Marco Rubio, freshman U.S. senator from Florida, is angling for the position of vice president on fellow "neoconservative" Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Rubio, a "Tea-Party" Republican of 2010, was elected on promises not only to halt the growth of government under Barack Obama, but also rollback the federal government in general. In office, however, Rubio has defended Barack's illegal and unnecessary foreign interventions in Libya and Uganda, voted for the codification of the federal government's heretofore de-facto surveillance/police state, and agitated for waging war against Syria and Iran. Like all neoconservatives, Rubio is oblivious to the damage that war inflicts upon life and liberty. War is government at its strongest and most aggressive, when it no longer relies merely upon the threat of force to accomplish its ends, but is free to unleash violence as it sees fit. As Randolph Bourne noted, writing in opposition to World War I, "War is the health of the state."
Rubio waxes eloquent about the excesses of Barack, and is fundamentally correct, as far as he goes. Beneath his partisan politics, however, Rubio's philosophy of the role of government and nature of the federal union differ from Barack's only in style, not substance. Far from "conservative," Rubio falls squarely in the American-statist tradition of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson, all of whom radically expanded the power of the federal government, some to thunderous applause, others to the thundering of muskets and cannons. In his most recent speech at the Brookings Institute, Rubio himself listed as his foreign-policy heroes:
1) Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who created the federal welfare state, introduced counter-cyclical fiscal policy to the federal government, and provoked World War II with Japan through strategic embargoes. All that need be said of FDR is "the New Deal."
2) Harry Truman, who deployed nuclear weapons against thousands of innocent Japanese civilians, let the United Nations drag the U.S. into the Korean War, and squandered federal taxes on loans to "rebuild" postwar Europe - as if war-ravaged economies were not capable of recovery.
Most odiously, Truman, despite needlessly committing U.S. soldiers to the Korean War, refused to grant General Douglas MacArthur the freedom necessary to win for political reasons. Truman was caught between his loyalty to one-world government (the U.N.) and hopes of reelection. To minimize the unpopular Korean War without betraying his precious U.N., Truman deprived U.S. forces of resources, and gave MacArthur no other option except to hold the line. Apparently, to Truman, U.S. soldiers fighting in a foreign war were expendable pawns in his political games. Growing tension between MacArthur (who had a plan to win the war) and Truman (who had a plan to win reelection) culminated in Truman's curt dismissal of MacArthur, a five-star general who fought in the trenches in World War I, served as Supreme Commander of the Pacific Theater in World War II, and as Supreme Commander of the Far East in the Korean War.
After three years of stalemate, newly elected president Dwight Eisenhower wisely negotiated an armistice to the Korean War, although to this day the war has never technically ended, and U.S. soldiers still occupy South Korea. MacArthur, jaded by the cynicism of Truman's politics, remarked, "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear." MacArthur returned to the U.S. and unsuccessfully campaigned for president under the aegis of non-interventionist conservatives like Robert Taft.
3) John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who bumbled his way into the Vietnam War and ardently supported the socialist-rooted International Monetary Fund.
After paying homage to these imperial presidents, Rubio elaborated his vision of the U.S. government's role in the world. Far from the foreign policy that Thomas Jefferson outlined in his first inaugural address - "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" - Rubio envisions a "robust and muscular" foreign policy in which the "leadership" of the U.S. government maintains "world order."
The Fallacy of Left/Right
Rubio, remarking about the resurgence of pro-peace conservatives like Ron Paul, lamely joked, "If you go far enough to the right, you wind up on the left." Rubio apparently ascribes to the standard right/left political paradigm into which Americans are indoctrinated. On this bizarre continuum, "the right" is associated with economic freedom, nationalism, and conservatism, while "the left" is associated with social welfare, peace, and progressivism. The facts, however, contradict this theory. Iconic Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon often experimented with economic intervention, and iconic Democrats like FDR and LBJ have been ferocious warhawks. Increasingly, left and right appear to be two sides of the same coin.
