Tea Party Congress DA

Tea Party Congress DA ...............................................................................................................1 ***Tea Party DA*** ***1NC*** .........................................................................................................................4 Tea Party 1NC ............................................................................................................................5 ***Uniqueness***..............................................................................................................9 Tea Party Weak ........................................................................................................................10 Mainstream GOP Strong ..........................................................................................................11 Tea Party Brink .........................................................................................................................14 A2 IRS Scandal Thumper ..........................................................................................................15 A2 NSA Thumper ......................................................................................................................17 ***Link*** ....................................................................................................................... 18 Link- War Powers .....................................................................................................................19 Link- Indefinite Detention ........................................................................................................25 Link- Drones .............................................................................................................................26 Link- Offensive Cyber Operations ............................................................................................28 Link- Isolationism .....................................................................................................................29 Tea Party Momentum Spills Over ............................................................................................31 2NC Rand Paul Link--- Topic .....................................................................................................33 2NC Rand Paul Link--- Drones ..................................................................................................35 Restricting AUMF = Win for RP ................................................................................................36 2NC Rand Paul Link--- Indefinite Detention .............................................................................37 Rand Paul Gets Credit ..............................................................................................................39 A2 GOP is not isolationist.........................................................................................................40 ***Budget Impact*** ....................................................................................................... 41 Ext Block Budget ...................................................................................................................42 Ext Government Shutdown...................................................................................................45 AT Tea Party Compromise ....................................................................................................47 A2 Economy Defense ...............................................................................................................49 Trade Mod ...............................................................................................................................51 ***Creationism Impact*** ................................................................................................ 54 1NC/2NC Creationism Mod .....................................................................................................55 Ext Church/State ...................................................................................................................58 Ext SciEd Key to Econ ............................................................................................................60 AT College/ Early Education ..................................................................................................61 AT Intelligent Design =/= Creationism ..................................................................................62 ***A2 Impact Turns***..................................................................................................... 63 A2 Moon Base Impact Turn Private Sector Fails ...................................................................64 A2 Colonization ........................................................................................................................65 A2 Asteroids .............................................................................................................................71 A2 Moon Race ..........................................................................................................................73 A2 EU Impact ...........................................................................................................................77

***Aff Answers*** Non-UQ - Tea Party Strong ......................................................................................................80 NSA Thumper ...........................................................................................................................87 Aff Hurts GOP Influence ...........................................................................................................90 Tea Party Resilient ...................................................................................................................96 A2 Debt Ceiling ........................................................................................................................97 A2 Credit Downgrade...............................................................................................................98 Economy Defense ....................................................................................................................99 Democracy Defense ...............................................................................................................101 Tea Party Good--- Moon Colonization ...................................................................................102 Tea Party Good--- Space Colonization ...................................................................................105 Satellites Impact.....................................................................................................................106 Moon Race Good--- Hegemony .............................................................................................111 Colonization Good--- Asteroids..............................................................................................115 Isolationism Good--- EU Leadership ......................................................................................116

***Tea Party DA***

***1NC***

Tea Party 1NC

Tea Party influence is taking a nosedive recent polls Sareen 2013
ANJALI SAREEN, Editor at The Huffington Post, Tea Party Popularity Falls To Record Low, Rasmussen Reports January 7th, 2013, http://www.mediaite.com/online/tea-party-popularity-falls-to-record-low-rasmussen-reports/ According to a new Rasmussen poll released Monday ,

the Tea Party is less popular than it has ever been , with only 30% of likely voters saying they hold favorable views of the group. Nearly half (49%) have unfavorable views. HuffPost reports that the Tea Partys favorability rating has taken a substantial nosedive since 2009, when a majority of likely voters approved. Besides just voter favorability ratings, the Tea Party movement as a whole is seen to be declining, as evidenced by the poll. Over half of likely voters (56%) said the Tea Party has become less influential in the past year and only 8% said they identified as a part of the group. They might be right: just this morning, the Washington Posts Bob Woodward noted that having Speaker John Boehner in the House wasnt that bad compared to what kind of damage a Tea Party speaker could do. Woodward called Boehner a pragmatic moderate and said that a Tea Party speaker would just lay down and, you know, let the country burn. Woodward isnt alone in his criticism: conservative
radio host Michael Savage cited a lack of charismatic Tea Party leadership as a reason for their muted influence.

The plan is a huge win Grim 2013 (Ryan Grim, June 11, 2013, Divisions Over National Security State Scramble Old
Alliances, Political Coalitions, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/nsa-leak_n_3421415.html) The contours of the debate around security and civil liberties that began the day after the 9/11 attacks have been steadily shifting ever since, but have recently become contorted in the wake of revelations about the depth and breadth of the National Security Agency's secret surveillance. The debate coincides and overlaps with disagreement over indefinite detention , the use of force abroad and, specifically, the employment of drones in a sprawling array of countries in the so-called global war on terror. The debate has taken on a partisan bent, with grassroots Democrats broadly lining up in surveys to defend the administration, and Republicans charging that presidential authority goes too far. But among the leaders in Washington and the media, alliances are scrambling, with the greatest dissension within conservative ranks. The battle inside the GOP has left leading tea party figures such as Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in uncomfortable alignment with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats; Michael Moore; Glenn Greenwald; Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg. They are pitted against establishment figures from both sides, such as Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), liberal Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), and diplomat Richard Haass. Democrats, owing partly to the simple fact that they control the levers of executive power, are more likely to back the extensive use of that authority. Two recent surveys differed in how respondents reacted to the NSA's surveillance programs, but they found similar patterns of partisanship.

Tea Party wins snowball--- saves their influence in Congress Cillizza 2012 (Chris Cillizza, December 4, 2012, Is the tea party dead? Or just resting?,
Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/04/whither-thetea-party/)

And Jon Lerner, a Republican consultant who works closely with the Club For Growth, insisted that the tea party remains a major force in GOP primaries and, as such, is something establishment Republicans should be very wary of ignoring. Tea Party voters represent a huge portion of all Republican voters, so while the GOP establishment sometimes finds the Tea Party inconvenient, they are much better off making peace with it than making war with it, said Lerner. True enough. But, it still seems clear that the tea party is in the midst of a sort of soul searching. For a movement that burst onto the national scene with a force almost never seen in modern American politics, theres no obvious second act . The movement needs a next fight or, short of that, to make a decision as to whether it can live within the Republican coalition or not. (That latter choice is complicated by the fact that the tea party was built as a leaderless enterprise and so the idea of such a major philosophic decision being made for the entire movement is anathema to, well, the entire movement. Rick Reed, a Republican media consultant, suggested that there may be a couple of folks whom 10 percent of Republicans would loosely and correctly associate with *the tea party movement+, but probably no more.) One senior Republican party strategist, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the future of the tea party movement, expressed concern that while the tea party was at a low point today, the coming legislative fights in Congress could lead to a renaissance in the movement.

Strong Tea Party wrecks budget compromises Politico 7/19 (Mitch McConnell's fractured Senate GOP caucus , Read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/senate-republicans-splintering94451.html#ixzz2amsQ0772) These Senate GOP factions arent set in stone, and some Republicans fl oat from one group to another depending on the issue. But the GOP tension is playing out on the Senate floor as members of the leadership
have consistently voted no on tricky issues that could cause them political headaches while rank-and-file Republicans are voting yes. McConnells leadership team including Sens. John Thune of South Dakota, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Roy Blunt of Missouri and Jerry Moran of Kansas has taken the safe route by opposing these bipartisan proposals. That leaves a group of roughly a dozen GOP senators to swallow the tough and unpopular votes ranging from opening debate on gun legislation to passing an immigration bill to confirming Richard Cordray to head the GOPdespised Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (Also on POLITICO: McCain stalls Dempsey nomination) The entire leadership team opposed the immigration bill, for instance, which passed with the support of 14 Republican senators, and the leaders voted to filibuster a bipartisan border security deal drafted by Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee and John Hoeven of North Dakota. The leadership opposed beginning debate on gun legislation, even though 16 of their GOP colleagues voted to bring the measure to the floor. Most voted to continue filibustering Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, even as 71 senators from both parties voted to allow a vote on confirmation. Some think the leadership is ducking the tough votes and allowing the rankand-file to shoulder the burden. This leadership team has adopted the Obama lead-from-behind approach to governing, said a senior Senate Republican source, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. It hasnt worked for the president and it doesnt appear to be working here either. Republican leaders defend their approach, arguing that they typically are siding with a majority of the conference on a number of divisive issues, not with the smaller number of Republicans voting with Democrats, Cornyn argued. I think the majority of the conference votes the same way I do, Cornyn said. In some of these issues, were not united. Its really as simple as that. The

GOP factionalism could become even more significant this fall when its time to cut deals with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House on boosting the debt ceiling and keeping the government operating past September. McCain, Corker and other members of the Supper Club a group of Republicans who have been discussing budget issues with White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met with McConnell on Thursday afternoon, seeking strategies for those looming fiscal showdowns, which will really kick off in September. McCain wants to see Senate Republicans negotiate with Democrats on these critical matters, but there are a number of GOP conservatives especially in the House who are prepared to shut down the government or default on the debt unless Obama caves to their spending demands.

Destroys the economy--- consumer confidence, dollar strength, credit rating Brown 13 (Abram, 1/4, "GOP's Threat to Shutdown the Government is a Dangerous Strategy,"
www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2013/01/04/the-gop-is-already-threatneing-to-shutdownthe-government-to-win-spending-cuts/) That Republicans are already warning the country that they will turn off the lights in D.C. is an alarming situation. Depending on what happens in the debt ceiling debate, the Treasury Department might just have trouble paying the bills on timeor the whole apparatus could cease to function. Past that, theres a risk that the credit-rating agencies could downgrade the United States, raising the countrys borrowing costs (and making that newly approved debt more costly). Not to mention the damage to the broader economy. The last debt ceiling fiasco in August 2011 dashed consumer confidence. Why shop anywhere else than bargaincenters like Wal-Mart and or a dollar store when the nation seems to be falling apart? Shortly before the nation went past the deadline in 2011, the CEOs of Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs sent a letter to The White House that urged for a quick resolution: A default on our nations obligations, or a downgrade of Americas credit rating, would be a tremendous blow to business and investor confidence raising interest rates for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the dollar, and roiling stock and bond markets and, therefore, dramatically worsening our nations already difficult economic circumstances. Granted, the economy is in slightly better shape today than it was in August 2011. Not so strong, though, that the consequences of a shutdown would be much different.

Economic collapse causes nuclear conflicts Burrows and Harris 2009 Mathew J. Burrows counselor in the National Intelligence Council
and Jennifer Harris a member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis The Washington Quarterly 32:2 https://csis.org/files/publication/twq09aprilburrowsharris.pdf Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twentyfirst as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groupsinheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacksand newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the

absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises.Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dogeat-dog world.

***Uniqueness***

Tea Party Weak

The Tea Party is weak split on policy positions PR 7/31
Pew Research, Whither the GOP? Republicans Want Change, But Split over Partys Direction July 31, 2013, http://www.peoplepress.org/2013/07/31/whither-the-gop-republicans-want-change-but-split-over-partys-direction/

Tea Party Republicans are split on the question of whether the Republican Party mainly needs to make a stronger case for its current policy positions or if it also needs to reconsider some of its policy positions (51% vs. 46%). But 70% of non-Tea Party Republicans, including 79% of moderates, say the Republican Party needs to reconsider some policies. There is no consensus among GOP voters who think the party needs to reconsider some policy positions about what those positions are. About one-in-five (19%) say the party needs to reconsider its position on immigration and border security, 18%
abortion and 11% cite gay marriage, gay rights or homosexuality. These responses have a long tail numerous issues receive mentions by relatively small percentages (less than 5%) of those who believe the party needs to reconsider some positions. A third (33%) of Republican voters who say the party needs to rethink some of its stances could not come up with a specific issue.

Immigration reform proves Nevarez 13

GRISELDA NEVAREZ, Tea party influence on immigration reform is weaker than ever June 21, 2013, http://www.voxxi.com/teaparty-weaker-immigration-reform/ Without a doubt, the tea party movement emerged as a dominant political force in 2010, leading efforts to spread anti-immigrant rhetoric that eventually helped prevent immigration reform bills from passing in Congress. Starting in 2007, tea party members began mobilizing. They were successful in making calls to congressional leaders and influencing them to vote against immigration bills with a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. But just how

much influence will the tea party have this time around compared to years past? The answer could be not as much, as clear signs exist that the tea party movement is fading. Yet, tea party leaders say theyre still very much in the fight against any immigration reform bill that includes a path to citizenship. Polls show the number of followers of the tea party movement is at a historic low, making it easier for members of Congress to reach across the aisle and work together on immigration reform. The latest poll, released in January by Rasmussen Reports, shows only 8 percent of the 1,000 likely voters surveyed said they are members of the tea party. Thats down from a high of 24 percent in April 2010. With their influence fading, Patty Kupfer, managing director at the pro-immigration reform group Americas Voice, said she doesnt believe tea party leaders are having the same impact as they did in past years.

Mainstream GOP Strong

Republican party conflicts now but mainstream Republicans are barely prevailing Klein 8/1 (Rick, ABC News' Political Director, a co host of Top Line and regular contributor to
ABC News.com and the Note, Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul: Splintered Battle for Future of Republican Party, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chris-christie-rand-paul-splintered-battlefuture-republican/story?id=19830305) The adage holds that Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line. These days, though, the GOP line looks more like a scrum or, more accurately, competing lines forming at odd angles on a range of different issues. From immigration and national security policies to how far to take the fight against Obamacare -- which the Republicans are practically unanimous in hating -- major players inside the Republican Party are deeply divided against one another in unusually public fashion. With the party's splits on vivid display on both Capitol Hill and
among expected players in the nascent 2016 campaign, the question growing inside Republican circles is whether the deep rifts will heal themselves in time for the next election, where GOP leaders see huge opportunities to make gains. "We have an identity crisis, and you see the identity crisis playing out through all the various fissures," said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist. "It could take several election cycles until we actually come to consensus again. Our party may have to go to the brink of disaster before we pull back and realize what we have to do."

The internal battles are generally following the contours of insider-outsider disagreements that have defined the Republican establishment's often uneasy relationship with the Tea Party. But the shifting cast aligning or opposing one another on various fronts make
the battles difficult to track, much less control. The most colorful display is the ongoing brawl between two of the Republicans' brightest young stars: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. Last week

Christie worried aloud that attacks by Paul and other libertarian-leaning Republicans on National Security Agency surveillance programs were "dangerous" and reflected forgotten lessons of 9/11. Paul responded by saying the comments were a "cheap and sad" attempt to exploit the victims of 9/11, and suggested that those who think like Christie are forgetting the Bill of Rights. By early
this week, the battle between the party titans devolved into outright name-calling. Paul labeled Christie the "King of Bacon" for his attempts to secure federal dollars for his state; Christie retaliated with statistics on Kentucky's dependence on U.S. taxpayers and went on to call Paul a "Washington insider" fighting words inside either party. The

NSA battle also flared up last week in the House of Representatives. A back-bench Tea Party congressman, Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan, came within a few votes of defeating the combined forces of the White House and House Speaker John Boehner , in an attempt to cease NSA surveillance programs that made for the strange bedfellows of liberals joining libertarians.

Mainstream Republicans holding onto control over the tea partiers now Roll Call 7/12 (GOP Majority Whipped Into Shape, 2013
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/gop-leaders-get-their-groove-back/) The House GOP celebrated Independence Day a week late. On Thursday, Republican lawmakers in the House declared their own sort of independence from the tyranny of outside conservative groups, from Nancy Pelosi and from the chatter in Washington that their leadership team had lost control of their conference. The vote on the farm bill 216-208, with every green vote coming from Republicans was an exceedingly rare
event under Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California, not because they passed a bill but because they faced down the Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America and won and did so without relying on a single Democrat. The

stakes hardly could have been higher for a leadership cocky groups talking openly of getting new leadership more to their liking and repeatedly working to undermine the leaders agenda. Another floor defeat would have dealt a deep blow, particularly to Cantor, who took much of the
team that has suffered one stumble after another this year with increasingly blame for the defeat of the farm bill the first time around over his backing of a conservative amendment Democrats considered a

poison pill, and who championed the plan to drop food stamps from the bill in a risky bid to win an all-Republican majority vote. The alternative going to the Democrats, hat in hand would have been humiliating. So the

majority leader effectively put the hammer down as members returned from the Independence Day recess, dressing down five House chairmen, including Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, for voting against the farm bill the first time. Cantor told them that, as leaders of the conference, it was unacceptable for them to vote against the bill. They wouldnt cross him again. The same day,
Republicans held their first whip count on the new strategy during Monday evening votes. The results werent encourag ing.

According to one lawmaker familiar with the whip count, there were 150 to 165 Republicans in support of the revised farm bill. The leaders had lost votes. But Cantor did not relent. He cleared his schedule and began the slog to 218. Over the next few days, Cantor had dozens of conversations with individual lawmakers. Sources insist he did not twist arms but used the old-fashioned art of persuasion. He doesnt work based on threats, one Republican lawmaker said. Still, one GOP aide said, McCarthy plays the good cop; Cantor plays bad cop. On this bill the duo teamed up, and aides say
Cantor and McCarthy work well together and have direct lines of communication. McCarthys whip staff even includes former members of Cantors whip staff. Lawmakers said a major turning point for the bill was when Agriculture Chairman Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma changed his mind and said he would support the split strategy. Erica Elliott, McCarthys spokeswoman, said the victory was the product of the hard work done by our entire leadership team, our whip team and the dedicated members of the Agriculture Committee, specifically Chairman Lucas. Cantors spokeswoman, Megan Whittemore, called it a team win. Everyone in leadership and all the members of the committee, especially Chairman Lucas, deserve credit, Whittemore said. But one GOP lawmaker insisted the win was two-thirds Cantor, one-third the strategy. Dropping food stamps gave rank-and-file Republicans cover to vote yes to appease farm interests while being able to argue back home that they werent backing welfare. But

leaders faced another foe working against them both Heritage Action and Club for Growth declared a key vote against the measure while Democratic votes evaporated. Lawmakers, aides and strategists ripped into the groups as hurting their partys cause. They dont act like
theyre interested in building a conservative movement that can win races and do things, one GOP strategist said. They play games that make them feel powerful but have the practical effect of lost seats and lost opportunities to enact a conservative agenda. Others got more personal. House conservatives have grown tired of being lectured on conservativism by an ex -Giuliani staffer who works for the organization that created Obamacare, said a House leadership aide, needling Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham. So many conservatives voting for the farm bill is the proof in the pudding. Heritage Actions communications director, Dan Holler, said his group wants to have a debate on policy. We dont want to have a debate with anonymous staffers making ad hominem attacks that Geoff Davis made two years ago, Holler said. Davis, a former Kentucky representative, called out Needham two years ago in a dispute over his Heritage scorecard. Other Republican aides, meanwhile, said members felt double-crossed by Heritage, which had pushed to split the bill in two only to oppose it anyway. But Heritage says it is the Democrats who duped Republicans. The group insists the product of a conference committee with the Senate will be a farm bill that is more costly than the Senatepassed policies and those proposed by President Obama. It says breaking the unholy marriage between food stamps and the farm bill is only one component. If someone is willing to settle for what they would perceive as a field goal when the touchdown is right in front of them, thats their prerogative, Holler said. But our decision is to score the touchdown. But even some of Heritages allies, like Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, say the group overreached. Sometimes you just have to take the victory when its right in front of you and move forward and try to capitalize on it and next time well fight other fights, he said. The floor victory for the GOP, however, may not translate into a broader political or policy victory. Democrats are convinced they can bash Republicans for failing to vote for food stamps and are increasingly confident that they will be able to prevent significant food stamp cuts in the end. After all, Lucas suggested the likely result will be that the Senates far slimmer cuts to the program will be adopted in conference. That was precisely Needhams concern when he ripped the GOP leaders bill as nothing more than a naked attempt to get to a conference committee with the Senate. For their part, Democrats also mounted an impressive whip operation. Not a single one voted for the split farm bill. But in many ways, the

impressiveness of the Democratic whip operation points to the impressiveness of the GOP operation. We were against all the outside forces, we were against all the Democrats who tried holding up the vote all day, one GOP lawmaker said. And they won.

Mainstream Republican control now Ifill and McCain 7/29 (Gwen, PBS Newshour anchor, John, US Senator from Arizona, Sen.
John McCain Discusses Partisan Divide in Congress, Future of the GOP, 2013 http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/mccain_07-29.html) GWEN IFILL: Do you see the comeback of the GOP moderate that everybody said was dead not long ago? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: I think that there is a comeback amongst GOP senators that see the low approval ratings that we have that see the disapproval and almost contempt that people hold us in

because of our failure to act, and I think it's not so much moderates some of the people who have been in these negotiations are (utmost) conservative. It's not so much moderate as it is people who are resultoriented. Could I just mention Bob Corker and Hoeven? Neither one of them are viewed as, quote, "moderate." They are strong conservatives, but they are result-oriented. GWEN IFILL: I think Bob Corker, the senator from
Tennessee, said he was thinking about not running again, he was so depressed about where the Senate was. But it feels like it's changed. SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: But he's discussion and the results. And

emerged as an important. I won't say dealmaker, but an important part of the so is Hoeven. But so is Susan Collins and so is Kelly Ayotte and so is Lindsey Graham. And so there's a large number of people. And by the way, I have been given some credit for this latest thing, but it was a collective effort. It wasn't John McCain; it was all those people I just mentioned to you and
more who were engaged in constant conversations, and so I don't take credit for it. I give them credit. GWEN IFILL: As the former nominee of your party, and having watched 2012 from the sidelines been obviously to 2008 as you look forward to 2016, do you think that the party survives or has another shot at the White House only if the kinds of things you're talking about really take root? The return of the moderate? The reaching across aisles? The bipartisan cooperation? SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: Yes. I think

Americans want that from the Republican Party, but they also want results, OK? They want they want something that
Republicans can go to the people and say, look, we passed a balanced budget amendment. OK, I don't think that's outrageous that we got the XL pipeline done, that we cut your taxes, that we did the things that we promised we would do. So it's not you just can't go to the electorate and say, we blocked everything that President Obama was trying to do. I think you got to show them some positive results and some positive vision for the future.

