



It is terrifying to see our financial system crumbling because of corruption on Wall Street, aided and abetted by government policies of too much federal spending, debt, and intervention in the economy. But it is also troubling to see our economic system of free enterprise slipping away as the candidates of both major political parties propose more federal intervention, spending and debt as solutions to these problems. Our media have an obligation to inform the American people that we are moving into a full-blown socialist economy.



At this point, with the financial crisis continuing to grow, isn’t it apparent that the “bailout” plan was in no real sense a “rescue,” as both the liberal and conservative media were calling it?



On Glenn Beck’s CNN show on October 6, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal editorial page at least had the integrity to admit he was just wrong. He said he is “embarrassed” over endorsing the “rescue” plan. “I want to apologize,” he said. “I drank the Kool-aid.” There are many more in the media who should feel embarrassed and issue apologies, and I discussed them in several columns for Accuracy in Media.



On Fox News, for example, “conservative” Fred Barnes called House conservatives “crazy” and “idiotic” for opposing the plan. Now who looks like the idiot?



On CNBC, the plan was considered so vital and important that correspondent Michelle Caruso-Cabrera led a discussion of how to bypass Congress and the Constitution when the House initially failed to approve it.



Rather than rescue anything, these airheads have endorsed a socialist-style takeover of the financial sector, paid for with more federal spending and debt. To make matters worse, they won’t label it for what it is—socialism.



The situation is now so bad that Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, tried to move to the left of the Democrat, Barack Obama, during Tuesday night’s debate by proposing that he would “order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America…” McCain didn’t explain where this authority would come from. But this proposal, which is estimated to cost $300 billion, followed his statement that “We obviously have to stop this spending spree that’s going on in Washington.”



On top of this monumental gaffe, in a tragic but humorous example of Washington doublespeak, the McCain campaign issued a statement calling this socialist proposal the “American Homeownership Resurgence Plan.”



This debate performance followed McCain’s announcement that he would “tap” people such as former Democratic vice-president Al Gore to work in his administration on developing a new and much tougher U.N.-sponsored global warming treaty. Gore is considered a menace among conservatives for falsifying the causes and dangers of global warming in order to increase government control over our lives. “I have great respect for Al Gore,” McCain said. Once again, Barack Obama would agree.





Advertisement



On the Washington Wire blog of the Wall Street Journal, the responses to the McCain “resurgence plan” on housing were interesting and informative. They included:



• McCain is sounding more like Obama every day. This truly is a race to the bottom.

• After bailing out the Wall Street crooks, I’m bailing out the irresponsible and greedy speculators? What has happened to freedom and accountability that made America great?

• Oh, great, now even McCain is a socialist! Is this part of the spending freeze proposal?? We have lost our minds.



In a statement on the plan, issued after the debate, the campaign claimed that the next president would already have the authority to buy up these mortgages under the socialist-style “bailout” plan approved by Congress. That is a matter of dispute. But the statement does admit, in its final sentence, that “It may be necessary for Congress to raise the overall borrowing limit.” That means more debt.



Another McCain proposal was to recommend an increase from $100,000 to $250,000 for FDIC insurance on deposits. This, too, was supported by Obama, and it was incorporated in the “bailout” bill. But as financial analyst and adviser Peter Schiff has noted, this proposal was not coupled with extra money budgeted to fund the increased taxpayer liability. “Only in Washington would a bill pass which simultaneously makes banks more likely to fail while increasing taxpayer exposure when they do!” he commented.



[NOTE: Cliff's book "Global Bondage" is out of print. Copies are still available. Order one today, while supply lasts.]



McCain also proposed that “we use the exchange stability fund that the Treasury has available—$250 billion—to shore up these [U.S. financial] institutions.” But the Exchange Stabilization Fund was never intended for such a purpose. It was established to defend the value of the U.S. dollar. However, it was used during the Clinton Administration, without a vote of approval by Congress, to prop up the Mexican peso. This U.S. taxpayer-backed bailout scheme was arranged by then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who had been co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, which was heavily invested in Mexico.