The political continuum is not between arbitrary categories of "right" and "left" (terms originally used to describe the classes represented at the Estates-General of Revolutionary France, and thus totally exotic to American political lexicon), but between liberty and statism. Furthermore, neither right nor left has a monopoly on either liberty or statism. Both sides, Republican and Democrat alike, have shown a bipartisan propensity for tyranny, especially concerning foreign policy, in which the consensus is largely for empire. For example, despite all the differences between them, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama have all waged a two-decade war against Iraq. The reason for this is the nature of government itself. Government is a parasitic, not productive, entity, which uses force to accomplish its ends. Therefore, as Murray Rothbard predicted in Man, Economy, & State, government will entice those best at wielding force, demagoguing for votes, and dealing in corruption - in short, statists. Friedrich Hayek, in his classic The Road to Serfdom, noted that in government "the worst get on top." As Lord Acton observed, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Government simply cannot be trusted.
Finally, that Rubio would dismiss the traditional foreign policy of the Founding Fathers as "the left" is a stunning admission of his own ignorance. Prior to Woodrow Wilson, the U.S. had scrupulously avoided taking sides in international affairs, choosing "peace, commerce, and honest friendship." Jefferson envisioned the U.S. as "an empire of liberty," a good example which would be a beacon to people around the world. Jefferson, reflecting on the War for American Independence shortly before his death, wrote, "May it be to the world, what I believe it will be...the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government." Leading by example, rather than by force, is a more effective way to influence the worldwide growth of liberty. Liberty, by its very nature, must emerge voluntarily, and cannot prosper because the U.S. government kills a dictator and replaces him with a democratic government. The contrast between Rubio and Jefferson is analogous to the difference between trying to grow a garden the eradication of weeds versus the cultivation of seeds.
Where Would They Be Without Us?
Rubio asks the audience to consider how the postwar world would have developed without the U.S. Empire. According to Rubio,
"Could we say with certainty that it would look anything like America's vision of an increasingly freer and more open international system, where catastrophic conflicts between great powers were avoided, democracy and free-market capitalism flourished, where prosperity spread wider and wider, and billions of people emerged from poverty? Would it have occurred if, after the war, we had minded our own business, and left the world to sort out its affairs without our leadership?"First, Rubio's account of the postwar world is fantastical; that is not what happened. Second, yes, a world without the "leadership" of the U.S. government would be vastly superior to the current U.S. empire.
The history of the U.S. government after World War II is far less heroic than Rubio imagines. The U.S.S.R., a supposed international threat, ultimately collapsed under the weight of its own economic inefficiency, as well as the secession of satellite states (many of which FDR simply gifted to Stalin at Yalta) from the Soviet empire. Indeed, as early as 1920, in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, Ludwig von Mises predicted that communism was doomed to fail because of its "economic calculation problem," meaning its lack of market-based price signals to coordinate production and consumption. Without prices to allocate resources to their highest-valued use, or a measure of profit and loss to determine whether an enterprise was moving factors of production to higher-valued uses, communism was destined to fail. Despite communism's inevitable implosion, the U.S. government still insisted on fighting the Cold War, spending trillions of dollars on arming itself against what was, all things considered, an imaginary threat.