Tea Party Brink

Tea Party influence on the brink International Business Times 13 The Republican Civil War: Who Wins -- The Tea Party, Rand
Paul And Rush Limbaugh, The Mainstream And Karl Rove, Or The Social Conservatives Like Mike Huckabee? March 29 2013, http://www.ibtimes.com/republican-civil-war-who-wins-tea-partyrand-paul-rush-limbaugh-mainstream-karl-rove-or-social, DOA: 8-2-13, y2k Remember the Tea Party? Even its members appear to have forgotten themselves. Just three years after it
burned through a huge swath of the U.S. political landscape, retaking the House of Representatives for the Republicans in the 2010 off-year elections, the Tea Party seems to be fading as a national political phenomenon. Need evidence? How about this: the Tea Party caucus in the House hasn't met since last summer and its its webpage is defunct. Moreover, anybody with real GOP influence, from the architect Karl Rove to party head Reince Preibus, has implicitly or explicitly blamed the Tea Party for nominating Senate candidates whose unorthodox views about rape and other sensitive issues led to defeats against vulnerable Democrats in Indiana and Missouri.

But perhaps the Tea Partys relative public reserve

these days

is less a sign of the

groups growing irrelevance and more an indication that its attention is demanded elsewhere -- in the middle of an all-out battle for who gets to be the face (and heart) of the Republican Party now and in the foreseeable future. *Its+ a civil war within the Republican Party , said Edward Hudgins, director of advocacy at the libertarian-leaning Atlas Society. The participants can be broken down into three categories. The first group consists of heavily religious Republicans, in large part evangelical Christians, who care about social issues, from abortion to same-sex marriage: They loathe both, but their numbers are dwindling,
and society is moving away from them. Their standard-bearer could be Mike Huckabee, the Baptist preacher, then Arkansas governor, then failed presidential candidate, then Fox News Channel personality. The second group encompasses

establishment conservatives, old-school Republicans with a power base in Washington, who

still believe in compromise , but are increasingly pressed by the party's right wing into taking all-or-nothing stances. Think John Boehner, the House majority leader who often
looks like he would be ready to cut a deal with President Barack Obama, but can't do it because that would provoke a revolt by a large minority of his caucus -- mostly Tea Party-influenced members elected in

And the third group is made up of those on the right flank, feisty and vocal: They are limited-government Republicans who want to shrink the federal government and cut public spending to the bone. That's where Tea Party-backed politicians largely reside . They famously don't have a leader,
2010.

So who's winning? Not The youth vote, consisting of those from 18 to 29 years old, is growing and represents about 19 percent of the votes cast in the presidential election last year. Obama was backed by 60 percent of that demographic group, while Mitt Romney was supported by 37 percent, according to a Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement report on Edison Research's National Election Exit Polls. These young voters have no interest in social conservatism at all. Thats a major problem in the Republican Party, Hudgins said, recalling how young
but if one figure spoke for them, it would be Rush Limbaugh, the intransigent, take-no-prisoners radio provocateur who has become the voice of the American right. social conservatives, according to Hudgins. Worrying about what goes on in peoples bedrooms is guaranteed to lose them elections, he said. Ron

Paul supporters were given no credence and shown no respect during the primaries. This

group is going to be a growing proportion of the electorate. The Republican Party is going to be relegated to the dustbin of history if it doesn't embrace them, he said.

A2 IRS Scandal Thumper

IRS has zero effect on the Tea Party Movement Steven J. Gulitti 13 "The IRS Scandal and the False Hope of Tea Party Revival," 5-31-13,
bluemassgroup.com/2013/05/the-irs-scandal-and-the-false-hope-of-tea-party-revival/ DOA: 82-13, y2k Amid all of the sound and fury bubbling up from the IRS examination of the various conservative organizations theres hope among the Tea Party faithful that this controversy will somehow breathe new life into their movement. But will it be enough to reinvigorate a movement considered to be in disarray, if not politically stalled? Yes the vast majority of Americans holds the IRS in low esteem and is troubled by the revelations that the agency has, if nothing else, tangled rightwing organizations in excessive red tape, even if it hasnt moved to cripple them altogether. How ever, as Sam Tanenhaus of the New York Times pointed out, this isnt the first time that an administration has used the IRS against the opposition , even though, to date, theres no evidence that President Obama ordered any such action . While the wild eyed voices on Capitol Hill have been
bellowing for the impeachment of the president, the more level headed among them, and among conservative political pundits, have counseled caution least the Tea Party claque in Congress overplay its hand with negative consequences for 2014. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a meticulously detailed piece outlines the vast differences between Watergate and the current IRS controversy. It is an analysis that undermines the very argument being made by the far right for the impeachment of President Obama: Those who bother to read these historical snippets will find many important departures and only tenuous parallels between the Obama Administrations IRS affair and Richard Nixons Watergate-era IRS scandal. A principal distinction is the ingredient of direct presidential involvement. President Nixon was the fulcrum, the visionary and the principal conspirator in his various capers to use the IRS as a political weapon. Nixon personally directed and persistently harangued his staff to audit, investigate and gather dirt on his enemies for personal purposes. Nixon went to reckless extremes even punishing IRS agents who refused to participate in his vendetta. A mean-spirited viciousness and his contagious enthusiasm for law breaking were also distinctive Nixon bailiwicks. In contrast, there is no evidence that Obama even knew of the IRS investigations which were

The most recent evidence indicate that the Tea Party audits resulted not from intentional political targeting of conservatives from the sheer preponderous of Tea Party applications among the hundreds of 501(c)(4) tax exemption requests that deluged a tiny understaffed IRS field office. But while its important to note the fact that, to date, the current scandal doesnt even come close to approximating the severity of Watergate as an assault on the Constitution, there is evidence that Tea Party organizations have pushed the limits of what was politically legitimate. That in turn has increased the attention given these groups by the IRS, which isnt necessarily unwarranted or beyond the pale
presided over by Donald Shulman, a Bush appointee. of legitimate agency operations. In the article Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics, referenced below, two p olitical reporters, Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo, detail the many activities undertaken by conservative organizations over the past few years that have given rise to legitimate questions on the part of IRS agents who have conducted these examinations. Have those agents been overzealous, perhaps, but at the same time those agents wouldnt be looking into these groups if they didnt have a

The IRS simply doesnt have the luxury of excess manpower with which to carry out such a political wild goose chase no matter who might have requested such a thing. Likewise the claim by conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, a
reason to believe that somehow these organizations hadnt run afoul of the law.

tireless critic of Barack Obama, that conservatives generally have been singled out for IRS harassment has been debunked prima facie as well by Nate Silver , as referenced below. With all of the above being understood, what affect, if any, has the IRS scandal had, to date, on the public perception of the Tea Party movement as a whole? Is there any reason thus far to believe that this controversy is breathing new life into the Tea Party? Presently the answer is
emphatically

no . Jon Cohen and Dan

Balz of the Washington Post, analyzing the results of the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll concluded the following: The IRS scandal has brought the tea party back into the spotlight, but it has done little to change the publics impressions of the political movement . In the poll, 40 percent of all Americans say they support the tea party
movement and 43 percent oppose it, numbers stable back to last year. A record high of 17 percent express no opinion on the question. About 73 percent of conservative Republicans say they support the movement, but thats the lowest percentage to say so in polls going back more than two years. Moreover, whe n you go inside the results of this poll 74 percent of the respondents saw the IRS actions as inappropriate and 56 percent of respondents see this activity as deliberate harassment; 54 percent see the Federal

One would think that for all of the public discomfort being generated by the actions of the IRS that the American people would see anew some value in the Tea Party and its ideas. Ironically that has proven not to be the case . Likewise you would think
Government as threatening the individual rights of the average citizen.

that these same Americans would now be looking to throw Obama, the far rights new Nixon, under the bus but that hasnt happened either.

Obamas poll

numbers have actually edged up since this controversy began. the data
compiled by PollingReport.com, referenced below,

In fact

if you examine the bulk of

the Tea Party movement has seen , in net terms, its popularity and in no way positively affected by the current spate of

acceptance decline

overall since 2010 and it is, thus far,

scandal and revelation.

One would ask why, with all the unpopularity surrounding the IRS and big government generally and with all of the sensational

media coverage and the mainstream medias new found interest in challenging the Obama administration, why is it that the Tea Party seems to be getting little if any traction from all of this? I think that to for many informed observers the answers are self-evident if not outright obvious. For one thing, even though Americans are wary of too much government they have little stomach for deliberate government gridlock and when it comes to gridlock they see the Tea Party movement is the chief culprit in affecting the dysfunctional state of affairs that has come to characterize Washington D.C. generally and Capitol Hill in particular. Gridlo ck aside, the Tea Partys penchant for economic austerity works to the movements disadvantage as this economic policy has come to be seen as a failure, even among serious conservative thinkers in organizations like the American Enterprise Institute. Finally, the movement is now beset by scandal as well, its onetime Congressional standard bearer Michelle Bachmann has decided not to run for reelection with a scandal of her own as a backdrop. The essence of American democracy has always been compromise and it has been at those junctures in American history where the practice of compromise broke down that our democracy has been seen to fall short, sometimes with disastrous results, the Civil War being the most obvious example. In the current era it has been the Tea Party movement that has epitomized the belief put forth by Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser of pre-Civil war fame, who famously stated, If you cant compromise you cant govern. Today the American people know that there is little in the way of real po litical progress being made in Washington D.C. They see the Republican Party and the Tea Party specifically as the reason why. Furthermore, after three plus years on the American political scene, serious Tea Party missteps at the level of Republican Presidential politics and in Senate races have cast Tea Party politics and politicians in a less than flattering light. All one need do is think back over the clown fest that was the 2012 Republican primaries or some of the absurdities surrounding Tea Party backed candidates for the U.S. S enate during the last two election cycles and its not hard to see why, even in the wake of the current scandals and with issues that play right into the anti-government creed, that the Tea Party could still fail to benefit from this current state of affairs. Scandals have rocked Washington before and they will rock it again. That said theres another reason that the current round of scandal may fail to

voters have had over three years to get to know the movement and there seems to be little coming out of it that those who dont already support it find compelling. In fact if you go back inside the data in PollingReport.com you find that the numbers prove that those respondents who claim they dont know enough about the Tea Party have been halved since data collection began in 2010, sometimes falling to single digits. It could be that even
reinvigorate the Tea Party movement. The reason for this is that though the average American is disgusted with the state of American politics, those same Americans may see the Tea Party movement as part of the reason for that disgust and therefore the movement isnt seen as part of the solution.

After all one of the chief complaints about Washington today

If the aforementioned is in

is gridlock, a word synonymous with the Tea Party and thats not a good thing.

fact the case, and I for one strongly believe it is, then there is little in the way of hope to be had from all of this that will ultimately bode well for the Tea Party. Yes voters can punish the Obama and the Democrats in 2014 at the ballot box, but that doesnt mean that theyve finally and firmly embraced the ideas of the Tea Party and the far right. We can see a replay of the 2010 elections which I believe to have been nothing more than a protest against the perceived excess of the first Obama administration rather than a rejection of progressive ideas. For if in fact the 2010 elections had been a rejection of the essence of the first Obama administration there would have never been a second one and as we all know it was Barack Obama and not a champion of the far right who was elected in November of 2012. In other words,

as far as the fortunes

of the Tea Party movement are concerned, the more things change the more they seem to stay the same.

A2 NSA Thumper
Tea Partiers are failing on NSA now Ackerman 2013 (Spencer Ackerman and Paul Lewis, August 2, 2013, NSA controversy gives
unfamiliar allies impetus for and against reform, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/nsa-washington-congress-obama-reform) The controversy over the N ational S ecurity A gency's surveillance methods has turned some presumed political certainties on their head. There are very few issues in Congress that unite Tea Party Republicans with the more left-wing Democrats. Conversely, establishment Republicans and Democrats, typically at each others' throats, have found a reason to cooperate in their opposition to any changes that they say would hinder the NSA in protecting America from terrorist attack. The House speaker, John Boehner, and the Democratic minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, trenchant adversaries, both lobbied hard to defeat an amendment by the Republican Justin Amash that would have defunded the NSA's bulk collection, as did the bipartisan leadership of the intelligence committee.

Both parties are splintered Litvan 2013 (Laura Litvan and Timothy R. Homan, July 30, 2013, NSA oversight gains
momentum in US Congress, Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/nsa-oversight-gains-momentum-in-uscongress-20130730-2qw7l.html) Lawmakers are "being bowled over by a public reaction to the level of surveillance and the absence of knowledge and the absence of checks and balances," said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University in Washington who teaches national security policy. "We're going to start seeing some legislating." In last week's House 205-217 vote, both parties and their leaders splintered over an amendment to an annual defence-spending bill that would have ended the NSA's blanket collection of phone records. While 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats supported curtailing funding for the telephone record-collection effort, 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats voted against it. Supporters of the amendment included Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking Democrat in the House, and House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington. The chamber's top party leaders -- Republican Speaker John Boehner and Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi -- both voted against it.

***Link***

Link- War Powers

Limiting war powers is a tea party rallying point--- also builds support from GOP establishment Antle 2013 (W. James Antle III, Editor, The Daily Caller News Foundation, March 7, 2013,
Rand Paul speaks as parties change places on executive power, Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/07/rand-paul-speaks-as-parties-change-places-on-executivepower/) Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul has finally stopped talking, but the conversation about presidential war powers and extrajudicial killings sparked by his filibuster continues. On Thursday morning, pro-Paul hashtags like #StandWithRand remain among the top trending topics on Twitter. Nearly ever major news outlet has covered Pauls filibuster, which delayed the confirmation of President Obamas CIA nominee John Brennan. Flying death robots may be a popular concept in movies, but the issues raised by the U.S. drone program had been confined to the fringes of political debate. Paul and Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee had been working with some of the Senates most liberal Democrats on civil liberties for months, starting with last years congressional votes on the National Defense Authorization Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments. National security reporter Eli Lake dubbed Paul and Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden the drone odd-couple, noting that they called themselves the Checks and Balances Caucus. For some time now, Wyden and Paulalong with two other senators, Republican Mike Lee of Utah and Democrat Mark Udall of Coloradohave been working together to try to curb the broad authorities the Obama administration has asserted in the war on terror, Lake wrote. There was a strange bedfellows element to Pauls drones filibuster as well. It attracted the support of the American Civil Liberties Union and Code Pink, in addition to tea party groups like FreedomWorks. Wydens participation made it a bipartisan affair. But the biggest development was the support from Republican senators. In addition to Lee and fellow tea partier Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, and Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson all joined with Paul. Few of those senators had ever expressed much interest in the drone program before, and several of them voted against Paul on recent high-profile civil liberties votes, such as the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act. By the end of the filibuster, even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had aligned himself with Paul. Frankly, it should have been answered a long time ago, McConnell said of Pauls question to the Obama administration about drone strikes in the United States. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus urged all GOP senators to go to the floor to help Paul. The National Republican Senatorial Committee launched a fundraising effort based on Pauls filibuster. Former South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint also sent out a supportive tweet. DeMint is now president-elect of the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has frequently supported a strong executive in wartime. It is likely that an outpouring of support for Paul from conservatives on social media motivated some Republicans to get involved, as criticism of executive power during the war on terror was unpopular in the party under President George W. Bush. But since Obama has been commander-in-chief, there has been a bit of a partisan role reversal.

Tea Party favors restricting the presidential war powers Rebekah Metzler 13 is a political writer for U.S. News & World Report. Marco Rubio, Rand
Paul Strike Out to Re-Brand Their Party: Fresh takes on foreign, domestic policies aim to shake up GOP, February 6, 2013, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/06/marco -rubiorand-paul-strike-out-to-re-brand-their-party, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k Paul, delivering a foreign policy speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation Wednesday, struck a balance between George W. Bush era neoconservativism and support for nation building, and his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul's, unique brand of isolationism . The Kentucky senator criticized the traditional GOP stance that money should be no object when it comes to the U.S. military and its mission, and said that America should rethink its role in the world
while recognizing the cost to U.S. blood and treasure. "I'd argue that

a more restrained foreign policy is the true Congress must be more

conservative foreign policy , as it includes two basic tenets of true conservatism: respect for the constitution and fiscal discipline," Paul said, reflecting libertarian ideals held by both Tea Partiers
and some progressives. also

assertive when it comes to its role in providing checks and balances to the president's war powers , he said. "We did not declare war or authorize force to begin war with Libya," Paul said. "This is a dangerous precedent. In our foreign policy, Congress has become not even a rubber stamp but an irrelevancy." A senator who at times finds himself the only member on a certain side of thingswhether it's a willingness to place secret holds on
nominations to get a vote on a certain amendment, or an opposition to some spending provision that most Republicans agree withPaul was obviously striving to legitimize himself as a leader with original but appealing viewpoints. "When foreign policy has become so monolithic, so lacking in debate that Republicans and Democrats routinely pass foreign policy statements without debate and without votes, where are the calls for moderation, the calls for restraint?" he said. "Anyone who questions the bipartisan consensus is immediately castigated, rebuked and their patriotism challenged."

Tea Partiers want to limit war powers--- establishment bandwagons Carney 2013 (Timothy P. Carney, Senior Political Columnist at the Washington Examiner,
March 7, 2013, Why Rand Paul's Filibuster Matters, http://nation.foxnews.com/randpaul/2013/03/07/why-rand-pauls-filibuster-matters) Besides delaying for a day the vote on President Obamas nominee to head the CIA, John Brennan, did Sen. Rand Paul accomplish anything besides blowing up Twitter, as his cohort Ted Cruz put it? He certainly did. How much he accomplished will be determined, but here are some places to look: He got the major media talking, for almost the first time, about the governments ability to kill U.S. citizens, without trial, even when theyre not posing an imminent threat, on U.S. soil. Also, more broadly, about our government using drones to execute people that maybe we should be trying to capture and try. He got many Republicans to express objections to extrajudicial drone killings. Republicans, as a party, havent been very worried about U.S. overreaches in the Global War on Terror. Paul was something of a loner on this front when he was running in 2010. But Pauls filibuster captured the attention of the media, and the heart of conservatives and libertarians around the country. Twitter provided such instant feedback, that it was pretty easy for Republican politicians to see there is a real demand for these sorts of civil liberties concerns on the Right. It may even be that some conservatives who rushed to Stand to Rand were really coming out of the closet, emboldened by Paul. Probably, most politicians coming to Pauls side were being opportunistic. Certainly many conservatives in the Twitterverse and Blogosphere were motivated a bit by partisanship knocking Obamas hypocrisy on due process and civil liberties. But still, even when politicians move for opportunistic or partisan reasons, they move, and the bounds of permissible dissent move with them. Its now easier for any future Republican politician or conservative commentator to push back on military overreach. Paul made a conservative case for limiting war powers. Ill sound an even more hopeful note here: Paul may have made some

conservatives watching on C-Span or even some GOP lawmakers watching from the floor more skeptical about executive power in the sprawling war on terror.

Passing the plan is a massive win for the Tea Party Mytheos Holt 13 "Can the 'Moss Covered' GOP Be Pruned, or Wil The Old Guard Strike Back?"
3-27-13, www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/can-the-moss-covered-gop-be-pruned-or-willthe-old-guard-strike-back/ DOA: 8-1-13, y2k
At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) earlier this month, Kentucky Sen. Rand

Paul attacked the Republican party for

having grown stale and moss covered.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Mike Lee of Utah,

Now, many

observers are hoping that Paul and his compatriots, such as reform the GOP will

will be able to prune that moss from the GOP. Experts wonder if the
seriously almost certainly

new guard will be able to do what it takes , as a push to involve the shooting
of more than a few of

the partys sacred cows. The reaction to Pauls filibuster to

stall a vote to confirm John Brennan as CIA director foreshadowed this problem. Almost immediately after the event, many members of the neoconservative foreign policy establishment blasted Paul as everything from a
wacko bird to leader of the Code Pink Faction of the GOP. This response makes eminent sense to University of Virginia Professor and political prognosticator Larry Sabato, who says figures like

Paul

and Cruz, who speak for a more libertarian message,

will

necessarily

have to apply

that

message to issues look to

that have longstanding purchase in Republican circles . The old bulls can still gore an opponent, and should never be written off until they are off the stage, Sabato told TheBlaze. But you Rand Pauls
always

the new energy in any party the fresh leaders who create buzz and fire up the base . The have to perform a neat trick to succeed, though. They have to mainstream themselves to a reasonable degree without losing the fervor of their followers. They may also have to apply their libertarian approach to places where parts of the GOP base wont want it to gosocial issues and defense , for example. As Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are both finding out
and the Ted Cruzs already, advocating stances more associated with libertarianism than traditional three-legged stool conservatism can easily put you at odds with some big names in the GOP and some traditional conservative/Republican constituencies, Mair wrote. Can those types of people coexist in a coalition with more socially or culturally conservative folks, hardcore economic conservatives, and even some foreign policy conservatives on either the realist or the isolationist ends of the spectrum? And if so, can such a coalition form a sufficient base from which to win a national race? Quite possibly. The challenge is that thats rather untested, whereas the three-legged stool model is tried and tested and everyone know who belongs in it and what it can do even if in the current political situation, there are some obvious limits to its appeal in a national race, given what the

data suggest that there is reason for hope that those risks could be worth it. To begin with, while Ron Paulite skepticism of Americas motives has not gained any traction with conservatives, the general idea of a more restrained
electorate could look like in 2016. Some

foreign policy is becoming more in vogue with the wider GOP. Half of participants in this years CPAC straw poll said they thought America should take a humbler approach to foreign policy and leave Americas allies to fend for themselves to a greater degree, compared with 34 percent who
disagreed and 16 percent who werent sure. The same poll found 86 percent disapproved of using drones to kill American citize ns in any context, and 70 percent disapproved of even spying on Americans with drones.