This is the same Goldman Sachs which spawned the Bush Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson, who sparked the current financial panic and quickly offered a three-page proposal to make himself a financial dictator of the United States in order to solve it.



Now that he has assumed this power (after the three-page proposal mushroomed into more than 400 pages, complete with pork barrel spending to get the necessary votes for passage), Paulson has named a former Goldman Sachs banker, Neel Kashkari, to run the Treasury Department’s program to buy troubled assets. Kashkari is the new Treasury Department Assistant Secretary and will run the new “Office of Financial Stability.”



This appointment has drawn fire from Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, Republican of Michigan, on the right, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, on the left. “His appointment seems like appointing a fox to protect the hen house,” noted Kucinich.



National security expert and former Pentagon official Frank Gaffney warned two years ago about Bush’s appointment of Paulson, calling him the “Armand Hammer of China,” a reference to the businessman who built up the power of the old Soviet Union in exchange for favors from the communists. At a time when Paulson was up for Senate confirmation, Gaffney asked, “Will any of his Senate interlocutors even bother to explore the nominee’s troubling fifteen-year ties to Communist China and the potential for serious conflicts of interest they pose, with national security as well as economic implications for our country?” The answer was no. Paulson’s nomination was confirmed by unanimous voice vote.







As we noted in a column, Paulson’s plan, which was passed by Congress, includes a provision to enable him to bail out banks in China and other countries holding U.S. financial assets. This is one of many conflicts of interest involving Paulson and China.



In a little-noticed dispatch from Beijing on September 25, the Reuters news agency reported that Chinese regulators had told its domestic banks “to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis…”



Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!







Enter Your E-Mail Address:









What did Paulson know and when did he know it? Congressional “leaders,” as well as Bush, McCain, and Obama, seem to have no interest in getting to the bottom of this.



In terms of the media, where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins when we really need them?



© 2008 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved







E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.



Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues.



Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.



Web Site: www.AIM.org



E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org







This is the same John McCain who addressed the Hoover Institution on May 1, 2007, and said if he were elected President, he would create a new international organization known as the “League of Democracies” (LD).



In advancing the LD, McCain said, “We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies.” He then added, “The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order . . .”



See McCain’s speech to the Hoover Institution at:



http://www.cfr.org/publication/13252/
Essential Documents Senator McCain Addresses The Hoover Institution


Published May 1, 2007



Speaker: John McCain

Arizona Senator John McCain, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, gave this May 2007 speech at the Hoover Institution.



Since the dawn of our republic, Americans have believed our nation was created for a purpose. We were, as Alexander Hamilton said, a people of great destinies.' In the Revolution, the Civil War, in World Wars One and Two, and in the many struggles of the Cold War, our forebears met and overcame threats to our nation's survival and to our way of life. They believed they had a duty to serve a cause greater than their self-interest. They kept faith with the eternal principles of our Declaration of Independence against the evils of despotism, fascism, and totalitarianism. And they changed the world. Democracy was born and then spread across the globe, from North America to Europe to Asia and Latin America, to Africa and the Middle East. Today we stand, grateful, on this foundation of freedom.



Now it is our generation's turn to build. It is our generation's turn to restore and replenish the faith in our nation and our principles. We have suffered terrible attacks at the hands of a new enemy that relentlessly seeks our destruction. New dangers have arisen, great powers are emerging and seek to shift the international balance of power, and we are in the midst of two wars whose outcome will shape our future. Here at home there is discord and doubt, and our famous optimism as a people has begun to flicker. It must not. Ever since Jamestown, we have displayed courage in the face of adversity. We are a hardy, spirited and steadfast people, a nation of pioneers and inveterate problem solvers. Today, America remains the most attractive of nations, where people the world over wish to visit, study, live, start businesses, invest and look for inspiration in our values and our freedoms. That is why I believe we are about to enter our greatest and proudest years as a nation.



Our great president, Harry Truman once said of America, God has created us and brought us to our present position of power and strength for some great purpose.' In his time, that great purpose was to erect structures of peace and prosperity that could provide safe passage through the Cold War. Today, we face new dangers and new opportunities and we must have a new common mission: To build an enduring global peace, and to build it upon the foundations of freedom, opportunity, prosperity and hope.