The U.S. government, in fighting communism, clumsily allied with any "anti-communist" dictator, no matter how tyrannical. As a result, revolutions grew like kudzu around the world, in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. In Cuba, for instance, Eisenhower's support of the oppressive Batista regime incited a rebellion that propelled Fidel Castro into power. In South Vietnam, Eisenhower and JFK's alliance with the authoritarian Diem regime inspired the Viet Cong rebellion, a series of military coups in Saigon (which the CIA treacherously orchestrated while keeping JFK in the dark), North Vietnam's opportunistic invasion, the U.S. government's tragically futile war, and the communist conquest of South Vietnam. Perhaps most ignominiously, in 1973 Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger secretly and illegally fire-bombed Cambodia, an unauthorized act of war against an officially neutral country, and the mass murder of 600,000 people. Cambodians predictably flocked to the anti-American Khmer-Rouge banners of Pol Pot, the Communist rebel who after attaining power ultimately finished what the U.S. government began, presiding over the bloodiest genocide in history - 2.5 million people, 21% of the Cambodian population. Later, in the 1980s, when a Vietnamese invasion had toppled Pot and the Khmer Rouge, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - in a Machiavellian move against Vietnam, and by extension, the Soviet Union - supported them in exile. In 1953, after the Iranian government nationalized Iranian oil fields, the CIA, under Eisenhower's orders, engineered a coup against the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh. In Mosaddegh's place, Eisenhower installed the Shah - formerly a ceremonial constitutional monarch - as a dictator, supplying him with armaments and a CIA-trained secret police. In 1979, the Iranian people, embittered against the heavy hand of the U.S. government, overthrew the Shah, replacing him with the radically anti-Western Ayatollah Khomeni. In all the above examples, it would have been better to have let the people of foreign countries govern themselves, rather than interfere in their affairs against their will. Similar situations of backlash against U.S. intervention spread like brushfire throughout the Third World, reaffirming the old saying "you reap what you sow."
Rubio's skepticism regarding "[minding] our own business" and "[leaving] the world to sort out its affairs without our leadership" is particularly puzzling piece of politics. The U.S. was founded upon the idea that men are free and independent sovereigns with a natural right to govern themselves, and that governments are established on the consent of the governed. When the American Colonies declared independence from the British Empire, they did so based on the principles of individual sovereignty, self-government and consent of the governed: the British Empire had become destructive of the very ends for which governments are established. Rubio, however, finds it perfectly acceptable for the U.S. government to use force to "promote" values of which it approves, such as "liberty," "democracy," "keeping trade routes open," and "free-market capitalism." Rubio's foreign policy of the U.S. government using force to promote its agenda cannot be reconciled with the American legacy of individual sovereignty and self-government. If the American colonists were truly justified in seceding from the British Empire to govern themselves, then a foreign policy which scoffs at the idea of sovereign people "[sorting] out their own affairs without our leadership" is hypocritical, imperialistic and contrary to the foundational principles of the U.S. The way he talks, Rubio sounds more like King George III than Patrick Henry.
Rubio's claim that the U.S. government has promoted free trade is particularly ironic, given that it regularly imposes crippling embargoes (thereby punishing innocent people by restricting their ability to provide for themselves) against countries whose governments defy the U.S. "world order." For example, the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children were directly attributed to the U.S. government's sanctions against Iraq. When faced with these deaths, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied, "We think the price is worth it." No government which justifies the blood of a half-million children on its hands as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good can claim to have spread liberty anywhere.
Furthermore, Rubio should take the log out of his own eye: the U.S. is far from a beacon of liberty. In the U.S., the federal government monopolizes the money supply, confiscates trillions of dollars in property annually, pervasively violates property rights with burdensome regulations, commands a menacing police/surveillance state, and overrules of the sovereignty of the states. Given the tyranny on its own shores, the U.S. is hardly in a position to promote liberty abroad. Rubio's own native state of Florida is still suffering from the aftermath of the housing bust, caused by credit expansion from the Federal Reserve, and artificially prolonged by federal intervention in the form of stimulus spending, inflationary monetization of federal debt, and further credit expansion. Until markets are free to reestablish consumer time preferences (the ratio of saving/investment to consumption) and reallocate the factors of production, the economy will remain stagnant. Instead of protecting the people of Florida from the harm of federal intervention, however, Rubio's avowed priority has been "a more active U.S. role in Libya." Rubio went so far as to rebuke his own constituents, labeling their opposition to his love of foreign interventions "a trend in our body politic...that increasingly says it is time to focus less on the world and more on ourselves." In the words of Justin Raimondo, founder of Antiwar.com, "How dare his constituents and loyal supporters care more about foreclosed and way-underwater homes, their lost jobs, their crime-ridden streets, and crumbling infrastructure than about installing a 'pro-American' Islamist government in Libya!" By the way, the Libyan revolution which Rubio esteems as an example of "a robust and muscular foreign policy" ended with Al-Qaeda seizing control of the Libyan government.