Thats a seismic shift away from the confident adventurism and

skepticism of civil liberties present in the Bush administration, and it may signal that the GOP base is now war weary.

Plans a win for the Tea Party Daniel Larison 13 is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter, "'Fierce' Internationalism Is Dragging the GOP Down," 7-11-13,

www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/fierce-internationalism-is-dragging-the-gop-down/ DOA: 8-1-13, y2k This bit from Norm Ornsteins analysis of the internal politics of the GOP is just a lazy assertion : And while some Southern Republicans such as Lindsey Graham remain fierce internationalists, the South, and the House, have become the epicenter of anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism typified now by Rand Paul . As a description of Pauls views, this is wrong for all the usual reasons, and as an analysis of where the antiwar and non-interventionist Republicans are it is very misleading. There are some antiwar Republicans from the South and in the House, such as Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, but there are a lot more hawks and
border Senator interventionists. Judging from Ron Pauls support in the 2012 primaries, there is less support in Southern Repu blican electorates for a non-interventionist and antiwar message than among Republican voters in other parts of the country.

To the extent that all House members are more responsive

probably

to their constituents views , there is to intervention in Syria

a higher percentage of

House

Republicans opposed voters

compared to Republicans in the Senate.

That is not because House Republicans are

their

preoccupied with ideological purity and tribal politics in this particular case, but because are so averse to greater involvement
in Syria

than the representatives feel compelled to break

ranks with their partys hard-liners and ideologues. If Ornstein thinks that an increase in so-called

anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism among Republicans is an obstacle to building a durable,

competitive national party base to win presidential and Senate majorities, he is badly misreading the publics mood on foreign policy . Perhaps because his description of Pauls views is such an absurd caricature , he fails to recognize that moving away from an aggressive
and overly

militarized

foreign policy is likely to broaden the partys national appeal . One of the GOPs political weaknesses is the accurate perception that it will reflexively support increased military spending and foreign wars. Insofar as the GOPs foreign policy is identified with the fierce internationalism of a a majority will be able to write the party off as reckless and irresponsible on these issues for many years to come. As for supposedly being anti-diplomacy, it isnt non-interventionists and realists that continually portray most kinds
Lindsey Graham, of diplomatic engagement as betrayal, appeasement, or some other form of villainy. On the contrary, they are the ones that favor engagement with other governments in order to reduce tensions and lessen the chance of conflict.

Plans seen as a win for the tea party Paul, 10

(Ron Paul, representative for the 14th Congressional District of Texas in the U.S. Congress, "A Tea Party Foreign Policy", Aug 27, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/27/a_tea_party_foreign_policy NL)
As one who is opposed to centralization, I am wary of attempts to turn a grassroots movement against big government like the Tea Party into an adjunct of the Republican Party. I find it even more worrisome when I see those who willingly participated in the most egregious excesses of the most recent Republican Congress push their way into leadership roles of this movement without batting an eye -- or changing their policies! As

many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot
talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We

cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined. Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and
printing money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as their own

communities crumble and our economic decline continues. I

see tremendous opportunities for movements like the Tea Party to prosper by capitalizing on the Democrats' broken promises to overturn the George W. Bush administration's civil liberties abuses and end the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health. I am optimistic, and our numbers are increasing!

Plans a win for the tea party Beinart, 11

(Peter, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, "The Tea Party's Blind Spot", Jan 4, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/04/tea-party-foreign-policy-where-they-stand.html NL) But beneath this apparent right-wing continuity lies a massive shift. For President Bush, believing in the
Constitution meant believing that when it comes to national security, the federal government in generaland the president in particularcan do pretty much whatever they want. For the new Republican Congress, by contrast, believing in the Constitution means believing that when it comes to intervening in the economy, the federal government in generaland the president in particularcan do barely anything at all. Todays Tea Partiers generally ignore this shift because they ignore national security itself. Their Contract from America doesnt even mention foreign policy. But imagine what would

happen if the Tea Partiers did grapple with the foreign policy implications of their constitutional vision. They believe,
after all, that the framers of the Constitution wanted federal power to be extremely limited so it wouldnt infringe upon personal liberty. Theyre

fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson, the founder most associated with distrust of a powerful federal government. And they generally downplay the role of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that only a
strong central state could build America into an industrial power. But Jeffersons distrust of federal power was deeply bound up with his fear of militaries and empires. He

believed that a standing army, if created, would menace individual freedom and he wanted America to be a trading nation that would steer clear of the entangling alliances that defined European power politics. Anyone genuinely worried about debt cant ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. Throughout American history, as Walter Russell Mead has catalogued in his book, Special Providence, the disciples of
Jeffersonwhile often suspicious of government intervention domesticallyhave been downright terrified of government intervention overseas. And while Jeffersonianism does not fit simply into todays left-right spectrum, many of the most impassioned modern Jeffersonians have been conservatives. In the early years of the 20th century, for instance, it was generally progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who championed a powerful executive branch, increased government oversight of the economy and an America that flexed its muscles overseas. By contrast, it was conservatives like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge who preferred a weak presidency, unregulated capitalism and an America that stayed out of Europes military squabbles. In modern times, conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have tried to reconcile their efforts to rein in federal power with their support for a large military and an interventionist foreign policy. But both times, the latter has seriously trumped the former. Under both Reagan and Bush, aggressive, militaristic foreign policy produced more presidential power and larger deficits. Tea

Partiers say their movement is a response to the way government power, and government debt, grew under both Bush and Obama. But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what theyre upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive war on terror. Anyone genuinely worried about debt cant ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution cant ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires. The Republican
foreign-policy apparatus in Washington, which is in large measure funded by defense contractors, has declared preemptive war on the idea that military spending should be part of deficit-reduction discussion. But before going along, the Tea Partiers should think about how theyd like to be remembered by history. If

they dont extend their constitutional vision to foreign policy, theyll be abandoning any serious chance of cutting the deficit and reducing the size of government. Theyll become indistinguishable from other conservative Republicans, just the latest in a long line on the right to
put a globalist foreign policy over a minimalist state. If, on the other hand, they genuinely chart a foreign-policy course based upon

their understanding of the Constitutionif they subordinate the war on terror to the demands of fiscal solvencythey will be a new and subversive force in American politics, and the Republican Party will be headed for a fascinating ideological showdown.

Would that make the Tea Party a positive force in American politics? Heck no. But at this point, Id
settle for them simply being an interesting one.

Link- Indefinite Detention

Limiting indefinite detention is part of the Tea Party agenda White 2012 (Jeremy White, March 30, 2012, Republicans Join Fight Against Indefinite
Detention In NDAA, International Business Times, http://www.ibtimes.com/republicans-joinfight-against-indefinite-detention-ndaa-432196) Some Republican members of the House have rallied behind the same principle, according to the Associated Press. They are motivated by a concern that the provisions will vastly expand the scope of executive power without imposing important checks. I intend to help put as much political pressure on this issue as possible, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) told the Associated Press. I intend to spend a lot of time - and I already have been doing so - making the public aware of this issue so we can get the change we need to address it. Presidential Power Concerns Since 9/11 Concerns about presidential power in post-911 era are nothing new. During the Bush administration, Democrats warned vociferously about what they saw grave civil liberties violations for those accused of terrorism, abuses that were epitomized by the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. But rather than allay those concerns, the Obama administration has embraced and in some ways expanded an assertive view of executive authority. Obama has issued waivers that shield most terrorism suspects from mandatory detention, but some of his other actions -- including authorizing a lethal strike in Yemen on the radical Al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen -- have faced legal scrutiny. The Republican opposition to the detention provisions in the NDAA is in part fueled by the influx of Tea Party-affiliated House members who emphasize the primacy of the Constitution. Half of the House Republicans voting against the legislation were part of the Tea Party-inflected wave of first-term representatives elected in 2010, including Amash.

Link- Drones
Tea Party hates drones Yonkman, 13
(David, Newsmax Washington Correspondent, "ACLU, Tea Party Align Aainst Drone Program", Feb 13, www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/aclu-drone-policycounterterrorism/2013/02/13/id/490246 NL) The American Civil Liberties Union is joining tea party activists in opposing the use of armed drones and other counterterrorism operations to kill suspected terrorists, even American citizens. A recently surfaced
Justice Department memo revealed that drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed. Both the ACLU and tea

party groups cite the Fifth Amendment, which says that Americans are guaranteed due process of law under the Constitution, and that the classified program circumvents that right. Everyone has a right to know what the rules are, and thats whats been hidden from the American public and even Congress, ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Christopher
Anders tells Newsmax. He joins Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who gave the official tea party rebuttal to President Barack Obamas State of the Union address on Tuesday. Paul

said: We will not tolerate secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial. Obama told Congress in the annual joint session that he will continue to engage with
Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and systems of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world. The remarks did little to satisfy the ACLU or tea party activists. Its good to have a commitment to that, but theres no specificity to it, the ACLUs Anders said. Were not a nation of secret laws. Eleven senators eight Democrats and three Republicans asked Obama earlier this month to justify the use of the drone program to lawmakers. The bipartisan group warned it might stall the nominations of John Brennan as head of the Central Intelligence Agency and former Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska as Defense Secretary should Obama not provide the classified information. Currently, both the CIA and the military are authorized to remotely pilot unmanned, missile-carrying drones against terror suspects.

Pauls filibuster proves Beauchamp and Brown, 13

(Zack Beauchamp and Hayes Brown, writers for Think Progress, "Rand Paul Launches Talking Filibuster: Demands Assurance Obama Wont Use Drones Against Americans In U.S.", March 6, thinkprogress.org/security/2013/03/06/1683851/rand-paul-launches-talking-filibusterdemands-assurance-obama-wont-use-drones-against-americans-in-us/ NL) Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has long demanded a national conversation about President Obamas claimed power to kill American citizens. On Wednesday, he took a big step towards starting one, using a rare talking filibuster to hold up the nomination of John Brennan to head the CIA and deliver an extended critique of the targeted killing of Americans on American soil. Brennan played a critical role in the development and codification of the Obama Administrations targeted killing program, so his nomination has become a flashpoint for Paul and others worried about the scope of the powers claimed in it. Publicly released documents, particularly the infamous CIA white paperoutlining the legal thinking behind the strike on American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, have not provided specific guidance on the territorial limits of the Presidential power to kill citizens. A more recent document, submitted to Congress by Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that under extraordinary circumstances, such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the president could kill an American citizen on American soil. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Holder specifically admitted that killing an American in the United States would be inappropriate and unconstitutional if the individual did not pose an imminent threat. Throughout his filibuster, Paul repeatedly said that he would be willing to move to a vote on Brennans nomination if the Obama administration translated

Holders reply into a written response and stated that it did not believe that the executive branch could target and kill Americans on American soil in most instances. Paul acknowledged that it was unlikely that Obama would launch a drone strike against someone sleeping in their bed, but demanded clarification of what criteria the administration had for conducting targeted killing. While he initially questioned the principles behind so-called signature strikes against suspected terrorists not currently fighting, Paul later shifted his focus to whether tactics used overseas could be transferred to American citizens within the U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who referred to himself and Paul (both whom have strong records on civil liberties issues) as the checks and balances caucus, also joined the questioning. He emphasized the need for public disclosure of classified documents about the legal authorization of targeted killings, arguing that every American has the right to know when their government believes it is allowed to kill them. Ive had four sessions now with the classified documents and I still have questions, Wyden said, concluding that theres a very strong case for being able to declassify said documents. Wyden parted with Paul only on the forthrightness of Administration officials, suggesting that Brennans testimony that the the CIA does not have the authority to conduct those operations [targeted killings+ was an adequate answer to Pauls questions about the scope of the targeted killing power. Wyden also suggested that the Attorney General has moved in the direction of what wed like to hear. Paul responded by claiming that the Administrations responses did not rule out targeted killings inside the U.S. and suggested that the administration should clarify its position. The senators did not address the broader issues surrounding the targeted killing program, such as whether, under the Administrations current understanding of law, the authority to conducted targeted killings against all suspected terrorists will ever expire.

Link- Offensive Cyber Operations

Plans a win--- House Republicans hate executive cyber authority and have tried to limit it before Sasso 2012 (Brandon Sasso, December 21, 2012, House Republicans urge Obama not to issue
cybersecurity order, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/274391house-republicans-urge-obama-not-to-issue-cybersecurity-order) A group of 46 House Republicans , led by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Steve Scalise (La.), sent President Obama a letter on Friday urging him not to issue an executive order on cybersecurity. "Instead of preempting Congress' will and pushing a top-down regulatory framework, your administration should engage Congress in an open and constructive manner to help address the serious cybersecurity challenges facing our country," the lawmakers wrote. The White House is currently drafting an executive order that would encourage operators of critical infrastructure, such as banks and electric grids, to meet cybersecurity standards. The administration says the order, which could come as early as January, is necessary to protect vital systems from hackers. The White House began working on the order after Senate Republicans blocked the Democrats' preferred cybersecurity bill. But in their letter, the House Republicans urged the administration to continue working with Congress.

Link- Isolationism
Plans a win for the tea party Beinart, 11
(Peter, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, "The Tea Party's Blind Spot", Jan 4, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/04/tea-party-foreign-policy-where-they-stand.html NL) But beneath this apparent right-wing continuity lies a massive shift. For President Bush, believing in the
Constitution meant believing that when it comes to national security, the federal government in generaland the president in particularcan do pretty much whatever they want. For the new Republican Congress, by contrast, believing in the Constitution means believing that when it comes to intervening in the economy, the federal government in generaland the president in particularcan do barely anything at all. Todays Tea Partiers generally ignore this shift because they ignore national security itself. Their Contract from America doesnt even mention foreign policy. But imagine what would

happen if the Tea Partiers did grapple with the foreign policy implications of their constitutional vision. They believe,
after all, that the framers of the Constitution wanted federal power to be extremely limited so it wouldnt infringe upon personal liberty. Theyre

fond of quoting Thomas Jefferson, the founder most associated with distrust of a powerful federal government. And they generally downplay the role of Alexander Hamilton, who believed that only a
strong central state could build America into an industrial power. But Jeffersons distrust of federal power was deeply bound up with his fear of militaries and empires. He

believed that a standing army, if created, would menace individual freedom and he wanted America to be a trading nation that would steer clear of the entangling alliances that defined European power politics. Anyone genuinely worried about debt cant ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. Throughout American history, as Walter Russell Mead has catalogued in his book, Special Providence, the disciples of
Jeffersonwhile often suspicious of government intervention domesticallyhave been downright terrified of government intervention overseas. And while Jeffersonianism does not fit simply into todays left-right spectrum, many of the most impassioned modern Jeffersonians have been conservatives. In the early years of the 20th century, for instance, it was generally progressives like Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who championed a powerful executive branch, increased government oversight of the economy and an America that flexed its muscles overseas. By contrast, it was conservatives like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge who preferred a weak presidency, unregulated capitalism and an America that stayed out of Europes military squabbles. In modern times, conservative presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have tried to reconcile their efforts to rein in federal power with their support for a large military and an interventionist foreign policy. But both times, the latter has seriously trumped the former. Under both Reagan and Bush, aggressive, militaristic foreign policy produced more presidential power and larger deficits. Tea

Partiers say their movement is a response to the way government power, and government debt, grew under both Bush and Obama. But if they looked seriously at the reasons for that growth under Bush, they would see that much of what theyre upset about is the military and homeland security spending justified by his expansive war on terror. Anyone genuinely worried about debt cant ignore the fact that defense constitutes a majority of federal discretionary spending. And anyone devoted to a strict interpretation of the Constitution cant ignore the fact that America is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Pakistan, Yemen and lots of other places, without formal congressional declarations of war, although that is what the Constitution requires. The Republican
foreign-policy apparatus in Washington, which is in large measure funded by defense contractors, has declared preemptive war on the idea that military spending should be part of deficit-reduction discussion. But before going along, the Tea Partiers should think about how theyd like to be remembered by history. If

they dont extend their constitutional vision to foreign policy, theyll be abandoning any serious chance of cutting the deficit and reducing the size of government. Theyll become indistinguishable from other conservative Republicans, just the latest in a long line on the right to
put a globalist foreign policy over a minimalist state. If, on the other hand, they genuinely chart a foreign-policy course based upon their understanding of the Constitutionif they subordinate the war on terror to the demands of fiscal solvencythey will be a new and subversive force in American politics, and the Republican Party will be headed for a fascinating ideological showdown.

Would that make the Tea Party a positive force in American politics? Heck no. But at this point, Id
settle for them simply being an interesting one.

Isolationist policy is a win for the Tea Party Daniel Larison 13 is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter, "'Fierce' Internationalism Is Dragging the GOP Down," 7-11-13, www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/fierce-internationalism-is-dragging-the-gop-down/ DOA: 8-1-13, y2k This bit from Norm Ornsteins analysis of the internal politics of the GOP is just a lazy assertion : And while some Southern Republicans such as Lindsey Graham remain fierce internationalists, the South, and the House, have become the epicenter of anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism typified now by Rand Paul . As a description of Pauls views, this is wrong for all the usual reasons, and as an analysis of where the antiwar and non-interventionist Republicans are it is very misleading. There are some antiwar Republicans from the South and in the House, such as Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, but there are a lot more hawks and
border Senator interventionists. Judging from Ron Pauls support in the 2012 primaries, there is less support in Southern Republican elector ates for a non-interventionist and antiwar message than among Republican voters in other parts of the country.

To the extent that all House members are more responsive

probably

to their constituents views , there is to intervention in Syria

a higher percentage of

House

Republicans opposed voters

compared to Republicans in the Senate.

That is not because House Republicans are

their

preoccupied with ideological purity and tribal politics in this particular case, but because are so averse to greater involvement
in Syria

than the representatives feel compelled to break

ranks with their partys hard-liners and ideologues. If Ornstein thinks that an increase in so-called

anti-defense and anti-diplomacy isolationism among Republicans is an obstacle to building a durable,

competitive national party base to win presidential and Senate majorities, he is badly misreading the publics mood on foreign policy . Perhaps because his description of Pauls views is such an absurd caricature , he fails to recognize that moving away from an aggressive
and overly

militarized

foreign policy is likely to broaden the partys national appeal . One of the GOPs political weaknesses is the accurate perception that it will reflexively support increased military spending and foreign wars . Insofar as the GOPs foreign policy is identified with the fierce internationalism of a Lindsey Graham, a majority will be able to write the party off as reckless and irresponsible on these issues for many years to come. As for supposedly being anti-diplomacy, it isnt non-interventionists and realists that continually portray most kinds
of diplomatic engagement as betrayal, appeasement, or some other form of villainy. On the contrary, they are the ones that favor engagement with other governments in order to reduce tensions and lessen the chance of conflict.

Tea Party Momentum Spills Over

Strong arming the president increases the Tea Partys effectiveness in Congress Nocera 2013 (Kate Nocera, staff writer, June 3, 2013, Tea Party Faces Future In Congress
Without Clear Leader, Buzzfeed Politics, http://www.buzzfeed.com/katenocera/tea-partyfaces-future-in-congress-without-clear-leader) Not everyone is thrilled about the tea partys staying power. Republican Sen. John McCain has been openly critical of his colleagues for objecting to a budget conference. Spats between House leadership and conservatives are nothing new. Brian Walsh, a Republican strategist and former communications director for the Senate Republican campaign arm, predicted a boost in the tea partys effectiveness heading into the 2014 election, if they can keep their focus squarely on Democrats.

Restraining government power key to future Tea Party influence Johnson 2013 (Drew Johnson, Editor of the Free Press opinion page, Right Side Round Table:
What is the future of the Tea Party? What does the Tea Party need to do in order to remain influential and effective?, http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/may/16/right-sideround-table/) Gallup polls routinely find that 60 percent of Americans believe that government is too intrusive and powerful. The tea party movement should be an inviting place to the substantial majority of Americans that believes the government is too large and spends too much -- and it would be if the tea party's focus remained on those issues. Unfortunately, the tendency of some tea party groups to take controversial stances or embrace obscure topics, ranging from opposing gay marriage and abortion to fighting against Agenda 21 and Sharia law, chases away many, if not most, of the tea party's potential supporters. Now the tea party movement is at a crossroads. Which way tea party leaders decide to go from here will determine whether the tea party remains a thriving, powerful force that shapes policy decisions and determines electoral outcomes or withers into a historical footnote -- or worse, becomes a social club of like-minded people, powerless to effect change.

War powers issue strengthens Tea Party leadership Ari Shapiro 13 Ari Shapiro is NPR Staff, "Will The Future GOP Be More Libertarian?" 4-9-13,
www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/09/176707589/will-the-future-gop-be-morelibertarian, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k
Republicans don't often make high-profile speeches at Howard University, one of the country's most prominent historically black schools. But on Wednesday, Kentucky Sen.