There is so much promise in today's world. We live in an era of unprecedented human progress. An increasingly global commerce is spreading a better and freer life to millions. Our scientists and physicians are eradicating diseases that once ravaged populations. More people live under democracy than at any time in human history. More than ever before, a father and mother can pass on to their children a happier, healthier, longer, and freer life than they themselves knew. Yet as we seize and expand these opportunities, we must recognize the dangers posed by the forces of terrorism and tyranny that look backward into a world of darkness and violence. With our democratic friends and allies around the world, we need to build a new global order of peace, a peace that can last not just for a decade but for a century, where the dangers and threats we face diminish, and where human progress reaches new heights.



Almost two centuries ago James Madison declared that the great struggle of the Epoch' was between liberty and despotism.' Many thought that this struggle ended with the Cold War, but it didn't. It took on new guises, such as the modern terrorist network, an enemy of progress that has turned our technological advances to its own use, and in rulers trying to rebuild 19th-century autocracies in a 21st century world. Today the talk is of the war on terror, a war in which we must succeed. But the war on terror cannot be the only organizing principle of American foreign policy. International terrorists capable of inflicting mass destruction are a new phenomenon. But what they seek and what they stand for are as old as time. They comprise part of worldwide political, economic, and philosophical struggle between the future and the past, between progress and reaction, and between liberty and despotism. Upon the outco me of that struggle depends our security, our prosperity, and our democratic way of life.



Democracy and freedom continue to flourish around the world, but there have been some discouraging trends. In China, despite miraculous economic growth and a higher standard of living for many millions of Chinese, hopes for an accompanying political reform have diminished. The ruling party seems determined to dominate political life, and as in the past, the talk is of order, not democracy, the supremacy of the party not of the people. China astonishes the world with its economic and technological modernization, but then spends billions trying to control that great icon of the modern era, the internet. China recognizes its vital interest in economic integration with the democratic world. But it has also joined Russia in hindering international efforts to put pressure on dictators in Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma, and other pariah states. China expresses its desire for a stable peace in East Asia, but it contin ues to increase its military might, fostering distrust and concerns in the region about Beijing's ambitions. We must insist that China use its newfound power responsibly at home and abroad.



A decade ago, the great Russian people had thrown off communist tyranny and seemed determined to build democracy and a free market and to join the West. Today, Russia looks more and more like some 19th-century autocracy, marked by diminishing political freedoms, shadowy intrigue, and mysterious assassinations. Beyond its borders Moscow has tried to expand its influence over its neighbors in Eastern, Central and even Western Europe. While the more democratic Russia of the 1990s sought to deepen its ties with Europe and America, today a more authoritarian Moscow manipulates Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas to compel silence and obedience, and to try to drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. The Russian government is even more brutal toward the young democracies on its periphery, threatening them with trade embargoes and worse if they move too close to the West. It supports separatist mov ements in Georgia and Moldova and openly intervened in Ukraine's presidential elections. And it is supplying weapons to Iran, Syria, and indirectly to Hezbollah.



But if some in Russia yearn to turn the clock back two decades, the zealots of Islamic radicalism would turn it back centuries. The mullahs of Iran and the leaders of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah want to cleanse the Muslim world of modernity and the ideals of the Enlightenment, and return it to an imagined past of theological purity. They state their goal plainly: a universal Islamic theocracy, a new Caliphate across all the lands once dominated by Islam, including the lands held in Europe centuries ago. Meanwhile, Mideast autocracies fuel this radicalism by denying their people political expression, economic opportunity or hope for a better future.



These governments differ from one another in a thousand ways, and our policies toward them must reflect those differences. Our national interests require that we pursue economic and strategic cooperation with China and Russia, that we support Egypt and Saudi Arabia's role as peacemakers in the Middle East, and that we work with Pakistan to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But our national interests also require that we continually press for progress.