Without the U.S. government's Cold-War policy of violently
installing propped-up puppet regimes in the name of "fighting
communism," people around the world would have been free to govern themselves.
Perhaps the precious human lives lost and economic resources wasted in
revolutions against U.S. imperialism could have been saved. Lord Acton,
consoling Robert E. Lee after his final surrender at Appomattox, predicted that
the federal government, having subdued state sovereignty, was "sure to be
aggressive abroad and despotic at home." Indeed.
Government Cannot Create Jobs, But Can Build Nations?
Although Rubio's anti-Obama rhetoric rightly casts the federal government as a malignant parasite within the U.S., the federal government inexplicably metamorphoses into a beneficent force for good when its power is expanded onto the world stage. This puzzling contradiction is a staple among neoconservatives: government is bad at home but good abroad, or in other words, government cannot create jobs but can build nations. Actually, government, by its very nature, is force, and thus all of its actions, whether foreign or domestic, are tainted. In fact, foreign interventions (e.g. wars, embargoes) deprive people of life and liberty to a much greater degree than domestic interventions (e.g. taxes, inflation).
Furthermore, Rubio fails to realize that the foreign interventions he so admires necessitate the domestic interventions he allegedly deplores. Imperialism voraciously devours the property which the government confiscates from the people, resulting in higher taxes, greater inflation, misallocated resources, boom-bust cycles, and a lower standard of living. A truly edifying counter-factual - unlike Rubio's "where would they be without us?" - would be to imagine how all trillions of dollars the federal government has confiscated for its empire would have been better-utilized if left in the private economy. The opportunity costs are beyond reckoning.
Destiny
Rubio, hoping to console war-weary Americans, quotes fellow imperialist Tony Blair:
"I know out there, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me, and why us, and why America?' And the only answer is because destiny put you in this place in history in this moment, in this time, and the task is yours to do."Rubio's vague references to "destiny" echo the millenarian worldview of the "Yankees," the Northeastern Puritan sect which believed that God had destined it to reforge the world - violently, if necessary - into the image of New-England society. Like modern neoconservatives, the Yankees were convinced that they were God's gift to creation, that using force to impose their will on others was morally justifiable, and that any resistance to their overwhelming glory could only be evil. To the Yankees, a society different from theirs was inconceivable, a wicked abomination contrary to God's will. Like Jonah in the Biblical story of Nineveh, the Yankees believed that they were tasked with converting others from their evil ways, lest they be destroyed. When God refused to destroy Nineveh, however, Jonah sulked, but was forced to accept God's decision. The Yankees, not content to resign like Jonah, resolved to go on offense against whatever they considered evil, confident in the justice of their cause.
The Yankees' belief in their own divinely ordained magnificence transformed the War of Northern Aggression - which originated over federal tariffs - into a maniacal crusade against Southern society in general. Since the Yankees were the self-appointed instruments of God, horrible atrocities like pillage, rape, and murder became necessary evils in the fulfillment of God's will. In 1861, the New York Herald analyzed the views of the Yankees:
"Submission on the part of the South would not satisfy [the] Republican Party. Far from it. They cry out: 'We mean not merely to conquer, but to subjugate.'"As William Sherman, a Federal general notorious for his tactics of total war against the Southern people, wrote to his wife, "There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed." Sherman's wife charmingly replied that she hoped "all Southerners would be driven like the swine into the sea." Following the defeat of the Confederacy, the Yankees began "Reconstruction" of the Southern states according to their statist values: state constitutions were rewritten in deference to the federal government, property was confiscated and redistributed to political cronies (Scalawags and Carpetbaggers), white citizens were disenfranchised while freed slaves were granted political privileges, states were occupied under martial law, and federal amendments were ratified illegally. To the Yankees, it was their destiny to conquer the Southern people, liberating them from their evil heritage and preserving the now-sanctified Union.