Rand Paul will talk to Howard students about how his party can be more inclusive . Paul believes one answer is libertarianism

and party leaders are starting to think he might be on to

something . When Paul's father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, ran for president in 2007, the Republican establishment treated him a bit like the wacky uncle in the
family. In the middle of two expensive wars, Ron Paul's libertarian ideas of small government and personal freedom didn't really align with party leaders. "They don't stand for these ideals anymore," Ron Paul said on NBC's Meet the Press. "I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so than the individuals running for the party right now."

Over the next several years, Americans grew tired of war . The economy tanked. The debt grew. President Obama's stimulus and health care programs ballooned the size of government. All of that opened Americans up to more libertarian ideas . In 2010, Ron Paul's son Rand won election to the Senate as a Republican on what he called a "Tea Party tidal wave." "We've come to take our
government back!" he said. A Libertarian Moment Last month, Rand

Paul shook the Republican establishment with a 13-hour

filibuster over drones . Even the conservative Heritage Foundation, which often clashes with libertarians, tweeted, " Stand with Rand."
Lee Edwards of Heritage says libertarianism is having its moment. "I think you'd have to go back to Barry Goldwater when he ran for president in 1964 to get somebody who advanced as many libertarian ideas and policies as are being talked about today," Edwards says. Today, majorities of Americans want to lower the debt, allow gay marriage and legalize marijuana. Those are not all traditional Republican values. But they are all libertarian ones. Last month, the GOP released a scathing review of what went wrong for the party in the 2012 election. One conclusion was that Republicans need to expand the tent on social issues. "They are saying we're losing young voters, we're losing a lot of independents, we're losing suburban women," says David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "And a lot of it is because, as the report said, we are perceived as out of touch and narrow-minded." He says the solution is something he's been preaching for years. "The report suggested that Republicans need to reiterate that they are a small-government, conservative party committed to economic growth and opportunity," Boaz says, "with room for people who take different views on social issues. And, obviously, in this case different views means more libertarian views." What About Social Conservatives? This seems like a threat to the ideals that social conservatives hold dear. They have been an important part of the Republican base for a long time, and they are extremely dubious of this new approach. "To say that you want to jettison social conservatives in order to get an emerging demographic of young people is like saying, 'Well, we lost a close game, so let's bench our quarterback, who was the most valuable player and gained the most yards,' " says Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Besides, Land says, he believes young people won't hold their libertarian views for long. "I would say that these young voters' frontal lobes aren't fully developed yet," he says. "That's why they have parents and that's why they have their elders." But these ideas are not just appealing to young people, says Michael Dimock of the Pew Research Center. "With the economy in tough times, people are blaming the government for a lot of the problems that we face, and they're frustrated with the government," he

This is not just a straightforward libertarian boom, though. Dimock says the drug legalization crowd isn't the same as the low-tax crowd. And the Tea Partiers who like low taxes tend not to support gay marriage. In other words, while libertarian ideas are popular , Dimock says full-on libertarians are still
says, "and you do see that sentiment coming across a range of different policy issues." An Opening For The GOP?

rare . "It's still difficult to find many Americans who are consistently libertarian across a wide range of issues foreign policy, social policy and economic policy all at once," he says. Still, Democratic strategist Tad Devine says he thinks Republicans have an opening here that could pose a threat to Democrats. "These concerns ... have the potential of attracting voters ," Devine says. "People could coalesce
concerns, vote for candidates who support an agenda, and this behind these

libertarian movement is becoming a place where a lot of

these ideas are finding expression ." But so far it's an agenda that neither party is ready to embrace in its entirety.

2NC Rand Paul Link--- Topic

The plan is a big win for Rand Paul Sanchez 2013 (Julian Sanchez, March 8, 2013, Mr. Paul Goes to Washington, Real Clear
Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/08/mr_paul_goes_to_washington_117356.h tml) As Sen. Rand Paul acknowledged early on in his epic 13-hour speech Wednesday (highlights here), his decision to mount an old-fashioned, talk-till-you-drop filibuster of John Brennans confirmation as CIA director didnt really have much to do with Brennan personally. But neither was it really, at a fundamental level, about the narrow question of whether the president can drop a Hellfire missile on your cafe experience as you sit sipping a latte on American soil. If any citizens were realistically worried about that prospect, Attorney General Eric Holder has (somewhat belatedly) answered that question in the negative, prompting Paul to declare victory on that front. But as Wireds Spencer Ackerman observes, the spectre of Predators over Starbucks actually served to spotlight the extraordinary breadth of the legal claims that undergird the boundless, 11-plus-year war on terrorismand to frame a much broader and more wide-ranging critique of that perpetual war, in which Paul charged that Congress has abdica ted its responsibilities to an unaccountable executive branch . In Pauls view, we shouldnt be asking *the president+ for drone memosdocuments laying out the legal basis for the CIAs targeted killing program, which the administration has finally, grudgingly deigned to provide to Congress, though not the American publicwe should be giving him drone memos. As if to highlight the erosion of statutory checks on the presidents counterterror authority, Sen. Lindsey Graham declared that, after all, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed after 9/11 made no exception for actions in the United Stateseven though Congress had specifically rejected a request to include that phrase in the authorization. The broadly positive reaction to Pauls filibuster suggests, to me at least, that many Americans now fall outside the bipartisan Washington consensus that theres little need for serious congressional scrutiny or debate when it comes to the War on Terror, and are relieved to hear that dissatisfaction echoed on the Senate floor. No longer as terrorized or shell-shocked as we were a decade ago, perhaps were becoming less willing to accept assertions that the public has no business knowing how and when the president may authorize secret killings in countries where we are not formally at war. If we want to get really radical, we may eventually begin to suggest there are proper constraintsif not constitutional, then at least moraleven on the killing of human beings who had the poor taste to be born in another country. We might question whether Americans are being well served when Congress spends less time debating the reauthorization of the Patriot Act or the FISA Amendments Act than Senator Paul did (literally) standing on principle Wednesday night.

Rand Paul leadership is key to the Tea Party Guinta 2012 (Eric Guinta, November 13, 2012, The Rand Paul VO ution: Key to Tea Party
Salvation?, Sunshine State News, http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rand-paul%C7%9Dvo%CB%A9ution-key-tea-party-salvation) Last week, tea party leaders and insiders told Sunshine State News their movement isn't dead, but just getting geared up for victories in 2014 and 2016. This morning a profile by Politico suggests that the future of the tea party -- and, quite possibly, the Republican Party itself --

might lie in the direction Kentucky senator and libertarian stalwart Rand Paul wants to take it: "Hell push to loosen marijuana penalties, legalize undocumented immigrants and pursue a less aggressive American foreign policy. "Call it the Rand Paul Evolution. "In the wake of Barack Obamas re-election win and ahead of a possible 2016 White House bid of his own, the Kentucky Republican plans to mix his hard-line tea party conservatism with more moderate policies that could woo younger voters and minorities largely absent from the GOP coalition. Its the latest tactic of the freshman senator to inject the Libertarian-minded views shared by his retiring father into mainstream Republican thinking as the party grapples with its future. "In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said hell return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an 'eventual path' to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas -- along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas -- could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes."

2NC Rand Paul Link--- Drones

Asserting opposition to the administration on drones key to Rand Paul leadership Elleithee 2013 (Mo Elleithee, March 8, 2013, New leader of the GOP: Rand Paul, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/elleithee-gop-rand-paul) The second reason why Paul has become the party's most effective messenger is that everyone across the entire ideological spectrum -- from John McCain, Rubio and The Wall Street Journal to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Attorney General Eric Holder -- is responding to him. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz rushed to floor to bask in the glory of Paul's "filiblizzard." Attorney General Holder sent him a letter clarifying the administration's position on drones. Reid and Minority Leader McConnell took to the Senate floor to applaud Paul's conviction (and bladder control). It wasn't all love, however. Fellow Republican Sens. McCain and Graham took to the floor to blast him for his position. The problem is that they are decidedly old guard. The new faces in the party fell all over themselves to "#standwithrand." Rand Paul has people listening and responding to him . He's dictating the conversation. And when you look at the ineptitude of the rest of the Republican message machine, it's pretty clear that he is one of the few people in his party that know how to do that.

Rand Paul leadership is key to the Tea Party Guinta 2012 (Eric Guinta, November 13, 2012, The Rand Paul VO ution: Key to Tea Party
Salvation?, Sunshine State News, http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rand-paul%C7%9Dvo%CB%A9ution-key-tea-party-salvation) Last week, tea party leaders and insiders told Sunshine State News their movement isn't dead, but just getting geared up for victories in 2014 and 2016. This morning a profile by Politico suggests that the future of the tea party -- and, quite possibly, the Republican Party itself -might lie in the direction Kentucky senator and libertarian stalwart Rand Paul wants to take it: "Hell push to loosen marijuana penalties, legalize undocumented immigrants and pursue a less aggressive American foreign policy. "Call it the Rand Paul Evolution. "In the wake of Barack Obamas re-election win and ahead of a possible 2016 White House bid of his own, the Kentucky Republican plans to mix his hard-line tea party conservatism with more moderate policies that could woo younger voters and minorities largely absent from the GOP coalition. Its the latest tactic of the freshman senator to inject the Libertarian-minded views shared by his retiring father into mainstream Republican thinking as the party grapples with its future. "In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said hell return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an 'eventual path' to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas -- along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas -- could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes."

Restricting AUMF = Win for RP

Restricting AUMF is a big win for Rand Paul Healy 2013 (Gene Healy, March 13, 2013, Rand Paul vs. the Forever War, Real Clear
Politics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/03/13/rand_paul_vs_the_forever_war_117401. html) The immediate subject of Pauls marathon session whether the administration could legally execute an American citizen on American soil via flying kill-bot is, admittedly, an unlikely scenario. Still, I had to laugh when, amid the filibuster, I saw a blog post from the Obamaphilic Center for American Progress, breathlessly warning that the Number of Radical AntiGovernment Groups Reached an All-Time High in 2012. Homeland Security isnt serious enough about fighting patriot groups, who fear federal policies aimed at taking away American freedoms. So send in the drones, already! But Paul devoted considerable time to a more pressing issue: the increasingly tenuous legal authority for our ever-expanding war on terror. More than a decade after Sept. 11, the legal basis for that war is the A uthorization for the U se of M ilitary F orce that Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001, empowering the president to go after those responsible for that atrocity and anyone who harbored them. As Paul noted, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything. We need a serious debate, he said, about whether that use or authorization of force is open-ended, forever. Indeed, on the morning of Pauls filibuster, the Washington Posts front page blared: Administration debates stretching 9/11 law to go after new al-Qaeda offshoots. Actually, theyve already stretched it beyond recognition. As Paul pointed out Wednesday, counterterror mission creep has led to war in Yemen, Somalia, Mali. It is a war in unlimited places against increasingly marginal groups that didnt exist on Sept. 11. In Mali, the Post reported, unarmed U.S. Reapers scour the deserts to search for so-called patterns of life communications and movements deemed by the U.S. to be telltale signs of militant activity. The targeting information weve passed on has led to nearly 60 French airstrikes in the past week alone.

2NC Rand Paul Link--- Indefinite Detention

Rand Paul opposes detention---he would receive the credit Megan Scully 12 covers defense and national security for CQ. Rand Paul Holds Up NDAA Bill
Over Indefinite Detention Amendment, 11-16-12, http://govtslaves.info/rand-paul-holds-upndaa-bill-over-indefinite-detention-amendment/ DOA: 8-2-13, y2k Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is holding up consideration of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill over an amendment he plans to offer that would require a jury trial for Americans detained in terrorism investigations . A Paul spokeswoman said the senator wants an agreement in principle to get a vote on the amendment, which would likely produce some fireworks on the floor. Pauls demand for a vote comes as Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the panel, are working behind the scenes to limit debate on the sprawling policy measure (S 3254) to ensure it
receives floor time during the lame-duck session. On Thursday, Levin said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had given him and McCain control of the length of time needed for the bill. Their goal, he added, is to get it on and off the floor in three days. But, in order to do so, the two lawmakers must try to steer clear of amendments that

Paul has some demands, as usual, McCain said. He wants a vote and other things, and were trying to accommodate everybody. Reid went to the Senate floor Thursday
could take up significant floor time and potentially jeopardize passage of the bill. Sen. afternoon to say that he is ready to move to the defense bill, but that there was an objection on the Republican side. He said he would try again after the Thanksgiving recess, but had no plans to file for cloture. Paul said on Wednesday that he opposes indefinite detention and believes that habeas corpus rights are the beginning of due process, not an end.

So many in my caucus believe habeas is due process, he said.

If Paul objects to bringing up the defense bill, Reid

would have to file cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure, a time-consuming procedural hurdle that could serve as a deterrent to calling up the bill. The Armed Services Committee had hoped the Senate could complete work on the defense bill, which is next in line after the sportsmans bill (S 3525), the week after Thanksgiving. That would allow plenty of time to negotiate differences with the House, which passed its version of the measure (HR 4310) in May.

Rand Paul leadership is key to the Tea Party Guinta 2012 (Eric Guinta, November 13, 2012, The Rand Paul VO ution: Key to Tea Party
Salvation?, Sunshine State News, http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/blog/rand-paul%C7%9Dvo%CB%A9ution-key-tea-party-salvation) Last week, tea party leaders and insiders told Sunshine State News their movement isn't dead, but just getting geared up for victories in 2014 and 2016. This morning a profile by Politico suggests that the future of the tea party -- and, quite possibly, the Republican Party itself -might lie in the direction Kentucky senator and libertarian stalwart Rand Paul wants to take it: "Hell push to loosen marijuana penalties, legalize undocumented immigrants and pursue a less aggressive American foreign policy. "Call it the Rand Paul Evolution. "In the wake of Barack Obamas re-election win and ahead of a possible 2016 White House bid of his own, the Kentucky Republican plans to mix his hard-line tea party conservatism with more moderate policies that could woo younger voters and minorities largely absent from the GOP coalition. Its the latest tactic of the freshman senator to inject the Libertarian-minded views shared by his retiring father into mainstream Republican thinking as the party grapples with its future. "In an interview with POLITICO, Paul said hell return to Congress this week pushing measures long avoided by his party. He wants to work with liberal Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy and Republicans to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for pot possession. He wants to carve a compromise immigration plan with an 'eventual path' to citizenship for illegal immigrants, a proposal he believes could be palatable to conservatives. And he believes his ideas -- along with pushing for less U.S. military intervention in conflicts overseas -- could help the GOP broaden its tent and appeal to crucial voting blocs that handed Democrats big wins in the West Coast, the Northeast and along the Great Lakes."

Rand Paul Gets Credit

Rand Paul gets the credit for the plan Jonathan S. Tobin 13 is Senior Online Editor of Commentary magazine with responsibility for
managing the editorial content of the website as well as serving as chief politics blogger. From January 2009 to April 2011, he was executive editor of the magazine. Prior to coming to Commentary, Tobin was editor in chief of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and the Connecticut Jewish Ledger. His writing has appeared in the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post, the Weekly Standard, the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, USA Today and many other publications. Over the course of his career, he has won more than 50 journalism awards for commentary, editorial writing, and arts criticism. He has been named the top columnist and editorial writer for Jewish newspapers in North America several times, as well as the top weekly columnist and editorial writer in Pennsylvania and Connecticut. In 2006, he received the unique distinction of being named both the best editorial columnist and the best arts critic in Philadelphia by the Society of Professional Journalists. He has lectured on campuses and to organizations around the country and has appeared on CNN, FOX News Channel, the FOX Business Channel, the BBC, PBS, Pacifica and numerous other media outlets. The Wrong Way to Answer Rand, 3-8-13, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/08/the-wrong-way-toanswer-rand-paul-john-mccain-drones/ DOA: 8-1-13, y2k
Yesterday, Senators John

McCain and Lindsey Graham struck back at Rand Pauls Wednesday filibuster with bitter

attacks on his stand on drone attacks . McCain mocked Pauls day in the spotlight as a stunt aimed at firing up impressionable libertarian kids
in their college dorms. Graham was so mad about it that he changed his mind and voted to confirm John Brennan as director of the C.I.A. just in order to send a statement about his support of the drone program that Paul had attacked. Both McCain and Graham were correct to point out that the filibuster was fought on what is basically a nonissue. As I wrote on Wednesday, while Paul was conducting his filibuster, the Kentucky senators real beef is not with the im agined threat of the government ordering a drone strike on a U.S. citizen sitting in a caf on U.S. soil. Rather, it is with the war the United States is fighting against Islamist terrorists who continue to pose a deadly threat to the homeland as well as to our friends and interests abroad. Pauls goal is to withdraw from this conflict and to pretend that it is not one that is being forced upon us by our

it should also be understood that while McCain and Graham were right on the policy, they were dead wrong on the politics . Its no use pretending that Paul is merely appealing to the margins of the political spectrum as his far more extreme and less politically adroit father Ron did during his presidential campaigns. That Pauls filibuster was conducted on behalf of a bogus issue doesnt change the fact that it was an act of political genius that captured the imagination of many Americans
enemies. That is a dangerous position that deserved the censure of the two GOP amigos. But who might not ordinarily think much of the senator. Dismissing his achievement only made Pauls critics look hopelessly out of touch.

The question is not while so many of

whether the grass roots of the Republican Party were inspired by his stand. They were . How could they not want to cheer a man who took a courageous stand
in that manner

their partys leaders have lacked the guts or the skill to confront the president on many big issues ?
The question is what those who understand that Paul is wrong on the issue and that he is poised to drag the party down a path that will lead it to abandon its traditional support for a strong America will do about it. If they dont think of something, it will be the end of the Republican Partys long-held consensus on foreign policy. The lesson of the filibuster is that

people want to follow a person who leads publicly and courageously . Irrespective of

the wisdom of his stand, that is just what Paul did . The willingness of so many other conservative senatorsincluding those like
Marco Rubio who dont agree with Pauls approach to foreign policyto flock to the Senate floor while he spoke and offer him support shows they understood what McCain and

For the pair to manifest disrespect for Pauls achievement is political stupidity of the highest order. It also makes their gentlemanly decision to forgo a filibuster on Chuck Hagels nomination to be secretary of defense look all the more
Graham havent figured out. pusillanimous.

A2 GOP is not isolationist

Congressional Republicans are isolationists Grim 2013 (Ryan Grim, June 11, 2013, Divisions Over National Security State Scramble Old
Alliances, Political Coalitions, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/nsa-leak_n_3421415.html) The GOP has historically been a coalition that included staunch isolationists, an outgrowth of a don't-tread-on-me philosophy. The purge began in the run up to World War I and was fully complete by the 1980s, as the GOP captured "Reagan Democrats" who wanted tough talk against the Soviet Union and rebelled against the counter-cultural opposition to the Vietnam War that had seeped into the Democratic Party. The neoconservative movement, once led by Sen. Scoop Jackson, a Cold War Democrat from Washington state who had been a favorite to win the 1972 presidential nomination, drifted fully over to the GOP, and by the time the Patriot Act was rushed through Congress, the GOP gave it a full-throated embrace. A handful of Democrats stood up to it, but few wanted to make a political fight out of it. But the tea party wave in 2010 brought in a new batch of Republicans who had no connections to the post-9/11 legislative flurry and a deep distrust of government. The first time House leaders put an extension of the Patriot Act on the floor, they were shocked when their members blocked it. Paul has become the base of opposition to the overreach of the national security state, solidifying his place with his 13-hour filibuster on drones. He has extended that critique to include the NSA's surveillance, and has angered plenty of top Republicans in the process. That debate is likely to continue playing out over the next several years, as Paul flirts with a presidential bid, lifting his national profile and that of the civil liberties movement he's leading.

***Budget Impact***

Ext Block Budget

Tea Partiers will block budget compromises Timm 13 (Jane C., "GOP struggles to contain Tea Party in budget fight," 5/28,
www.nbcnews.com/id/52019854/t/gop-struggles-contain-tea-party-budgetfight/#.UftCUZK1Fsk) Seasoned, moderate Republicans are sparring publicly with their junior, far right colleagues, bringing the partys internal disputes to the Senate floor and adding a new layer of partisanship to an already gridlocked chamber. The budget debate incited divisive intra-party squabbling as Tea Party senators looked to obstruct ordinary budget processes last week. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain sparred with freshmen Republicans demands on a potential conference between the House and Senate to reconcile the two chambers disparate budget proposals. Four Tea Party-backed junior senatorsTed Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, and Marco Rubio of Floridahave demanded a promise that any delegation wouldnt agree to raising the debt ceiling as part of such a conference, blocking the Senates attempt to appoint conferees which is done by unanimous vote. The demand of a condition that happens to be important to a small groupwill paralyze the process, McCain said. Obviously you can predict the outcome. He criticized Lee for characterizing such a conference as a back-room, closed-door deal, reminding him that any deal struck would have to be voted on by the chambers. Maybe the senator from Utah ought to learn a little bit more about how business has been done in the Congress of the United States, he said angrily. Below, watch the C-SPAN video edited by Talking Points Memo. On Wednesday, McCain and Cruz butted heads again on the budget after McCain criticized Cruz for not trusting his party to act responsibly. Cruz doubled down on the criticism. Let me be clear: I dont trust the Republicans. And I dont trust the Democrats, Cruz said. The last few years wave of Tea Party candidates campaigned on their plan to shake up Washington and ignore party loyalties and business-as-usual. We were not sent here to affirm the way the Senate worked as Congress racked up trillions in debt, inflated the housing bubble, doled out favors to special interests, squeezed the middle class and trapped the poor in poverty, Lee said on the senate floor. We were sent here to change that. Many GOP senators told Huffington Post they understood the senators concerns, but rejected their tactics. South Carolinas Sen. Lindsey Graham said he trusted the normal course of businessthat were not going to use reconciliation to raise the debt limit, and Alabama deficit hawk Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Budget committee, told Huffington Post that eventually we need to go forward and reach an agreement, the president needs to be engaged, and a conference provides an opportunity to do that. But Cruz sees himself as a crusader. I will suggest to my friend from Arizona, there may be more wacko birds in the Senate than is suspected,the Texas senator said Thursday, referring to the pejorative name McCain gave him, Paul, and Rep. Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican, earlier this year during the filibuster led by Paul over drones.