We have seen how autocratic governments often work against our interests. Iran is able to aggressively pursue nuclear weapons and hegemony in the Persian Gulf, in part, because it has been shielded by the world's powerful autocracies. North Korea defies the international community with its nuclear weapons and missile programs and an obscene human rights record. Last month, North Korea unsurprisingly missed the first deadline in the most recent nuclear agreement and it remains to be seen if China will use its enormous influence to demand better behavior.



The path to an enduring peace lies in a clear-eyed pursuit of our national interest that does not accede to autocratic trends. We must expand the power and reach of democracy, freedom, and human rights using our many strengths as a free people. But that means making some substantial changes in how we do business. Change must begin at home.



Back in 1947, just a year into the Cold War, the Truman administration launched a massive overhaul of the nation's foreign policy, defense, and intelligence agencies to meet new challenges. Today, we must do the same to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I will have much more to say about this in the future but our needs are clear in the organization, skills, and capabilities needed to prevail in the conflict with violent extremists: an intelligence community that is able to collect and analyze information on and conduct operations against our enemies; a public diplomacy effort that makes our case to the world effectively; a diplomatic corps that understands stability' does not mean supporting dictatorships; foreign aid programs that foster good governance; generals that understand and learn from past wars and apply those lessons to the future; defense procurement that is transparent, accountable and e ffective; and civilian defense leadership that is held accountable for results and provides the resources necessary to achieve results. We must never again launch a military operation with too few troops to complete the mission and build a secure, stable, and democratic peace. When we fight a war, we must fight to win.



We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves. Nor do we want to. The Declaration of Independence proclaimed our duty to pay decent respect to the opinions of mankind.' When I think back to the 1980s, the decade of triumph in the Cold War, I think about our great alliances. Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, Mitterrand, Nakasone they were all strong leaders who jealously guarded the interests of their peoples. But they linked arms against communist tyranny.



Today we need to revive that vital democratic solidarity. We need to renew the terms of our partnership and strike a new grand bargain for the future. We Americans must be willing to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. Like all other nations, we reserve the sovereign right to defend our vital national security when and how we deem necessary. But our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom, knowledge and resources necessary to succeed. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we must work to persuade our democratic friends and allies that we are right. But in return, we must be willing to be persuaded by them. To be a good leader, America must be a good ally.



Our partners must be good allies, too. They must have the will and the ability to act in the common defense of freedom, democracy, and economic prosperity. They must spend the money necessary to build effective militaries that can train and fight alongside ours. They must help us deliver aid to those in need and encourage good governance in fragile states. They must face the threats of our world squarely and not evade their global responsibilities. And they must put an end to the mindless anti-Americanism that today mars international discourse. No alliance can work unless all its members share a basic faith in one another and accept an equal share of the responsibility to build a peace based on freedom.



If we strike this new bargain and renew our transatlantic solidarity, I believe we must then take the next step and expand the circle of our democratic community. As we speak, American soldiers are serving in Afghanistan alongside British, Canadian, Dutch, German, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, Polish, and Lithuanian soldiers from the NATO alliance. They are also serving alongside forces from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea --all democratic allies or close partners of the United States. But they are not all part of a common structure. They don't work together systematically or meet regularly to develop diplomatic and economic strategies to meet their common problems. The 21st century world no longer divides neatly into geographic regions. Organizations and partnerships must be as international as the challenges we confront.



The NATO alliance has begun to deal with this gap by promoting global partnerships between current members of the alliance and the other great democracies in Asia and elsewhere. We should go further and start bringing democratic peoples and nations from around the world into one common organization, a worldwide League of Democracies. This would not be like the universal-membership and failed League of Nations' of Woodrow Wilson but much more like what Theodore Roosevelt envisioned: like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. The new League of Democracies would form the core of an international order of peace based on freedom. It could act where the UN fails to act, to relieve human suffering in places like Darfur. It could join to fight the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa and fashion better policies to confront the crisis of our environment. It could provide unimpeded market access to t hose who share the values of economic and political freedom, an advantage no state-based system could attain. It could bring concerted pressure to bear on tyrants in Burma or Zimbabwe, with or without Moscow's and Beijing's approval. It could unite to impose sanctions on Iran and thwart its nuclear ambitions. It could provide support to struggling democracies in Ukraine and Serbia and help countries like Thailand back on the path to democracy.