After the Southern states were subjugated, the Yankees began pursuing their next destiny - the genocide of Plains Native Americans. Sherman, the general of total-war infamy, was given command over all land west of the Mississippi, with orders to conquer the Plains tribes. Sherman described federal policy towards Native Americans as a "final solution" years before the Nazis used the same term to describe the Holocaust. To the Yankees in control of the federal government, the eradication of the Plains tribes removed a pesky obstacle to the fulfillment of the American destiny of westward expansion, which took the form of lucrative land grants to crony-capitalist railroad companies. "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians stop the progress of the railroad," Sherman wrote to Ulysses S. Grant, his former commanding officer in the War of Northern Aggression. Plains tribes which refused to cede their ancestral lands to the federal government were mercilessly slaughtered until they surrendered and could be relocated to a heavily policed and regulated reservation. Sherman, writing to fellow veteran Philip Sheridan (a Federal cavalry officer also infamous for his tactics of total war), reported, "I am charmed at the handsome conduct of our troops in the field. They go in with the relish that used to make our hearts glad in 1864-5." If an "inferior race" had to be destroyed for the greater good, so be it. For insight into the potential horrors which a belief in god-given destiny can wreak, see the murderous lyrics to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
Empire and ObamaCare
Near the end of his speech, Rubio summarizes his justification for imperialism:
"What happens all over the world is our business. Every aspect of [our] lives is directly affected by global events. The security of our cities is connected to the security of small hamlets in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia."Rubio concludes that it is "impossible for us to focus only on our issues here at home." Interestingly enough, Rubio’s assertion that the interconnectedness of everything justifies worldwide U.S. intervention mirrors Barack’s equally ridiculous argument that everyone must purchase health insurance or pay the price. Because all action and inaction technically “affects” interstate commerce, the federal government, according to Barack, has the unlimited right to order people to engage in transactions against their will. Similarly, according to Rubio, because all events around the world, however minor, “affect” the U.S. in some remote and imperceptible (and if dealing with the neoconservative doctrine of “preventive war,” hypothetical) way, the U.S. government is obligated to intervene. Jefferson illuminated the absurdity of such convoluted lines of reasoning when he wrote, “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject, as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is their interest to go to war."
Rubio & the NDAA
Unfortunately, Rubio does not merely talk the talk; he also walks the walk. Rubio, despite railing against the Barack's assault on liberty, voted for what is arguably the most totalitarian law of the 21st century - the National Defense Authorization Act. The Fifth Amendment states that, "No person shall be..deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Under NDAA, however, the president has the power to indefinitely detain anyone accused of "substantially supporting" terrorist organizations or "associated forces." Victims are not informed of the reason for which they have been detained - in fact, the government does not even need official reasons - denied legal counsel, and not granted the right of a trial. Essentially, anyone can vanish at the president's command. The terms "substantially" and "associated" are not even defined, granting further latitude to the president's discretion. Anyone who has interacted with what the U.S. government deems a "terrorist," knowingly or not, could be implicated under the NDAA. If a so-called terrorist, say, donated to a charity, that charity - along with its other donors - could be considered an associated force and substantial supporters, respectively. The powers of indefinite detention in the NDAA cannot be reconciled with the legal requirements of due process, and therefore are in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
In practice, Bush and Barack had already exercised the powers of NDAA, indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists overseas in secret government facilities. NDAA, however, not only codifies this blatantly unconstitutional policy into law - a law which the state of Virginia has already declared unconstitutional and nullified - but also expands it to include U.S. citizens. The president, therefore, can order the abduction of U.S. citizens within the U.S., and keep them imprisoned without evidence or a trial until he sees fit. In fact, Obama has already assassinated U.S. citizens - Anwar al-Awlaki, for instance - for their mere affiliation with terrorist cells, despite not having actually committed any acts of violence themselves. The president, currently, has the power to order the indefinite detention or assassination of anyone in the world, literally acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