Tea Party members will push for larger spending cuts, block budget compromise Berrier 11 (Justin, "Right-Wing Media Whitewash GOP Obstructionism in Budget Battle," April
5, mediamatters.org/blog/2011/04/05/right-wing-media-whitewash-gop-obstructionismi/178328)

As the House continues to battle over the 2011 budget, the specter of a government shutdown continues to loom. Although the issue is complicated, and mired in partisan bickering, there's one thing the right-wing media is sure of: No matter how the negotiations go, if the government does shut down, it will be the Democrats' fault. The hyper-partisans who make up the majority of Fox News' schedule have spun like crazy in the past few weeks to make sure you know that Republicans cannot be blamed for any possible government shutdown. However, to make such an argument, the right-wing media has willfully ignored the truth: That GOP obstructionism and the unreasonable demands of tea party-backed GOP House members has thwarted Congress' ability to pass a budget. For example, the Associated Press reported on Sunday that House Speaker John Boehner "wants the overwhelming majority of [budget] votes to come from his fellow Republicans, even if dozens of easily attainable Democratic votes could help carry the budget bill to victory." The report from the AP made it clear that Boehner is playing partisan politics to protect not only his party's majority in the House, but his own position of power: Eventually, both parties must decide where to draw the line in negotiations and whether to risk a government shutdown that could trigger unpredictable political fallout. Some congressional veterans say Boehner is taking the only realistic approach for a speaker who wants to stay in power. If he cuts a deal that relies heavily on Democrats' votes, he could alienate scores of House Republicans, who might in turn start seeking a new leader. [...] "Not very interested," Boehner told reporters last week when asked about forming a coalition with Democrats to pass the legislation to keep the government operating. The AP lays bare the split in the Republican party between Boehner and the far-right, tea party members, making the right-wing's portrayal of shutdown as being exclusively the fault of Democrats is even more. Reuters reported in March: Republicans have proposed cuts of $61 billion in fiscal year 2011 from current levels, a step President Barack Obama says would choke the faltering economic recovery. But for some in the Tea Party, it is not enough. They say the figure should be at least $100 billion. "Congressman Boehner, you look like a fool," Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, one of the loosely organized conservative movement's most prominent groups, wrote in a recent blog. [...] Complaints by Tea Party Republicans have already forced Boehner to almost double the amount of spending cuts proposed this year from $32 billion. The House Republicans passed a bill slashing $61 billion from government programs, from education, environment, health, energy to the humanities and arts. The rightwing media also seems to have missed the fact that the House Republicans, not Democrats, were distributing a plan on how to handle a shutdown, proving they are in full control of whether or not the government shuts down. In fact, Boehner was considering dropping out of a planned meeting today with President Obama to negotiate on the budget.

Tea Party Republicans will push huge spending cuts to block budget debate Montgomery 11 (Lori, "House Republicans divided on spending cuts; for some, it's $100
billion or bust," Feb 11, www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021007091.html) An already wobbly week for House Republicans turned chaotic Thursday as their unruly new majority flatly rejected a spending plan crafted by House leaders, saying its cuts fell far short of fulfilling a campaign pledge to slice $100 billion from federal programs. House leaders offered to redo the package but were struggling to identify the massive and unprecedented cuts that will be required to meet their goal. Dissatisfied conservatives, meanwhile, were pressing for even sharper reductions that could prove difficult to push through the House, much less the Democratic-controlled Senate. The uprising exposed serious divisions among Republicans

bent on reducing the size of government, the defining issue of the campaign that swept them back into power in the House this fall. Dozens of freshmen, fueled by tea party fervor, are demanding a rapid response to the groundswell of public anger. Their single-minded focus threatens to spoil efforts by House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to avoid a confrontation with the White House that could trigger a government shutdown in coming months. Until this week, House leaders had anticipated relatively little trouble putting together an initial spending plan, which they had hoped would serve as an austere but responsible counterpoint to the budget request President Obama is due to submit Monday. Across Washington, conservative groups fanned the flames of the rebellion Thursday. At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the leader of the House Tea Party Caucus, criticized GOP leaders for their first offer to cut spending and demanded more.

Ext Government Shutdown

Government shutdown would cause drop in economic growth Rich 11 (Motoko, "Government Shutdown Would Have Wide Ripples," April 7,
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/business/economy/08econ.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) The federal government is, after all, a very big business, and temporarily pulling the plug would disrupt many other businesses. President Obama has warned that the looming shutdown could stall the already fragile economic recovery by choking off much-needed paychecks to workers and introducing another level of uncertainty in an already uncertain world. Economists are divided as to how much the shutdown would rattle the economy. Of course, some of it depends on how long any stoppage lasts. If Congress agrees to a budget quickly, it might be just a few national park visitors who are disappointed over the weekend. But if the hiatus stretches to a week or to nearly three weeks as it did in 1995 then the ripples could quickly fan out. When the government shut down for 20 days in late 1995, the nations economic growth was slowed by as much as a full percentage point in that quarter, according to James F. OSullivan, chief economist at MF Global. The effect was temporary, he said, with the economy adding about that much in the following quarter. Mr. OSullivan said that over the three months that included the shutdown, federal spending fell 14.2 percent from the previous quarter, before rebounding 8.6 percent in the following quarter. David Greenlaw, United States economist at Morgan Stanley, said other factors might have held back growth in late 1995, including a 10-week strike at Boeing. This time around, the economic expansion faces a number of challenges, including turmoil in the Middle East, concerns about supplies coming from Japan after its earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis, and millions of unemployed Americans looking for work. The federal government is such a large customer that many companies, like Booz Allen or Verizon, could be forced to cut back on workers hours, though these two companies and many others declined to comment on their plans on Thursday. At the national parks, many of the hotels and restaurants are operated by private concerns that will most likely suspend some workers if the parks are closed. Without their weekly paychecks, those employees could tighten their belts, causing further fallout for grocery stores or other retailers who may see sales slow. In Yosemite, for example, Delaware North Companies Parks and Resorts operates four hotels with 972 rooms and 13 restaurants. A company spokeswoman, Lisa Cesaro, said that if the shutdown continued beyond the weekend, all lodging and food operations would close, and workers would be forced to take vacation time or unpaid leave, right as peak season was starting. Government contractors are worried not only about payments, but also about what to do with inventories they would normally ship to agencies that may be closed. Imagine a parts supplier for the federal government with a scheduled delivery coming up, said Rae Ann S. Johnson, a lawyer and council director for the Manufacturers Alliance/Mapi, a trade group. If the government is shut down, there is no one to deliver it to. If they have to store it longer than anticipated, then there are extra costs. The shutdown could also make it harder for lower-income families to get mortgage loans because the Federal Housing Administration would suspend its guarantee program. The F.H.A. guaranteed about 21 percent of new mortgage loans in 2010, federal data shows.

Government shutdown would cause stock market drops Rich 11 (Motoko, "Government Shutdown Would Have Wide Ripples," April 7,
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/business/economy/08econ.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

It could play a little havoc with the data and the markets, said Kathleen Bostjancic, director for macroeconomic analysis at the Conference Board. For now, she said, I think the markets are taking it in stride because they believe its going to be short term and weve been through this before. On the other hand, the markets dont like uncertainty, thats for sure. The Standard & Poors 500-stock index closed down just 2.03 points or 0.15 percent at 1,333.51 on Thursday. But analysts said that the markets could be rattled if the shutdown dragged on, not so much because of the immediate effects, but because Congresss inability to reach an agreement would send a negative signal to investors looking for signs of confidence. There is almost no one in the private sector who can look at the shutdown and call it responsible in any form or fashion, said Allen Sinai, a founder of Decision Economics. If a company failed to come up with a budget, he said, every executive would be fired by the board. The public and the world is pretty much at the end of its patience. He said that the stock market would be at risk, and the dollar could slide further as foreign investors sought havens elsewhere.

AT Tea Party Compromise

Tea Party members wont change their legislative priorities blocking the budget is still #1 Condon 13 (Stephanie, Jan 25, "Can the GOP move past tea party "number crunching"?",
www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57565774/can-the-gop-move-past-tea-party-numbercrunching/) The focus on spending was far from a surprise: The GOP made huge gains in the 2010 election on a wave of tea party zeal based on concerns about President Obama's government overreach. The debt, meanwhile, has increased $5.8 trillion under Mr. Obama's leadership. The attention on this issue, however, hasn't paid off in the polls or the ballot box. The president easily won re-election last year, while Democrats made gains in both the House and the Senate. The latest CBS News/ New York Times poll shows that congressional Republicans have just a 19 percent approval rating. With the 2012 elections behind them, the Republican Party is now trying to regroup. A week after House Republicans met behind closed doors to ponder their future, GOP leaders are gathering at the Republican National Committee (RNC)'s winter meeting this week in Charlotte, N.C., to discuss the way forward, which means moving beyond spending cuts. "Today's conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs...even as we invent new entitlement programs," Gov. Bobby Jindal, RLa., a potential 2016 presidential candidate, said at the meeting last night. "We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play." "We as Republicans have to accept that government number crunching - even conservative number crunching - is not the answer to our nation's problems," Jindal continued. "We must not become the party of austerity. We must become the party of growth." Moving away from a message of austerity will be difficult, given that Congress must still decide whether to avert the looming "sequestration" cuts set to kick in March 1. They must also in the coming months raise the nation's debt limit while explaining to voters what it means for the nation's bills and for the nation's future spending. But even as they broach these thorny issues, GOP leaders say they need to do a better job explaining their economic positions to voters, working on other issues and expanding their appeal beyond their conservative base. Jindal and other leaders stress that one of their most immediate challenges is simply recalibrating their message -- not changing their principles.

Tea party members are unwilling to compromise on the budget when in power McConnell and Todd 11 (Dugald and Brian, "Analysis: Debt fight shows tea party's influence
- so far," July 30, politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/30/analysis-debt-fight-shows-teapartys-influence-so-far/) As lawmakers this weekend try to reconcile the two dueling debt bills in the House and Senate, one of the strongest forces they have to reckon with is the influence of the tea party lawmakers. Their numbers are not overwhelming of the 435 lawmakers in the House of Representatives, only 60 are members of the tea party caucus. Still, analysts say they have wielded outsized influence on the trajectory of the debt fight so far - but are also using tactics that could risk a backlash with the public. Their influence was clear on Thursday night, when House Speaker John Boehner had to postpone a vote on his debt-ceiling bill. On Friday,

Boehner added a balanced budget amendment requirement - a provision dear to conservatives to assure the bill passed. Of the lawmakers who forced the change, thanks to their willingness to vote "no," more than half were members of the tea party caucus, according to an analysis by the blog fivethirtyeight. The change in the bill means that, in whatever negotiations ensue to reconcile the Republican bill from the House and the Democratic bill in the Senate, House Republican leaders begin from a more conservative starting point. "The tea party has forced Speaker Boehner more to the right. That involves deeper spending cuts, and also support for the balanced budget amendment," Darrell West at the Brookings Institution said. "They have had disproportionate impact on the entire congressional debate." West says it is their unity, their determination and their inflexibility that have allowed the tea party lawmakers to punch far above their weight. Last fall the tea party captured political lightning in a bottle and helped elect dozens of new members of Congress. They came to Washington in January on the promise to shock the political system into spending less and cutting more. Their unwillingness to compromise has changed the debate in Washington over the way the government handles its debt.

A2 Economy Defense
Global economic crisis causes war and great power transitions--- best studies Royal 2010 (Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department
of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-214) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 10981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Polllins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium, and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996,2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectation of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts selfreinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89). Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to create a rally round the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997) Miller (1999) and Kisanganie and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than

autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force.

Trade Mod
Tea Party control undermines globalization Barry Gewen 10 has been an editor at The New York Times Book Review, "How the Tea Party
is Wrec king Republican Foreign Policy," 12-4-10, www.newrepublic.com/blog/foreignpolicy/79647/tea-party-wrecking-republican-foreign-policy, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k Tea Partiers are suspicious of free trade and globalization in general, because The Tea Partiers will find their closest allies on this issue among Democrats, especially trade unionists. We just saw what the future politics of trade will look like when President Obama had trouble concluding a free-trade pact with South Korea, originally approved by George
Similar forces are at play in the case of trade. they fear a loss of American jobs. Yet the Republican Party has traditionally been the party of free trade. W. Bush in 2007. A coalition of Democrats and Tea Partiers inside and outside of Congress opposed it, despite its potential to boost our economy and strengthen crucial alliances in Asia. In truth, on both immigration and trade, the Tea Partiers are in favor of more government, not less, putting them at odds with Republican Party laissez-faire instincts. However they may feel about the evil of deficits, Tea Partiers are not libertarians. By majorities of almost two-to-one, they support Social Security and Medicare. As Scott

But its on questions of Americas role in the world that the divisions between Tea Partiers and standardissue Republicans begin to look like chasms . The key figures here are the Pauls, Ron and Rand, longtime congressman and recently
Rasmussen and Douglas Schoen write in their book Mad As Hell, it would be a profound mistake to say that they are an adjunct of the GOP. elected senator, father and son. Ron Paul has been called the Tea Partys brain, its intellectual godfather; Rand Paul, b y virtue of his election victory, has made himself a

The Pauls positions on foreign policy are not identical, but the links between them are more than genetic. In a recent statement for Foreign Policy magazine, Ron Paul called for an end to
powerful, perhaps the most powerful, Tea Party spokesman on the hill. the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He went on: We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic sp ending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. And like father, like son.

Rand Paul has said that part of

the reason we are bankrupt as a country is that we are fighting so many foreign wars and have so many military bases
around the world.

He opposes what he calls a blank check for the

military. These freshly invigorated voices within the Republican Party are already finding common cause with doves inside the Democratic Party. Ron Paul has joined with Barney Frank in calling for the withdrawal of
troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as from Germany, Japan, and South Korea. We dont need to be the worlds policeman, Paul said, echoing the Vietnam war

Casting a suspicious eye at the Tea Partiers, John McCain has said, I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.
protesters of an earlier era. Hawkish Republicans have taken note. There was a truce within the party until the elections, but now, as Richard Viguerie warned,

a massive, almost historic battle for the

heart and soul of the Republican Party begins. Onlookers can expect to hear a great deal of name calling in coming months as charges of isolationist and imperialist fly back and forth.

Protectionism lowers the threshold for all conflict makes escalation more likely causes a laundry list of impacts Patrick 2009 Stewart Patrick (senior fellow and director of the Program on International
Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations) March 2009 Protecting Free Trade The National Interest http://nationalinterest.org/article/protecting-free-trade-3060 President Obama and his foreign counterparts should reflect on the lessons of the 1930s-and the insights of Cordell Hull. The longest-serving secretary of state in American history (19331944), Hull helped guide the United States through the Depression and World War II. He also understood a fundamental truth: "When goods move, soldiers don't." In the 1930s, global recession had catastrophic political consequences-in part because policymakers took exactly the wrong approach. Starting with America's own Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930, the world's major trading nations tried to insulate themselves by adopting inward looking protectionist

and discriminatory policies. The result was a vicious, self-defeating cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation. As states took refuge in prohibitive tariffs, import quotas, export subsidies and competitive devaluations, international commerce devolved into a desperate competition for dwindling markets. Between 1929 and 1933, the value of world trade plummeted from $50 billion to $15 billion. Global economic activity went into a death spiral, exacerbating the depth and length of the Great Depression. The economic consequences of protectionism were bad enough. The political consequences were worse. As Hull recognized, global economic fragmentation lowered standards of living, drove unemployment higher and increased povertyaccentuating social upheaval and leaving destitute populations "easy prey to dictators and desperadoes." The rise of Nazism in Germany, fascism in Italy and militarism in Japan is impossible to divorce from the economic turmoil, which allowed demagogic leaders to mobilize support among alienated masses nursing nationalist grievances. Open economic warfare poisoned the diplomatic climate and exacerbated great power rivalries, raising, in Hull's view, "constant temptation to use force, or threat of force, to obtain what could have been got through normal processes of trade." Assistant Secretary William Clayton agreed: "Nations which act as enemies in the marketplace cannot long be friends at the council table." This is what makes growing protectionism and discrimination among the world's major trading powers today so alarming. In 2008 world trade declined for the first time since 1982. And despite their pledges, seventeen G-20 members have adopted significant trade restrictions. "Buy American" provisions in the U.S. stimulus package have been matched by similar measures elsewhere, with the EU ambassador to Washington declaring that "Nobody will take this lying down." Brussels has resumed export subsidies to EU dairy farmers and restricted imports from the United States and China. Meanwhile, India is threatening new tariffs on steel imports and cars; Russia has enacted some thirty new tariffs and export subsidies. In a sign of the global mood, WTO antidumping cases are up 40 percent since last year. Even less blatant forms of economic nationalism, such as banks restricting lending to "safer" domestic companies, risk shutting down global capital flows and exacerbating the current crisis. If unchecked, such economic nationalism could raise diplomatic tensions among the world's major powers. At particular risk are U.S. relations with China, Washington's most important bilateral interlocutor in the twenty-first century. China has called the "Buy American" provisions "poison"-not exactly how the Obama administration wants to start off the relationship. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's illtimed comments about China's currency "manipulation" and his promise of an "aggressive" U.S. response were not especially helpful either, nor is Congress' preoccupation with "unfair" Chinese trade and currency practices. For its part, Beijing has responded to the global slump by rolling back some of the liberalizing reforms introduced over the past thirty years. Such practices, including state subsidies, collide with the spirit and sometimes the law of open trade. The Obama administration must find common ground with Beijing on a coordinated response, or risk retaliatory protectionism that could severely damage both economies and escalate into political confrontation. A trade war is the last thing the United States needs, given that China holds $1 trillion of our debt and will be critical to solving flashpoints ranging from Iran to North Korea. In the 1930s, authoritarian great-power governments responded to the global downturn by adopting more nationalistic and aggressive policies. Today, the economic crisis may well fuel rising nationalism and regional assertiveness in emerging countries. Russia is a case in point. Although some predict that the economic crisis will temper Moscow's international ambitions, evidence for such geopolitical modesty is slim to date. Neither the collapse of its stock market nor the decline in oil prices has kept Russia from flexing its muscles from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. While some expect the economic crisis to challenge Putin's grip on power, there is no guarantee that Washington will find any successor regime less nationalistic

and aggressive. Beyond generating great power antagonism, misguided protectionism could also exacerbate political upheaval in the developing world. As Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair recently testified, the downturn has already aggravated political instability in a quarter of the world's nations. In many emerging countries, including important players like South Africa, Ukraine and Mexico, political stability rests on a precarious balance. Protectionist policies could well push developing economies and emerging market exporters over the edge. In Pakistan, a protracted economic crisis could precipitate the collapse of the regime and fragmentation of the state. No surprise, then, that President Obama is the first U.S. president to receive a daily economic intelligence briefing, distilling the security implications of the global crisis.

***Creationism Impact***

1NC/2NC Creationism Mod

Tea Party members are pushing to teach creationism in schools Holland 11 (Joshua, "11 of the Tea Party GOP's Most Ridiculous Policy Ideas (So Far)," Feb 8,
www.alternet.org/story/149848/11_of_the_tea_party_gop%27s_most_ridiculous_policy_ideas _%28so_far%29?page=0%2C0) Forcing Science Teachers to 'Question' Evolution Evolution, like gravity, is merely a theory! Of course, it's also theory supported by loads and loads of hard scientific evidence. But for Oklahoma lawmaker Sally Kern, there's an intense scientific controversy over whether Jesus in fact rode around on dinosaurs, and she's introduced a bill requiring teachers to explore that possibility. According to Think Progress, Kern's bill would require the state and local authorities to 'assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies' ... but the only topics mentioned in the bill as contestable are 'biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.' The National Center for Science Education notes that the proposal is the fourth antievolution measure to be offered in 2011 and the second in Oklahoma. [The Bill] differs only slightly from Senate Bill 320, which died in committee in February 2009; a member of the Senate Education Committee told theTulsa World (February 17, 2009) that it was one of the worst bills that he had even seen. In its critique (PDF) of SB 320, Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest ... Evolutionary theory has advanced substantially since Darwin's time and, despite 150 years of direct research, no evidence in conflict with evolution has ever been found." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."

Creationism in schools undermines science education, US competitiveness AU No date ("Science, Religion And Public Education,"
https://www.au.org/resources/publications/science-religion-and-public-education) Why is this issue important? At its core, creationism undermines the wall of separation between church and state. Parents are free to teach their children religious concepts at home and in houses of worship. That is not enough for the creationists. They want to expose all children to those concepts in public school science classes. They want to use a captive audience to spread their theology. This they cannot legally do. Public schools, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, are not allowed to promote religion. Furthermore, creationism and ID threaten good science education in America. The core findings of evolutionary theory are no longer questioned by the scientific community. Evolution is taught without controversy in secular universities all over the nation. Failing to teach it in high school does a disservice to our students and leaves them ill-prepared for higher education. Resistance to standard science instruction could cause our country to fall behind other nations. Religious opposition to evolution is practically non-existent in Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia. As a result, the United States position as the leader in cutting-edge biotechnology is now in jeopardy. Our country will not continue to lead in this area if our students are not adequately educated about modern science. In light of this, claims that schools should teach both evolution and some form of creationism and let young people decide are unpersuasive. There is no longer a controversy in the scientific community about the validity of evolution. Pretending that there is only does a disservice to our students. We cannot substitute theology

for science in our classrooms and expect to remain the world leader in increasingly important scientific fields. Because so many different religions and cultures have different beliefs about origins, public schools must take care not to elevate any one understanding over others. For this reason, intelligent design and other forms of creationism must be kept out of our science classrooms.