This League of Democracies would not supplant the United Nations or other international organizations. It would complement them. But it would be the one organization where the world's democracies could come together to discuss problems and solutions on the basis of shared principles and a common vision of the future. If I am elected president, I will call a summit of the world's democracies in my first year to seek the views of my democratic counterparts and begin exploring the practical steps necessary to realize this vision.



Americans should lead this effort, as we did sixty years ago in founding NATO. But if we are to lead responsibly, our friends and allies must see us as responsible nation, concerned not only about our own well-being but about the health of the world's economy and the future of our planet.



Throughout the Cold War, America's support for a global economic system based on free trade and free flows of capital went hand-in-hand with our support of political freedom and democracy. To build a new era of peace based on freedom, we have to work even harder through our economic and trade policies to encourage open societies and create a climate of opportunity and hope. Our economic strategies in the Middle East must complement our political strategies by supporting modernizers who want to improve the lives of their people against those radicals and autocrats who would impoverish them. In Latin America and Africa, we need to support those who favor open economies and democratic government against populist demagogues who are dragging their nations back to the failed socialist policies of the past. In Asia we need to show that growing democratic economies can do more for the average man and woman and less for corrupt senior officials than growing economies in a one-party state.



Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. No one has sacrificed more in lives and treasure to save the world from tyranny. No nation spends more in combined public and private philanthropic efforts to combat disease and poverty around the world. And no one works harder to ensure the continued health and vitality of the global economy.



Still, there is more we can do. To be successful international leaders, we need to be good international citizens. This means upholding and strengthening international laws and norms, including the laws of war. We must champion the Geneva Conventions, and we must fulfill the letter and the spirit of our international obligations. It is profoundly in our interest to do so, since our failure to abide by these rules puts our own soldiers at risk. Our moral standing in the world requires that we respect what are, after all, American principles of justice. Our values will always triumph in any war of ideas, and we can't let failings like prisoner abuse tarnish our image. If we are model citizens of the world, more people around the world will look to us as a model.



When our nation was founded over two hundred years ago, we were the world's only democratic republic. Today, there are more than 100 electoral democracies spread all across the globe. We must reaffirm our faith in the principles that our founders declared to be universal, that all people are created equal and possess inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We fought a Revolution, a Civil War, two world wars, and a cold war to vindicate these principles and ensure that freedom could be enjoyed, as Abraham Lincoln promised, by all people of all colors everywhere.' We were right to struggle for democracy then, and we are right to do so now.



This is not idealism, my friends. It is the truest kind of realism. Today as in the past, our interests are inextricably linked to the global progress of our ideals. The vision of a new era of enduring peace based on freedom is not a Republican vision. It is not a Democratic vision. It is an American vision. The American people have known instinctively for two centuries that we are safer when the world is more democratic. Whatever our differences, we all share the same goal: a world of peace and freedom, of prosperity and opportunity, of hope. We have a duty to ourselves to be true to those beliefs, to use our great power wisely on behalf of freedom. As Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his speech to the British Parliament in 1982, Let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable.'



Essential Documents are vital primary sources underpinning the foreign policy debate.




If McCain and his CFR buddies get their way, this new LD would be a United Nations on steroids! As I said all over America on the campaign trail in 2008, “John McCain is a globalist.” Of course, so is Barack Obama. In fact, every President since (and including) George H.W. Bush has been a full-fledged, rotten-to-the-core globalist.



And, yes, this is the same John McCain who was one of the primary movers and shakers (along with Obama, Lindsey Graham, and G.W. Bush) who attempted (and would again) to provide amnesty to illegal aliens and open America’s borders to illegal immigration.



And now McCain wants the federal government to take over the vitamin industry, and he wants to give the federal government the power to jail American citizens indefinitely without trial.



The citizens of Arizona can do the American people–and liberty itself–a great favor this year by giving Senator John McCain his walking papers. Big-Government dinosaurs like McCain are an albatross around the neck of freedom and constitutional government. If we don’t send them packing now, the shackles they put around our throats will become insufferable.



*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:



http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19



(c) Chuck Baldwin