Indefinite detention is not unprecedented in U.S. history. During the War of Northern Aggression, Lincoln unilaterally and unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus in the U.S. The atrocities of Lincoln's war against the sovereignty of the Southern people are infamous, but his war of aggression against the liberty of Northern people is largely forgotten. Lincoln illegally jailed thousands of suspected political dissidents in the U.S., targeting politicians who objected to his war, and newspapers which refused to print federal war propaganda. At one point, William Seward, Secretary of State in the Lincoln regime, boasted that,
"I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio; I can touch a bell again, and order the imprisonment of a citizen of New York; and no power on earth, except that of the president, can release them. Can the Queen of England do so much?"In 1861, after Federal forces invaded Maryland and imposed martial law, John Merryman, a Marylander in a local Confederate militia, was arrested and indefinitely detained in Fort McHenry, accused of treason for fighting the Federal forces occupying his native state. Lincoln had already suspended habeas corpus, but Merryman's lawyers convinced Chief Justice Roger Taney to issue a writ anyway. When the Federal officer in command of Fort McHenry refused to comply, Taney ruled (Ex Parte Merryman) that,
"These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."After Taney's ruling that Lincoln's wartime detentions - along with his general suspension of habeas corpus - were unconstitutional, Lincoln briefly considered jailing Taney for treason, but ultimately decided to simply ignore the ruling and continue detaining suspects without due process. Just as Bush and Obama have portrayed the terror of indefinite detentions and arbitrary assassinations as a necessary measure to "fight terror," Lincoln employed the same backwards logic, arguing that the suspension of habeas corpus was essential to "preserving the Union," oblivious to the hypocrisy of preserving at gunpoint what was originally a voluntary union.
The NDAA should not be dismissed on the assumption that it will only be used against true "terrorists." Speaking at the Philadelphia Convention, James Madison warned that, "The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home." Since Barack took office, the Department of Homeland Security has begun focusing on "domestic terrorism." According to the DHS, some of the indicators of domestic terrorism include support for Ron Paul, practicing self-sufficiency, ownership of gold, membership in Second-Amendment organizations, homeschooling one's children, apocalyptic religious views, belief in conspiracy theories like the New World Order, and even needing a prosthetic limb. In short, from the federal government's perspective, any dissenting views are potentially dangerous to its supremacy. Similarly, the FBI has become alarmed over the "sovereign-citizen" movement. "Sovereign citizens" are simply people who believe in the foundational American principle of consent of the governed. Specifically, sovereign citizens rightly believe that every man is fully entitled to ownership of his person and property, and that any associations into which he enters are only moral if voluntary. After all, since government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, if an individual withdraws his consent to a government then its authority over that individual is void. The Founding Fathers, in declaring independence from the British Empire, were acting as sovereign citizens - seceding from a political association to which they no longer consented. Yet now, when the federal government is based on force of arms instead of the consent of the governed, sovereign citizens are an enemy. Conceivably, under the NDAA, anyone guilty of the above so-called crimes could be indefinitely detained or assassinated at the president's command.
The Bill of Rights does not make exceptions for terrorists, or even non-U.S. citizens. In the words of Ron Paul, the Bill of Rights' restraints on the federal government's ability to use force against people is not, as neoconservatives like Rubio imply, "a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system." After all, the goal of the Constitution was not to protect the power of the federal government, but to preserve peace and liberty. A country founded on such values cannot tolerate a president with totalitarian power to make anyone simply disappear, whether in a covert government facility or a bodybag. The claim that the president, as commander in-chief has the authority to unilaterally suspend constitutional rights during wartime - "destroying the village in order to save it" - is putting the cart before the horse. Rubio's adamant support for the NDAA and passion for foreign intervention is a complete betrayal of the principles on which he campaigned for election to the U.S. Senate - limiting the role of government to the Constitution. Although Rubio is eager to punish so-called "traitors," his blind loyalty to the federal government makes him the true traitor to his country.
No comments:
Post a Comment