Science education key to American competitiveness Mullich 13 (Joe, journalist who has received over two dozen awards for articles about
education, Feb 16, Washington Post, "Rising to the Challenge: America's Math and Science Curriculum is Key to Future Competitiveness," online.wsj.com/ad/article/mathscience-rising) In the last half-decade, the campaign to improve science and math has seen both progress and stagnation. The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007, an ongoing project to measure the skills of fourth- and eighth- graders in different countries, shows steady improvement in U.S. mathematics since 1995. Still, America lags behind many other nations. And U.S. performance on the TIMSS science test has not improved in the past decade. [Chart Source: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Highlights from TIMSS 2007:Mathematics and Science Achievement of U.S. Fourth- and Eighth-Grade Students in an International Context+ Science has almost been eliminated from the K-sixth grade classrooms, Eberle says. The focus of the No Child Left Behind Act (which requires schools to administer annual math and language arts tests with the goal of steadily improving performance) has been on literacy and mathematics, and so we have a whole group of students not being adequately prepared for science careers. The decline in science and math may have directly affected the nations pocketbook. Last year, Eric Hanushek, a Stanford University professor, did a study in which he concluded that raising U.S. test scores in math and science would have a dramatic impact on Americas economy. Hanusheks study was significant in that it measured quality (improvement in test scores) as opposed to quantity (years of schooling), which has usually been the focus of such studies in the past. He concluded that raising U.S. test scores to levels of top countries would add twothirds of a percentage point to the annual growth rate in gross domestic product. Because this applies to the total goods and services that America produces in a year, it has enormous implications for the countrys financial well-being. The evidence on quality of education in math and science is starting to get peoples attention, he says. Other benchmarks are drawing notice as well. For example, the number of engineering degrees awarded in the U.S. has dropped 20 percent since its high point in 1985. China, for example, graduates some 400,000 engineers a year, compared to 70,000 in the U.S.

Competitiveness decline triggers great power wars Baru 2009 (Sanjaya, Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore
Geopolitical Implications of the Current Global Financial Crisis, Strategic Analysis, Volume 33, Issue 2 March 2009 , pages 163 168) The management of the economy, and of the treasury, has been a vital aspect of statecraft from time immemorial. Kautilyas Arthashastra says, From the strength of the treasury the army is born. men without wealth do not attain their objectives even after hundreds of trials Only through wealth can material gains be acquired, as elephants (wild) can be captured only by elephants (tamed) A state with depleted resources, even if acquired, becomes only a liability.4 Hence, economic policies and performance do have strategic consequences.5 In the

modern era, the idea that strong economic performance is the foundation of power was argued most persuasively by historian Paul Kennedy. Victory (in war), Kennedy claimed, has repeatedly gone to the side with more flourishing productive base.6 Drawing attention to the interrelationships between economic wealth, technological innovation, and the ability of states to efficiently mobilize economic and technological resources for power projection and national defence, Kennedy argued that nations that were able to better combine military and economic strength scored over others. The fact remains, Kennedy argued, that all of the major shifts in the worlds military-power balance have followed alterations in the productive balances; and further, that the rising and falling of the various empires and states in the international system has been confirmed by the outcomes of the major Great Power wars , where victory has always gone to the side with the greatest material resources.7

Ext Church/State
Creationism destroys separation of church and state AU No date ("Science, Religion And Public Education,"
https://www.au.org/resources/publications/science-religion-and-public-education) A well-organized and well-funded campaign is under way to undermine the separation of church and state in Americas public schools. Aggressive religious pressure groups are pushing school boards nationwide to change the curriculum to conform to their doctrines. Battles have erupted all over the nation, and your community may be next. Advocates of "creationism," "creation-science" and "intelligent design" are among the most active in this area. Backed by national Religious Right organizations, proponents of these ideas seek to drive evolution from the science classroom and replace it with their interpretation of the Bible. If they succeed, church-state separation and sound science education may be irreparably harmed. Around the country, disputes have arisen over the teaching of creationism, or its closely aligned cousin, "intelligent design" (ID), in public schools. Aggressive Religious Right activists are working feverishly to undercut the teaching of evolution by insisting that students be exposed to "both theories." This approach threatens the separation of church and state and sound science education. Creationism and its variants are religious doctrines, not science. While some religious believers accept the validity of these ideas, many others do not. In addition, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that creationism and its more modern variants are not legitimate science. In its traditional form, creationism is a literal reading of the Book of Genesis repackaged as science. It makes several claims that clash with modern scientific understanding. For example, supporters of this viewpoint contend that the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that humans lived alongside dinosaurs. Other advocates of creationism concede that the Earth is ancient and admit that evolution may operate in a limited capacity or on lower forms of life. Yet they reject the idea that humans evolved because, they say, people are the products of a special creation by God. Tellingly, when trying to reconcile disputes over issues such as the age of Earth and the evolution of lower life forms, advocates of creationism turn to the Bible to buttress their arguments, not the scientific laboratory. In fact, virtually all of the groups in America promoting creationism are incorporated as religious ministries. Leaders of these organizations are often fundamentalist clergy who speak openly of their desire to cast doubt on evolution and win new converts to their faith. This is not in any way a true scientific movement.

Teaching creationism destroys democracy Salisbury 2008 Evangelical minister for 14 years
(Lee, "The Creationist Buffoonery and Its Dangerous Implications", http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/the-creationist-buffoonery-and-its-dangerous-implications/) Make no mistake, creationism intends to redefine science, and replace it with a meaningless shell of supernatural speculation and deceit. And why, you might ask? The answer is not hard to fathom. Religion has ever been a sanctuary of those who seek to secure their eminence at the expense of others. History is unequivocal in teaching this lesson, and yet as blind as we are we seem to have failed to learn it. The creationist attack on the teaching of evolution devalues science, cheapens theology as well as condemning Americas students to an inferior education, ultimately hurting their professional opportunities, not to mention diminishing Americas leadership in science and technology. Creationists aim to not only destroy science in an effort to

protect their creationist fairy tales, their mission is to redefine the United States of America, eviscerate the Constitution, and effectively dismantle American democracy by instituting religious indoctrination in the schools and halls of public policy making. They mean to supplant all of these things with a form of oligarchy wrapped in the shrouds of a dumbed down science and legalistic religion. And if one doubts this, one need only consult the web sites and publications of such notable creationist organizations as the the Creation Museum, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute. Creationists are quite explicit in their stated goals, and there is little room for doubt their true intentions. The true mission of creationism is theocracy. Thus exposed, the need to fight it on all fronts, scientific, philosophical, theological, administrative and judicial, is made even more clear. There is no higher imperative if we mean to preserve Americas intellectual freedom.

Democracy prevents extinction Diamond 1995 professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and
democracy (Larry, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives : a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, December 1995, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm) This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

Ext SciEd Key to Econ

Science- literate employees crucial to economic growth Butcher 12 (David, "US Faces Tough STEM Road Unless Sweeping Improvements Are Made,"
Dec 11, www.thomasnet.com/journals/career/u-s-faces-tough-stem-road-unless-sweepingimprovements-are-made/) A skilled and educated workforce is the cornerstone to promoting economic growth and increasing the innovation capacity of a company and even a nation. Yet its also the hardest asset to acquire, a growing mountain of data warns. While millions of Americans are unemployed or underemployed, many employers say they cannot find enough qualified candidates for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) jobs. The concern becomes more urgent when considering the millions of aging workers who will soon reach traditional retirement age. There has been no dearth of data warning of a talent gap in the United States. In May, ManpowerGroup reported that U.S. employers are struggling to find available talent more than their global counterparts. In a survey of nearly 40,000 employers across 41 countries and territories, including more than 1,300 U.S. employers, 49 percent of U.S. employers said they are experiencing difficulty filling mission-critical positions within their organizations, compared with 34 percent of employers worldwide. Based on the findings, the positions that are most difficult to fill are skilled trades, engineers and IT staff, all of which have appeared on ManpowerGroups U.S. list multiple times since the survey began in 2006.

American competitiveness depends on a science- educated workforce Butcher 12 (David, "US Faces Tough STEM Road Unless Sweeping Improvements Are Made,"
Dec 11, www.thomasnet.com/journals/career/u-s-faces-tough-stem-road-unless-sweepingimprovements-are-made/) Meanwhile, a recent study from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) suggests that although the current skills gap is less severe than many believe, it could become more acute in coming years if steps are not taken now to address the situation. The average age for highly skilled manufacturing workers in the U.S. is 56, and with many expected to retire over the next decade, the U.S. economy will need to produce a considerable number of new employees to compensate for the so-called brain drain. A key factor of this talent shortage is the widening gap between the business demand for high-skilled labor and the supply of college graduates with STEM-related knowledge and degrees. Economists dont agree on a lot. One area, however, of little debate is that future American competitiveness is highly dependent on producing a skilled workforce with significant abilities in math and science, according to a Deloitte paper titled 21st Century Education, part of the Deloitte21 global education and skills initiative. American colleges and universities are not graduating enough scientists and engineers to meet the expected needs of our future economic growth.

AT College/ Early Education

Early education crucial to later learning especially in the sciences Worth 10 (Karen, "Science in Early Childhood Classrooms: Content and Process," Center for
Science Education, Fall, ecrp.uiuc.edu/beyond/seed/worth.html) The need to focus on science in the early childhood classroom is based on a number of factors currently affecting the early childhood community. First and foremost is the growing understanding and recognition of the power of childrens early thinking and learning. Research and practice suggest that children have a much greater potential to learn than previously thought, and therefore early childhood settings should provide richer and more challenging environments for learning. In these environments, guided by skillful teachers, childrens experiences in the early years can have significant impact on their later learning. In addition, science may be a particularly important domain in early childhood, serving not only to build a basis for future scientific understanding but also to build important skills and attitudes for learning. A recent publication from the National Research Council supports this argument: Children who have a broad base of experience in domain-specific knowledge (for example, in mathematics or an area of science) move more rapidly in acquiring more complex skills. Because these [mathematics and science] are privileged domains, that is, domains in which children have a natural proclivity to learn, experiment, and explore, they allow for nurturing and extending the boundaries of the learning in which children are already actively engaged.

AT Intelligent Design =/= Creationism

Intelligent Design curriculums are Creationist agendas under another name AU No date ("Science, Religion And Public Education,"
https://www.au.org/resources/publications/science-religion-and-public-education) On the surface, intelligent design appears to be something different. ID advocates claim that they have uncovered scientific evidence that an intelligent force, i.e. God, created humankind and the universe. The concept sidesteps some of the more far-fetched claims of traditional creationists and does not address issues such as the age of the Earth. But just below IDs surface lurk many of the same discredited anti-evolution arguments that have been promoted by creationists for years. It seems obvious that ID is a form of "creationism lite," deliberately created by fundamentalists to get a foot in the door of the public school science classroom.

More ev AU No date ("Science, Religion And Public Education,"

https://www.au.org/resources/publications/science-religion-and-public-education) One of the most visible threats to the teaching of evolution is intelligent design. At first glance, ID appears to have some key differences from standard creationism. It strips away some of the more implausible claims of traditional creationism and professes a secular approach. Yet a closer look shows that ID remains a religious concept. The "designer" whom Religious Right proponents herald could only be God. They have offered no other plausible candidates. (Some ID boosters have actually suggested that a space alien could be the designer an assertion that can hardly be taken seriously by science. It also begs the question: Who "designed" the space creature?) ID proponents have conducted a slick public relations campaign aimed at local schools. They often bypass state officials and apply strong-arm tactics directly to local school boards. Board members, who in most parts of the country are democratically elected, can be subject to considerable community pressure. Thus, ID proponents are primarily waging a political, not scientific, battle. In fact, ID backers attempts to publish peer-reviewed research have failed. While they have published many books, these works have been subjected to great criticism in the scientific community. Some ID advocates are forthright about their religious agenda when speaking to sympathetic audiences. Phillip Johnson, considered a founding guru of the movement, told a religious gathering in 1999 that he uses ID to convince people of the truth of the Bible and talk to them about "the question of sin." From there, Johnson said, people are "introduced to Jesus." Jonathan Wells, another prominent ID proponent, says he was persuaded to criticize evolution after becoming a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moons Unification Church. In December 2005, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled against ID promotion in Dover public schools. The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District decision sends a clear message that intelligent design is constitutionally unacceptable in science classes. Proposing ID as an "alternative" to evolution is not the only tactic being used to push evolution out of schools. Opponents also use disclaimers, either printed inside a textbook or read aloud by a teacher or school administrator, as another way to undermine the scientific validity of evolution.

***A2 Impact Turns***

A2 Moon Base Impact Turn Private Sector Fails

Private sector fails - and crush short-term space dominance Krauthammer 10 (Charles, MD and Pulitzer Prize-Winning Columnist, Closing the New
Frontier, 2-12, http://culberson.house.gov/preserving-americas-leadership-in-space/) Of course, the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASAs efforts will be directed toward landing on
Mars.

This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. Its too expensive. Its too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high. Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously
nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative clean energy. Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.

A2 Colonization
Colonization's impossible and you should privilege short-term existential risks Stross 7
(Charlie, "The High Frontier, Redux," http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blogstatic/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html) I'm going to take it as read that the idea of space colonization isn't unfamiliar; domed cities on Mars, orbiting cylindrical space habitats a la J. D. Bernal or Gerard K. O'Neill, that sort of thing. Generation ships that take hundreds of years to ferry colonists out to other star systems where as we are now discovering there are profusions of planets to explore. And I don't want to spend much time talking about the unspoken ideological underpinnings of the urge to space colonization, other than to point out that they're there, that the case for space colonization isn't usually presented as an economic enterprise so much as a quasi-religious one. "We can't afford to keep all our eggs in one basket" isn't so much a justification as an appeal to sentimentality, for in the hypothetical case of a planet-trashing catastrophe, we (who currently inhabit the surface of the Earth) are dead anyway. The future extinction of the human species cannot affect you if you are already dead: strictly speaking, it should be of no personal concern. Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive. Here's a handy metaphor: let's approximate one astronomical unit the distance between the Earth and the sun, roughly 150 million kilometres, or 600 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon to one centimetre. Got that? 1AU = 1cm. (You may want to get hold of a ruler to follow through with this one.) The solar system is conveniently small. Neptune, the outermost planet in our solar system, orbits the sun at a distance of almost exactly 30AU, or 30 centimetres one foot (in imperial units). Giant Jupiter is 5.46 AU out from the sun, almost exactly two inches (in old money). We've sent space probes to Jupiter; they take two and a half years to get there if we send them on a straight Hohmann transfer orbit, but we can get there a bit faster using some fancy orbital mechanics. Neptune is still a stretch only one spacecraft, Voyager 2, has made it out there so far. Its journey time was 12 years, and it wasn't stopping. (It's now on its way out into interstellar space, having passed the heliopause some years ago.) The Kuiper belt, domain of icy wandering dwarf planets like Pluto and Eris, extends perhaps another 30AU, before merging into the much more tenuous Hills cloud and Oort cloud, domain of loosely coupled long-period comets. Now for the first scale shock: using our handy metaphor the Kuiper belt is perhaps a metre in diameter. The Oort cloud, in contrast, is as much as 50,000 AU in radius its outer edge lies half a kilometre away. Got that? Our planetary solar system is 30 centimetres, roughly a foot, in radius. But to get to the edge of the Oort cloud, you have to go half a kilometre, roughly a third of a mile. Next on our tour is Proxima Centauri, our nearest star. (There might be a brown dwarf or two lurking unseen in the icy depths beyond the Oort cloud, but if we've spotted one, I'm unaware of it.) Proxima Centauri is 4.22 light years away.A light year is 63.2 x 103 AU, or 9.46 x 1012 Km. So Proxima Centauri, at 267,000 AU, is just under two and a third kilometres, or two miles (in old money) away from us. But Proxima Centauri is a poor choice, if we're looking for habitable real estate. While exoplanets are apparently common as muck, terrestrial planets are harder to find; Gliese 581c, the first such to be detected (and it looks like a pretty weird one, at that), is roughly 20.4 light years away, or using our metaphor, about ten miles. Try to get a

handle on this: it takes us 2-5 years to travel two inches. But the proponents of interstellar travel are talking about journeys of ten miles. That's the first point I want to get across: that if the distances involved in interplanetary travel are enormous, and the travel times fit to rival the first Australian settlers, then the distances and times involved in interstellar travel are mindnumbing. This is not to say that interstellar travel is impossible; quite the contrary. But to do so effectively you need either (a) outrageous amounts of cheap energy, or (b) highly efficient robot probes, or (c) a magic wand. And in the absence of (c) you're not going to get any news back from the other end in less than decades. Even if (a) is achievable, or by means of (b) we can send self-replicating factories and have them turn distant solar systems into hives of industry, and more speculatively find some way to transmit human beings there, they are going to have zero net economic impact on our circumstances (except insofar as sending them out costs us money). What do I mean by outrageous amounts of cheap energy? Let's postulate that in the future, it will be possible to wave a magic wand and construct a camping kit that encapsulates all the necessary technologies and information to rebuild a human civilization capable of eventually sending out interstellar colonization missions a bunch of self-replicating, selfrepairing robotic hardware, and a downloadable copy of the sum total of human knowledge to date. Let's also be generous and throw in a closed-circuit life support system capable of keeping a human occupant alive indefinitely, for many years at a stretch, with zero failures and losses, and capable where necessary of providing medical intervention. Let's throw in a willing astronaut (the fool!) and stick them inside this assembly. It's going to be pretty boring in there, but I think we can conceive of our minimal manned interstellar mission as being about the size and mass of a Mercury capsule. And I'm going to nail a target to the barn door and call it 2000kg in total. (Of course we can cut corners, but I've already invoked self-replicating robotic factories and closed-cycle life support systems, and those are close enough to magic wands as it is. I'm going to deliberately ignore more speculative technologies such as starwisps, mind transfer, or AIs sufficiently powerful to operate autonomously although I used them shamelessly in my novel Accelerando. What I'm trying to do here is come up with a useful metaphor for the energy budget realistically required for interstellar flight.) Incidentally, a probe massing 1-2 tons with an astronaut on top is a bit implausible, but a 1-2 ton probe could conceivably carry enough robotic instrumentation to do useful research, plus a laser powerful enough to punch a signal home, and maybe even that shrink-wrapped military/industrial complex in a tin can that would allow it to build something useful at the other end. Anything much smaller, though, isn't going to be able to transmit its findings to us at least, not without some breakthroughs in communication technology that haven't shown up so far. Now, let's say we want to deliver our canned monkey to Proxima Centauri within its own lifetime. We're sending them on a one-way trip, so a 42 year flight time isn't unreasonable. (Their job is to supervise the machinery as it unpacks itself and begins to brew up a bunch of new colonists using an artificial uterus. Okay?) This means they need to achieve a mean cruise speed of 10% of the speed of light. They then need to decelerate at the other end. At 10% of c relativistic effects are minor there's going to be time dilation, but it'll be on the order of hours or days over the duration of the 42-year voyage. So we need to accelerate our astronaut to 30,000,000 metres per second, and decelerate them at the other end. Cheating and using Newton's laws of motion, the kinetic energy acquired by acceleration is 9 x 1017 Joules, so we can call it 2 x 1018 Joules in round numbers for the entire trip. NB: This assumes that the propulsion system in use is 100% efficient at converting energy into momentum, that there are no losses from friction with the interstellar medium, and that the propulsion source is external that is, there's no need to take reaction mass along en route. So this is a lower bound on the energy cost of transporting our Mercury-capsule sized expedition to Proxima Centauri in less than a lifetime. To put this figure in perspective, the total conversion of

one kilogram of mass into energy yields 9 x 1016 Joules. (Which one of my sources informs me, is about equivalent to 21.6 megatons in thermonuclear explosive yield). So we require the equivalent energy output to 400 megatons of nuclear armageddon in order to move a capsule of about the gross weight of a fully loaded Volvo V70 automobile to Proxima Centauri in less than a human lifetime. That's the same as the yield of the entire US Minuteman III ICBM force. For a less explosive reference point, our entire planetary economy runs on roughly 4 terawatts of electricity (4 x 1012 watts). So it would take our total planetary electricity production for a period of half a million seconds roughly 5 days to supply the necessary va-va-voom. But to bring this back to earth with a bump, let me just remind you that this probe is so implausibly efficient that it's veering back into "magic wand" territory. I've tap-danced past a 100% efficient power transmission system capable of operating across interstellar distances with pinpoint precision and no conversion losses, and that allows the spacecraft on the receiving end to convert power directly into momentum. This is not exactly like any power transmission system that anyone's built to this date, and I'm not sure I can see where it's coming from. Our one astronaut, 10% of c mission approximates well to an unmanned flight, but what about longer-term expeditions? Generation ships are a staple of SF; they're slow (probably under 1% of c) and they carry a self-sufficient city-state. The crew who set off won't live to see their destination (the flight time to Proxima Centauri at 1% of c is about 420 years), but the vague hope is that someone will. Leaving aside our lack of a proven track record at building social institutions that are stable across time periods greatly in excess of a human lifespan, using a generation ship probably doesn't do much for our energy budget problem either. A society of human beings are likely to need more space and raw material to do stuff with while in flight; sticking a solitary explorer in a tin can for forty-something years is merely cruel and unusual, but doing it to an entire city for several centuries probably qualifies as a crime against humanity. We therefore need to relax the mass constraint. Assuming the same super-efficient life support as our solitary explorer, we might postulate that each colonist requires ten tons of structural mass to move around in. (About the same as a large trailer home. For life.) We've cut the peak velocity by an order of magnitude, but we've increased the payload requirement by an order of magnitude per passenger and we need enough passengers to make a stable society fly. I'd guess a sensible lower number would be on the order of 200 people, the size of a prehistoric primate troupe. (Genetic diversity? I'm going to assume we can hand-wave around that by packing some deep-frozen sperm and ova, or frozen embryos, for later reuse.) By the time we work up to a minimal generation ship (and how minimal can we get, confining 200 human beings in an object weighing aout 2000 tons, for roughly the same period of time that has elapsed since the Plymouth colony landed in what was later to become Massachusetts?) we're actually requiring much more energy than our solitary high-speed explorer. And remember, this is only what it takes to go to Proxima Centauri our nearest neighbour. Gliese 581c is five times as far away. Planets that are already habitable insofar as they orbit inside the habitable zone of their star, possess free oxygen in their atmosphere, and have a mass, surface gravity and escape velocity that are not too forbidding, are likely to be somewhat rarer. (And if there is free oxygen in the atmosphere on a planet, that implies something else the presence of pre-existing photosynthetic life, a carbon cycle, and a bunch of other stuff that could well unleash a big can of whoop-ass on an unprimed human immune system. The question of how we might interact with alien biologies is an order of magnitude bigger and more complex than the question of how we might get there and the preliminary outlook is rather forbidding.) The long and the short of what I'm trying to get across is quite simply that, in the absence of technology indistinguishable from magic magic tech that, furthermore, does things that from today's perspective appear to play fast and loose with the laws of physics

interstellar travel for human beings is near-as-dammit a non-starter. And while I won't rule out the possibility of such seemingly-magical technology appearing at some time in the future, the conclusion I draw as a science fiction writer is that if interstellar colonization ever happens, it will not follow the pattern of historical colonization drives that are followed by mass emigration and trade between the colonies and the old home soil. What about our own solar system? After contemplating the vastness of interstellar space, our own solar system looks almost comfortingly accessible at first. Exploring our own solar system is a no-brainer: we can do it, we are doing it, and interplanetary exploration is probably going to be seen as one of the great scientific undertakings of the late 20th and early 21st century, when the history books get written. But when we start examining the prospects for interplanetary colonization things turn gloomy again. Bluntly, we're not going to get there by rocket ship. Optimistic projects suggest that it should be possible, with the low cost rockets currently under development, to maintain a Lunar presence for a transportation cost of roughly $15,000 per kilogram. Some extreme projections suggest that if the cost can be cut to roughly triple the cost of fuel and oxidizer (meaning, the spacecraft concerned will be both largely reusable and very cheap) then we might even get as low as $165/kilogram to the lunar surface. At that price, sending a 100Kg astronaut to Moon Base One looks as if it ought to cost not much more than a first-class return air fare from the UK to New Zealand ... except that such a price estimate is hogwash. We primates have certain failure modes, and one of them that must not be underestimated is our tendency to irreversibly malfunction when exposed to climactic extremes of temperature, pressure, and partial pressure of oxygen. While the amount of oxygen, water, and food a human consumes per day doesn't sound all that serious it probably totals roughly ten kilograms, if you economize and recycle the washing-up water the amount of parasitic weight you need to keep the monkey from blowing out is measured in tons. A Russian Orlan-M space suit (which, some would say, is better than anything NASA has come up with over the years take heed of the pre-breathe time requirements!) weighs 112 kilograms, which pretty much puts a floor on our infrastructure requirements. An actual habitat would need to mass a whole lot more. Even at $165/kilogram, that's going to add up to a very hefty excess baggage charge on that notional first class air fare to New Zealand and I think the $165/kg figure is in any case highly unrealistic; even the authors of the article I cited thought $2000/kg was a bit more reasonable. Whichever way you cut it, sending a single tourist to the moon is going to cost not less than $50,000 and a more realistic figure, for a mature reusable, cheap, rocket-based lunar transport cycle is more like $1M. And that's before you factor in the price of bringing them back ... The moon is about 1.3 light seconds away. If we want to go panning the (metaphorical) rivers for gold, we'd do better to send teleoperator-controlled robots; it's close enough that we can control them directly, and far enough away that the cost of transporting food and creature comforts for human explorers is astronomical. There probably are niches for human workers on a moon base, but only until our robot technologies are somewhat more mature than they are today; Mission Control would be a lot happier with a pair of hands and a high-def camera that doesn't talk back and doesn't need to go to the toilet or take naps. When we look at the rest of the solar system, the picture is even bleaker. Mars is ... well, the phrase "tourist resort" springs to mind, and is promptly filed in the same corner as "Gobi desert". As Bruce Sterling has puts it: "I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach." In other words, going there to explore is fine and

dandy our robots are all over it already. But as a desirable residential neighbourhood it has some shortcomings, starting with the slight lack of breathable air and the sub-Antarctic nighttime temperatures and the Mach 0.5 dust storms, and working down from there. Actually, there probably is a good reason for sending human explorers to Mars. And that's the distance: at up to 30 minutes, the speed of light delay means that remote control of robots on the Martian surface is extremely tedious. Either we need autonomous roots that can be assigned tasks and carry them out without direct human supervision, or we need astronauts in orbit or on the ground to boss the robot work gangs around. On the other hand, Mars is a good way further away than the moon, and has a deeper gravity well. All of which drive up the cost per kilogram delivered to the Martian surface. Maybe FedEx could cut it as low as $20,000 per kilogram, but I'm not holding my breath. Let me repeat myself: we are not going there with rockets. At least, not the conventional kind and while there may be a role for nuclear propulsion in deep space, in general there's a trade-off between instantaneous thrust and efficiency; the more efficient your motor, the lower the actual thrust it provides. Some technologies such as the variable specific impulse magnetoplasma rocket show a good degree of flexibility, but in general they're not suitable for getting us from Earth's surface into orbit they're only useful for trucking things around from low earth orbit on out. Again, as with interstellar colonization, there are other options. Space elevators, if we build them, will invalidate a lot of what I just said. Some analyses of the energy costs of space elevators suggest that a marginal cost of $350/kilogram to geosynchronous orbit should be achievable without waving any magic wands (other than the enormous practical materials and structural engineering problems of building the thing in the first place). So we probably can look forward to zero-gee vacations in orbit, at a price. And space elevators are attractive because they're a scalable technology; you can use one to haul into space the material to build more. So, long term, space elevators may give us not-unreasonably priced access to space, including jaunts to the lunar surface for a price equivalent to less than $100,000 in today's money. At which point, settlement would begin to look economically feasible, except ... We're human beings. We evolved to flourish in a very specific environment that covers perhaps 10% of our home planet's surface area. (Earth is 70% ocean, and while we can survive, with assistance, in extremely inhospitable terrain, be it arctic or desert or mountain, we aren't well-adapted to thriving there.) Space itself is a very poor environment for humans to live in. A simple pressure failure can kill a spaceship crew in minutes. And that's not the only threat. Cosmic radiation poses a serious risk to long duration interplanetary missions, and unlike solar radiation and radiation from coronal mass ejections the energies of the particles responsible make shielding astronauts extremely difficult. And finally, there's the travel time. Two and a half years to Jupiter system; six months to Mars. Now, these problems are subject to a variety of approaches including medical ones: does it matter if cosmic radiation causes long-term cumulative radiation exposure leading to cancers if we have advanced side-effect-free cancer treatments? Better still, if hydrogen sulphide-induced hibernation turns out to be a practical technique in human beings, we may be able to sleep through the trip. But even so, when you get down to it, there's not really any economically viable activity on the horizon for people to engage in that would require them to settle on a planet or asteroid and live there for the rest of their lives. In general, when we need to extract resources from a hostile environment we tend to build infrastructure to exploit them (such as oil platforms) but we don't exactly scurry to move our families there. Rather, crews go out to work a long shift, then return home to take their leave. After all, there's no there there just a howling wilderness of north Atlantic gales and frigid water that will kill you within five minutes of exposure. And that, I submit, is the closest metaphor we'll find for interplanetary colonization. Most of the heavy lifting more than a million

kilometres from Earth will be done by robots, overseen by human supervisors who will be itching to get home and spend their hardship pay. And closer to home, the commercialization of space will be incremental and slow, driven by our increasing dependence on near-earth space for communications, positioning, weather forecasting, and (still in its embryonic stages) tourism. But the domed city on Mars is going to have to wait for a magic wand or two to do something about the climate, or reinvent a kind of human being who can thrive in an airless, inhospitable environment.

Multiple diseases destroy sustainability of life in space Matin and Lynch 5

(2005, A. C. Matin, PhD in Microbiology, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University in Stanford, California, and Susan V. Lynch, PhD, Molcular Microbiology, Assistant Professor In Residence, Division of Gastroenterology, UC San Francisco, Investigating the Threat of Bacteria Grown in Space, Volume 71, Number 5, 2005/ASM News, http://www.asm.org/asm/files/ccLibraryFiles/Filename/000000001523/znw00505000235.pdf ) Although tantalizing, space is an inhospitable and dangerous frontier for those sent to explore it. Hence, progress towards more safely navigating and perhaps colonizing space are tasks that demand that we develop knowledge on several fronts, from designing radically new means of space transport to determining how space conditions inuence biological processes. Several harmful effects of space on humans are documented. During extended missions in space, for example, bones lose mass, predisposing space travelers not only to fracture their bones but also to develop renal stones from resorbed bone material. Moreover, muscles atrophy, decreased blood production and volume damage the cardiovascular system, latent viruses (such as Varicella zoster, which causes shingles) tend to reactivate, the incidence of diseases such as bacterial cystitis increases, wound healing slows, pharmacologic agents act differently, and pyschological conditions such as claustrophobia and anxiety tend to be accentuated, in part because of disrupted sleep and dietary patterns. Amid these physical and psychological conditions, there is the added problem that astronauts in space are exposed to intense radiation, involving high-energy protons and nuclei of heavy elements with greater penetrating power and increased capacity to cause malignancies and other problems, than they would be on earth. Additionally, the diminished gravity of space and planets, referred to as microgravity, also poses a direct threat to human health.

A2 Asteroids
Statistics prove youre an idiot if you think asteroids will kill us. Everitt 8
*James Everitt, energy and environment organizer for Pickens Plan; If an asteroid hit the earth? published 12/20/2008; http://push.pickensplan.com/video/2187034:Video:1691581] A computer video circulating the internet has rekindled fears that an asteroid will hit Earth and send mankind the way of the brontosaurus. Based on NASA projections, there is indeed a chance that such an asteroid will impact Earth in the next year. It is 1 in 2,518,072 This number is derived from NASA calculations of the likelihood of a strike by any one of the six substantial Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) whose current course could intersect our planet's in 2009. The most likely of the bunch, an NEO named 2008 AO112, alone has a 1 in 4,000,000 chance of impacting Earth. In other words, there's a 99.999975% chance the thing will miss us. By comparison, in the new year, based on recent National Safety Council data, chances are less that you will be killed by an asteroid than by the following: Motor vehicle accident: 1 in 6,539 Exposure to noxious substances: 1 in 12,554 Assault by firearm: 1 in 24,005 Accidental drowning: 1 in 82,777 Exposure to smoke, fire or flames: 1 in 92,745 Exposure to forces of nature (lightning, flood, storms, etc.): 1 in 136,075 Falling out of bed or off other furniture: 1 in 329,819 Choking on food: 1 in 343,179 Air and space transport accidents: 1 in 502,554 Exposure to electric current, radiation, temperature, and pressure: 1 in 705,969 Being bitten, stung or crushed by another person or animal: 1 in 1,841,659 Chances You'll Be Killed by an Asteroid in 2009! Conclusion: It would be statistically unwise to sell your home (your chances of selling it aside) and use the proceeds for a pre-asteroid splurge in the tropics. Alternatively, if you are considering fleeing Earth, you are more likely to die by spacecraft accident than by asteroid. And if you do so anyway, given the chance of being bitten, stung or crushed by another person or animal, your chances are even worse if you bring company.

No threat to asteroids none on course, and can be deflected in time. NASA, 99

*National Aeronautics and Space Administration; StarChild Question of the Month for July 1999; http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question11.html+ A number of recent movies have been about this subject. It is important to remember that they are just movies and often times do not represent good or true science. Sometimes, however, there is a tiny seed of truth behind a movie, although it may be hard to tell what is true and what is fiction. This is the case for the movies about asteroids hitting the Earth. Let us say right away that at this moment, we know of nothing currently on a collision course with Earth. Last year, it was announced in the news that an asteroid was on a collision course with Earth and would hit in the year 2028. We now know that the calculations were in error and that asteroid will miss the Earth completely. You can read more about this at http://impact.arc.nasa.gov/news_detail.cfm?ID=60. Keep in mind that the Earth has been hit before by asteroids and will be again someday. We don't know when, but we do know it is not in the immediate future. Why are the chances of us being hit small? Our solar system is very big compared to the size of the Earth, which means that the chance that the Earth will be hit by another solar system object such as an asteroid is very small. Once in awhile, it happens. But not very often. Think about this, most of the asteroids in our solar system are located in the asteroid

belt. Yet we have been able to send spacecraft such as Voyager I and II, as well as others, through this belt without any problems. Why? There is more "empty space" in the belt than asteroids! How often do we expect the Earth to be hit? The asteroids capable of causing a global disaster if they hit the Earth are extremely rare . They probably would need to be about a kilometer or more in diameter. Such bodies impact the Earth only once every 100,000 years on average. Other objects of a similar size, such as comets, impact even less frequently, perhaps once every 500,000 years or so. If we discover an object that will collide with Earth's, what could be done about it? If astronomers find such an object, there would be plenty of time to track it, measure its orbit precisely, and plan a system for deflecting it from its current orbital path. There would be no great hurry and no great panic. It would be a project for all the world's nations to take part in. Because we will have found it long before it actually intersects the Earth's orbit, it probably would take only a small push (perhaps from chemical rockets we land on the surface of the asteroid) to divert it from a threatening path.

A2 Moon Race
Hegemony isnt key to peace Fettweis, 11
Christopher J. Fettweis, Department of Political Science, Tulane University, 9/26/11, Free Riding or Restraint? Examining European Grand Strategy, Comparative Strategy, 30:316332, EBSCO It is perhaps worth noting that there is no evidence to support a direct relationship between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability . In fact, the limited data we do have suggest the opposite may be true. During the 1990s, the United States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially. By 1998, the United States was spending $100 billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990.51 To internationalists, defense hawks and believers in hegemonic stability, this irresponsible peace dividend endangered both national and global security. No serious analyst of American military capabilities, argued Kristol and Kagan, doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet Americas responsibilities to itself and to world peace.52 On the other hand, if the pacific trends were not based upon U.S. hegemony but a strengthening norm against interstate war, one would not have expected an increase in global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its security was endangered by a less-capable United States military, or at least none took any action that would suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums, no security dilemmas drove insecurity or arms races , and no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S. military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat of international war was not a pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. Most of all, the United States and its allies were no less safe. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and kept declining as the Bush Administration ramped the spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion that the two are unrelated. Military spending figures by themselves are insufficient to disprove a connection between overall U.S. actions and international stability. Once again, one could presumably argue that spending is not the only or even the best indication of hegemony, and that it is instead U.S. foreign political and security commitments that maintain stability. Since neither was significantly altered during this period, instability should not have been expected. Alternately, advocates of hegemonic stability could believe that relative rather than absolute spending is decisive in bringing peace. Although the United States cut back on its spending during the 1990s, its relative advantage never wavered. However, even if it is true that either U.S. commitments or relative spending account for global pacific trends, then at the very least stability can evidently be maintained at drastically lower levels of both. In other words, even if one can be allowed to argue in the alternative for a moment and suppose that there is in fact a level of engagement below which the United States cannot drop without increasing international disorder, a rational grand strategist would still recommend cutting back on engagement and spending until that level is determined. Grand strategic decisions are never final; continual adjustments can and must be made as time goes on. Basic logic suggests that the United States ought to spend the minimum amount of its blood and treasure while seeking the maximum return on its investment. And if the current era of

stability is as stable as many believe it to be, no increase in conflict would ever occur irrespective of U.S. spending, which would save untold trillions for an increasingly debt-ridden nation. It is also perhaps worth noting that if opposite trends had unfolded, if other states had reacted to news of cuts in U.S. defense spending with more aggressive or insecure behavior, then internationalists would surely argue that their expectations had been fulfilled. If increases in conflict would have been interpreted as proof of the wisdom of internationalist strategies, then logical consistency demands that the lack thereof should at least pose a problem. As it stands, the only evidence we have regarding the likely systemic reaction to a more restrained United States suggests that the current peaceful trends are unrelated to U.S. military spending. Evidently the rest of the world can operate quite effectively without the presence of a global policeman. Those who think otherwise base their view on faith alone.

Heg is unsustainable Layne 10 (Christopher Layne, Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at
Texas A&M's George H.W. Bush School of Government & Public Service. "Graceful decline: the end of Pax Americana". The American Conservative. May 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7060/is_5_9/ai_n5422359 China's economy has been growing much more rapidly than the United States' over the last two decades and continues to do so, maintaining audacious 8 percent growth projections in the midst of a global recession. Leading economic forecasters predict that it will overtake the U.S. as the world's largest economy, measured by overall GDP, sometime around 2020. Already in 2008, China passed the U.S. as the world's leading manufacturing nation--a title the United States had enjoyed for over a century--and this year China will displace Japan as the world's second-largest economy. Everything we know about the trajectories of rising great powers tells us that China will use its increasing wealth to build formidable military power and that it will seek to become the dominant power in East Asia. Optimists contend that once the U.S. recovers from what historian Niall
Ferguson calls the "Great Repression"--not quite a depression but more than a recession--we'll be able to answer the Chinese challenge. The country, they remind us, faced a larger debt-GDP ratio after World War II yet embarked on an era of sustained growth. They forget that the postwar era was a

United States of 2010 and the world in which it lives are far different from those of 1945. Weaknesses in the fundamentals of the American economy have been accumulating for more than three decades. In the 1980s, these problems were acutely diagnosed by a number of writers--notably David Calleo, Paul Kennedy, Robert Gilpin, Samuel Huntington, and James Chace--who predicted that these structural ills would ultimately erode the economic foundations of America's global preeminence. A spirited late-1980s debate was cut short, when, in quick succession, the Soviet Union collapsed, Japan's economic bubble burst, and the U.S. experienced an apparent economic revival during the Clinton administration . Now the delayed day of reckoning is fast approaching. Even in the best case, the United States will emerge from the current crisis with fundamental handicaps. The Federal Reserve and Treasury have pumped massive amounts of dollars into circulation in hope of reviving the economy. Add to that the $1 trillion-plus budget deficits that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts the United States will incur for at least a decade. When the projected deficits are bundled with the persistent U.S. current-account deficit, the entitlements overhang (the unfunded future liabilities of Medicare and Social Security), and the cost of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is reason to worry about the United States' fiscal stability. As the CBO says, "Even if the recovery occurs as projected and the stimulus bill is allowed to expire, the country will face the highest debt/GDP ratio in 50 years and an increasingly unsustainable and urgent fiscal problem." The dollar's vulnerability is the United States' geopolitical Achilles' heel. Its
golden age of U.S. industrial and financial dominance, trade surpluses, and persistent high growth rates. Those days are gone. The

role as the international economy's reserve currency ensures American preeminence, and if it loses that status, hegemony will be literally unaffordable. As Cornell professor Jonathan Kirshner observes, the
dollar's vulnerability "presents potentially significant and underappreciated restraints upon contemporary American political and military predominance." Fears for the dollar's long-term health predated the current financial and economic crisis. The meltdown has amplified them and highlighted two new factors that bode ill for continuing reserve-currency status. First, the

other big financial players in the international economy are either military rivals (China) or ambiguous allies (Europe) that have their own ambitions and no longer require U.S. protection from the Soviet threat. Second, the dollar faces an uncertain future because of concerns that its value will diminish over time. Indeed, China, which has holdings estimated at nearly $2 trillion, is worried that America will leave it with huge piles of depreciated dollars. China's vote of no confidence is reflected in its recent calls to create a new reserve currency. In coming years, the U.S. will be under increasing pressure to defend the dollar by preventing runaway inflation. This will require it to impose fiscal self-discipline through some combination of budget cuts, tax increases, and interest-rate hikes. Given that the last two options could choke off renewed growth, there is likely to be strong pressure to slash the federal budget. But it will be almost impossible to make meaningful cuts in federal spending without deep reductions in defense expenditures. Discretionary non-defense domestic spending accounts for only about 20 percent of annual federal outlays. So the United States will face obvious "guns or butter" choices. As Kirshner puts it, the
absolute size of U.S. defense expenditures are "more likely to be decisive in the future when the U.S. is under pressure to make real choices about taxes and spending. When borrowing becomes more difficult, and adjustment more difficult to postpone, choices must be made between raising taxes,

and cutting defense spending." Faced with these hard decisions, Americans will find themselves afflicted with hegemony fatigue.
cutting non-defense spending,

No impact to terrorism Zenko and Cohen 12

*Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, *Fellow at the Century Foundation, (Micah and Michael, "Clear and Present Safety," March/April, Foreign Affairs, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137279/micah-zenko-and-michael-a-cohen/clear-andpresent-safety NONE OF this is meant to suggest that the United States faces no major challenges today. Rather, the point is that the problems confronting the country are manageable and pose minimal risks to the lives of the overwhelming majority of Americans. None of them -separately or in combination -- justifies the alarmist rhetoric of policymakers and politicians or should lead to the conclusion that Americans live in a dangerous world. Take terrorism. Since 9/11, no security threat has been hyped more. Considering the horrors of that day, that is not surprising. But the result has been a level of fear that is completely out of proportion to both the capabilities of terrorist organizations and the United States' vulnerability. On 9/11, al Qaeda got tragically lucky. Since then, the United States has been preparing for the one percent chance (and likely even less) that it might get lucky again. But al Qaeda lost its safe haven after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and further military, diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement efforts have decimated the organization, which has essentially lost whatever ability it once had to seriously threaten the United States . According to U.S. officials, al Qaeda's leadership has been reduced to two top lieutenants: Ayman al-Zawahiri and his second-in-command, Abu Yahya al-Libi. Panetta has even said that the defeat of al Qaeda is "within reach." The near collapse of the original al Qaeda organization is one reason why, in the decade since 9/11, the U.S. homeland has not suffered any large-scale terrorist assaults. All subsequent attempts have failed or been thwarted, owing in part to the incompetence of their perpetrators. Although there are undoubtedly still

some terrorists who wish to kill Americans, their dreams will likely continue to be frustrated by their own limitations and by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the United States and its allies.

A2 EU Impact
Cant solve anything Krastev 2013 (Ivan Krastev, chairman of the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia, permanent
fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna and a founding board member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, January 17, 2013, Can Obama Rely on Europe?, DW, http://www.dw.de/can-obama-rely-on-europe/a-16527310) Is the European Union willing and capable to preserve the current liberal European order at the moment when Russia has turned her back on the West, Turkey has lost hope of joining the EU and the European periphery lies in shambles? And would the EU be America's reliable partner outside Europe at a moment when Washington lacks the resources and the appetite to be the global policeman while the world is in constant turmoil? These are probably the two critical questions that will define President Barack Obama's European agenda during his second term. Inward-looking nation The financial crisis has made America feel the limits of her global power. The "D"- word for decline is a four letter-word for any US president. Still, Barack Obama better than his predecessors and his critics realizes the extent to which America's role in the world will be constrained by the size of its huge public debt and by the country's frustrating experience in dealing with post-war engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. The crisis has forced Americans to take a closer look at their own country and what they saw was not inspiring. The lead protagonist of the popular TV drama The Newsroom captures this new mood of bitterness and frustration when he reveals that, while America used to talk about itself as the greatest nation in the world, in reality: "We're seventh in literacy, 27th in math, 22nd in science, 49th in life expectancy, 178th in infant mortality, third in median household income, fourth in labor force, and fourth in exports. We lead the world in only 3 categories: number of incarcerated citizens per capita, number of adults who believe angels are real, and defense spending where we spend more than the next 26 countries combine." So, not surprisingly the president's efforts will be focused to reform America and not to transform the world. Solid partner needed But in order to buy time for his American rebuilding project Obama needs to know how effective the EU can be as a regional power and how ambitious the EU will be as a global power. It is now pretty obvious that the US does not have any resources to continue its commitment in places like the Balkans or Ukraine; Obama's reset with Russia is history and Washington is eager to "outsource" all Europe related problems to Brussels. But can Obama rely on the EU to get Moscow right? Can Obama outsource the problems of wider Europe to a Union that undergoes the most dangerous crisis in its existence? Many in Washington are skeptical but the President does not have much of a choice. Looming British EU exit When it comes to the world outside of Europe, Obama's fears are even greater. If the euro crisis and a possible break-up of the European Union was a major concern for the White House in 2012, at the start of his second term it is Britain and not Greece that preoccupies the President's mind. It is not difficult to guess that an EU without Britain will become even more provincial and inward looking. So, the decline of British influence in the EU can only mean more problems for Washington. That begs the logical question: Is the US influential enough to keep the UK in the EU? When it comes to big ideas in US-EU bilateral relations one quickly notices that they are mostly absent. No grand strategy The perspective of a transatlantic free-trade area is the only big idea that has remained in the portfolio. It appeals not only to the business community but also to all those who believe in the re-invention of the West. But while attractive in principle, it would be a nightmare if it ever came down to the renegotiation of the regulation regimes. So what should Europeans and

the EU expect from Barack Obama's second term? Not much, I am afraid. President Obama does not have a grand strategy for the EU. What he has instead are fears and hopes. And it will be the balance between fears and hopes that will determine his policies during his second term.

***Aff Answers***

Non-UQ - Tea Party Strong

Tea party influence is high, regardless of popularity Freelander 7/29
(David Freedlander, senior political correspondent with Newsweek & The Daily Beast, The Tea Party Isnt Dead Yet Jul 29, 2013, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/29/the-tea-party-isn-t-dead-yet.html, KB)

It is a mistake to think that political power and popularity are the same thing, she said. They are not popular, but they have a stranglehold on probably about 70 members of the House of Representatives and they have money and people to back them up. Their effectiveness came from a simple and streamlined way of communicating votes and views to a highly motivated public and to deep-pocket donors. Candidates, she said, are evaluated on their stance on fiscal issues and abortion, on
very simple litmus-test-type votes. Voters are given a simple report card of where candidates stand. Friess said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News. I dont know why Armey and Kibbe came to loggerheads. Freiss gave $100,000 this year to FreedomWorks super- political action committee, part of at least $20 million it spent on the 2012 federal elections. Michael Darland, a retired technology entrepreneur who lives in Bellevue, Washington, said Armeys departure wont dissuade him from giving to FreedomWorks. He said he learned about Armeys departure from the news, just as Friess did. Kibbe sent him an e-mail this week inviting him to call with questions. I didnt become interested in them because of Matt Kibbe or Dick Armey or anyone else. I liked what they stood for, and what they still stand for, Darland said in an interview. I have every reason to believe they still share my ideals of limited government and less taxes.

Tea Party controls Republican Party now Condon, 13

(Stephanie, writer for CBS News, "Reid: Tea party has "full control" of Senate GOP", May 7, www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583307/reid-tea-party-has-full-control-of-senate-gop/ NL) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., on Tuesday continued to chastise Senate Republicans -and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in particular -- for holding up the congressional budget process. "It's been 45 days since we passed a budget resolution, and Republicans are blocking us [from] taking the next step in regular order," Reid said to reporters. Reid said he has yet to hear an explanation for the hold up from Republican leaders. "We've heard a lot from the very junior senator from Texas but no word from anyone else," he said. "We've

known for years the tea party has full control of the Republican House. Now we understand they have full control of the Republican caucus here in the Senate."

Tea Party has taken overits impossible to stop Colorado Pols, 13

(Colorado Pols, News Organization, "Pew Report: Tea Party Still Controls Republican Primaries", July 31, coloradopols.com/diary/46769/pew-report-tea-party-still-controls-republican-primaries NL) A new poll from Pew Research is bad (BAD) news for Republicans in Colorado and around the country: Move in a more conservative or moderate direction on policy? By 54% to 40%, Republican and Republican-leaning voters want the partys leaders to move further to the right. Not surprisingly,
conservatives and those who agree with the Tea Party overwhelmingly favor moving in a more conservative direction, while moderates and liberals would like to see the party take more centrist positions. Yet the

more moderate wing of the party is a minority generally, and makes up an even smaller share of the likely primary electorate.
[Pols emphasis] Everybody in the crazy pool! That's not good not if you are a rational Republican, anyway. As we've written time and again in this space, the

greatest threat facing the Republican Party continues to be the outsized influence of the Tea Party. When only the most right-wing candidate can win a Primary, the Republican moving on to a General Election is essentially fighting with one hand tied behind his or her back. Republican Party officials are well aware of this problem, but there's not a whole hell of a lot they can do about it

 particularly when the Tea Party is a collection of a bunch of different groups. Both local and national Republican Party officials recognize the need to moderate their policy positions and try to appeal to voters other than, well, old white guys. They are correct in their read of the situation, but they

can't do a damn thing about it when the Tea Party wing of the Party refuses to play along. Check out the sobering statistics from the Pew study in the box at right. The big news, obviously, is that the Tea Party continues to exert the most influence over the Republican Primary process: Tea Party Republicans have influence in the GOP partly because of their high level of political engagement. Overall, they make up a minority (37%) of all Republicans and Republican-leaning independents nationally. Yet this group is more likely than other GOP voters to say they always vote in primary elections; as a result they make up
about half of the Republican primary electorate (49%). In Colorado, this could be good news for someone like Sen. Greg Brophy, who wants the GOP nomination to challenge incumbent Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. Nationally, it means Democrats have a definite advantage in the 2016 race for President as it is likely that the GOP will put forth a right-wing candidate

Nothing can stop the Tea Party Stan, 11

(Adele, writer for Alternet, "In Bid for Control of GOP, Tea Party Brings U.S. to Brink of Economic Calamity", July 22, www.alternet.org/story/151750/in_bid_for_control_of_gop,_tea_party_brings_u.s._to_brink_o f_economic_calamity NL) What we're really witnessing, though, is a ruthless power-grab by the architects of the Tea Party movement for control of the Republican Party. And if they have to destroy House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to do it, they will. Heck, if they have to destroy the United States in order to grab the levers of GOP machinery, they will, content in the knowledge that, as elites, they will have first pick of the spoils. Nowhere is this
more evident than in the newfound love between Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity (AFP), the Tea Party organization founded by David Koch, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., the Tea Party-allied second-in-command of the House of Representatives. Cantor has made a specialty of undercutting his own speaker's negotiating power as Boehner tries to cut a deal with the president.

Theyre taking over Bykowicz, 12

(Julie, writer for Bloomberg News, "Tea Party Gains Control Over Republican Policy Incubators", Dec 7, www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-07/tea-party-gins-control-over-republican-policyincubators.html NL) The Republicans anti-tax Tea Party wing, which failed in its goal to defeat President Barack Obama and the Senate Democratic majority, is rising to leadership positions in policy and activist groups that have guided the partys direction for years. South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, who helped insurgent candidates oust incumbent
Republicans in primaries, announced yesterday that he will lead the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a group that has served as an incubator for the partys policy and legislative ideas for decades. Dec. 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican from Ohio, speaks at a news conference in Washington about talks aimed at avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. (Source: Bloomberg) Last week, former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey confirmed his resignation as chairman of FreedomWorks, telling Mother Jones Magazine that the Tea Party activist group was moving in an unproductive direction. FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe, who now fills Armeys void, will maintain its direction, the groups spokeswoman said. DeMint to Leave U.S. Senate to Head Heritage Foundation Kibbe, in interviews and public appearances, refers to himself as part of the Tea Party. The old establishment isnt quite sure what to do with us yet, he said in an Aug. 27 online video interview with The Blaze, a media company owned by former Fox News host Glenn Beck. Legal Dispute The turnover at two of the partys most influential aligned organizations comes just months after the Cato Institute, another Washington -based organization, settled a legal battle aimed at preventing it from being taken over by David and Charles Koch, industrial billionaires who helped finance an expansion of the Tea Party movement through Americans for Prosperity. What

youve got is a great movement with great ideas thats now becoming a true force, said Brent Bozell, president of For
America, a nonprofit that advocates for Christian values. He praised the pick of DeMint to head Heritage as a master stroke. Its just the kind of move that will rejuvenate conservatism. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romneys loss last month has prompted soul searching within the party, and Tea Party leaders are seizing the opportunity to show their strength and shift power in their direction. When

you dont even mention the words Tea Party at the Republican National

Convention, you get the results you saw with the Romney campaign, said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder
of the Tea Party Patriots, a national network of activists. Positive Thing Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker and presidential candidate this year, said its a profound time for Republicans, describing DeMints new role as a very positive thing. DeMint said in an interview on CNN that he plans to use Heritage, a 40-year-old institution, to shape and sell policies that reflect the smallgovernment, anti-tax wing of the party. The Heritage Foundation is the premier think-tank research organization - the premier idea group for the conservative movement, he said. This will give me the opportunity to help take our case to the American people and to translate our policies into real ideas. Matt Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said DeMints hiring is recognition by Heritage that the energy is not with the Republican establishment. The choice shows they

are moving more toward the Tea Party than the mainstream. Cato has always had a fair amount of sympathy
for the Tea Party, Calabria said, because their philosophies of smaller government and stronger individual rights are closely aligned. CEO Ousted Still, Cato faced a leadership challenge of its own this year, as the Kochs sought great control over the group they provided seed money to found. A settlement in June ousted the groups CEO, Ed Crane, and replaced him with John Allison, the former chief executive officer of BB&T Corp. Crane said in a statement in March that Charles Koch had been trying to transform Cato from an independent, nonpartisan research organization into a political entity that might better support his partisan ag enda. The settlement prevents that from happening, both sides said. DeMint, 61, who reported a maximum net worth of $65,000 on his 2010 Senate financial disclosure forms, replaces longtime Heritage President Edwin Feulner, who received more than $1 million in compensation last year, the groups tax forms show. Heritages Finances Heritage raised $65.7 million last year, a decline from the $74 million it raised in 2010, the tax documents show. As a nonprofit, it doesnt disclose its donors identities. In addition, the foundation ran a $7.9 million deficit last year and a $2.1 million deficit in 2010, the tax documents show. DeMint

is a prodigious fundraiser; his Senate Conservatives Fund super-political action committee raised more than $13.7 million for the 2012 elections. He used the money in part to make donations to Tea Party candidates. DeMint is a
conservative kingmaker who helped elect Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson, Texas Senator-elect Ted Cruz, and Arizona Senator-elect Jeff Flake, Erick Erickson wrote in a post yesterday on Red State, a conservative website. Without Jim DeMint we would still have a conservative movement that is part and parcel the Republican Party in name, word, and deed, Erickson said. DeMint

showed the Republican Party can be challenged from within and that conservatism can be distinctly voiced from within the party moving it right, not moving with it. Generational Change The departures of Feulner, a founding trustee of Heritage in 1973, and
Armey, who helped start FreedomWorks in 2004 --both in their 70s -- signal a generational turnover, said Colin Hanna, president of Let Freedom Ring, a political group that has worked with the Tea Party, and thats a good thing. We have a very deep bench. The circumstances surrounding Armeys departure from FreedomWorks are unclear. The Associated Press obtained what it said was a confidential contract showing an agreement that Armey receive $8 million in $400,000 annual installments from FreedomWorks board member Richard Stephenson, founder of the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. The contract was dated Sept. 24, and the AP said Armey agreed to stay on until after the election. His resignation e- mail, obtained and posted online by Mother Jones, shows he wants FreedomWorks to strip his name from its website and all other documents. Armey couldnt be reached for comment. Kibbe didnt return e-mails or calls requesting comment. Winning Constituency FreedomWorks direction has been, and always will be, to build a winning constituency of grassroots activists who stand for the principles of individual liberty and constitutionallylimited government, FreedomWorks spokeswoman Jackie Bodnar said in an e-mail. We

had an incredibly successful year building our community in 2012, we are heading full steam ahead into 2013 to advance those principles. Armeys decision came as a surprise to some FreedomWorks donors. Im in the dark as to whats
happening at FreedomWorks and was surprised to see the announcement, Wyoming investor Foster Friess said in an e-mail to Bloomberg News. I dont know why Armey and Kibbe came to loggerheads. Freiss gave $100,000 this year to FreedomWorks super- political action committee, part of at least $20 million it spent on the 2012 federal elections. Michael Darland, a retired technology entrepreneur who lives in Bellevue, Washington, said Armeys departure wont dissuade him from giving to FreedomWorks. He said he learned about Armeys departure from the news, just as Friess did. Kibbe sent him an e-mail this week inviting him to call with questions. I didnt become interested in them because of Matt Kibbe or Dick Armey or anyone else. I liked what they stood for, and what they still stand for, Darland said in an interview. I have every reason to believe they still share my ideals of limited government and less taxes.

Voters are putting them in office Walsh et al, 12

(Deirdre Walsh, Tom Watkins, and Joe Sterling, writers for CNN Politics, "GOP retains grip on House", Nov 7, www.cnn.com/2012/11/06/politics/house-races NL) Two years ago, the anti-tax tea party movement helped Republicans seize control of the House. This election, House Republican candidates were still stressing the core issues that the tea party movement pushed in
2010 -- less government and a focus on cutting federal spending and the deficit. Democrats, bolstered by polling that shows that many voters blame the tea party for gridlock in Washington, had tried to try to pin the label on virtually every Republican incumbent and challenger. But Republican candidates were "not wearing the tea party label on their sleeves," one senior GOP strategist

working on House races said recently.

Some of the tea party-backed GOP freshmen who had helped their party secure control two years ago were given the heave-ho Tuesday by voters. They include Reps. Joe Walsh and Bobby Schilling of Illinois, Ann Marie Buerkle and Nan Hayworth of New York and Francisco Canseco of Texas.

The Tea Party is dead but their ideology controls the Republican party Drum, 12
(Kevin, writer for Mother Jones, "The Tea Party Is Dead. Long Live the Tea Party.", Nov 9, www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/tea-party-future-gop NL) But the tea party burned bright and fell fast. Sure, it galvanized opposition to Obama in a media-friendly kind of way,
and helped power the Republican Party to a big majority in the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms. But given the state of the economy this was a victory they probably would have won anyway. And on the other side of the Capitol building, the tea party was almost certainly responsible for the loss of three winnable Senate seats that year. By 2012, after

tea party forces nominated several more "wackadoodles" (in Republican strategist Steve Schmidt's phrasing) and helped the GOP lose two more winnable Senate seats, its name was officially mud. But none of that matters. The tea party has done its job, and for all practical purposes its hard-nosed, nocompromise ideology now controls the Republican Party in a way that neither the Birchers nor the Clinton conspiracy theorists ever did. It's no longer a wing of the Republican Party, it is the Republican Party.
So what's next? Having now lost two presidential elections in a row, conventional wisdom says Republicans have two choices. The first is to admit that tea partyism has failed. 2012 was its best chance for victory, and evolving demographics will only make hardcore conservatism less and less popular. As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has put it, "We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term." So the party will need to moderate or die. The second option is to double down. Party

activists will tell themselves that Mitt Romney was never a true conservative, and that's what voters sensed. But Republicans can win again in 2016 if they stay true to their principles, moving farther right and amping up
the obstruction of all things Obama even more. In Congress, Paul Ryan will be their pied piper and Eric Cantor will be their enforcer. To most liberals, it seems obvious that if the GOP's leaders are smart, they'll choose the first option. But the truth is that this isn't as obvious as we'd like to believe. After all, moving to the right has worked out pretty well for the party. In 1980, the Reagan revolution gave them control of the Senate for the first time in decades. In 1994, the Gingrich revolution gave them control of the House. In 1998 they impeached Bill Clinton, and two years later won the presidency. In 2009 the tea party took over, and in 2010 they won a landslide midterm victory. The

truth is that an ever more radicalized GOP seems to have done at least as well as a more normal GOP probably would have done. Maybe better. So for now, at least, it seems probable that we're stuck with Option 2. Republican Party elders will probably try to be a little more careful about vetting candidates for political Tourette syndrome (no more "legitimate rape," please), but otherwise the tea party strain will remain ascendant even if the name itself is relegated to the ash heap of history. Republicans will continue to deny climate change, continue to insist that tax cuts pay for themselves, and continue to
believe that Barack Obama is a socialist revolutionary. They will once again hold America's economy hostage over the debt ceiling and tax cuts for the rich, and they will continue to filibuster every single bill that Democrats introduce in the Senate.

Libertarian Republicans gaining momentum now Tucci 7/30 (Peter, writer for the daily caller, NSA vote a sign of House GOPs growing
libertarianism, http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/30/nsa-vote-a-sign-of-house-gops-growinglibertarianism/)
On Thursday, the day after the House narrowly rejected an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have cut funding to the National Security Agencys mass surveillance programs, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

told reporters that hes concerned the national counterterrorism debate is drifting in a libertarian direction
a trend he thinks could endanger American lives. Im very nervous about the direction this *debate+ is moving in, Christie said. The next attack that comes that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate. The so-called Amash amendment would have modified Section 215 of the Patriot Act to prevent security agencies from scooping up telephone metadata on Americans who arent under investigation for espionage or terrorism. The amendment failed, 205-217, but not along normal partisan lines: 94 Republicans and 111 Democrats voted for it, and 134 Republicans and 83 Democrats voted against it. The vote pitted liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, who believe

that the NSAs mass surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment, against relatively moderate Democrats and nationalsecurity Republicans, who generally hold less expansive views of the Fourth Amendment. Ads by Google To

see if Christie was right about the parties becoming more libertarian on civil liberties issues, I created a spreadsheet with each member of Congresss name, ordered by when he or she first took office, and noted which members voted for the Amash amendment and which voted against it. The breakdown of GOP votes is particularly interesting. House Republicans who entered Congress after the 2008 financial crisis were almost as likely as Democrats and about twice as likely as other Republicans to vote for the amendment. Of the 129 House Republicans* who entered Congress in January 2009 or
later, 65 voted for the Amash amendment, 60 voted against it, and four didnt vote. Of the 105 House Republicans who entered Congress before the financial crisis, 29 voted for the Amash amendment, 74 voted against it, and two didnt vote. If the

older generation of Republicans had voted for the amendment at the same rate as their more recently elected peers, it would have passed 230-192. In other words, Christie is on to something.
The generational divide that the vote exposed suggests that the Republican Party is moving away from the national-security conservatism that dominated GOP politics in the years following the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. The

extent of this shift seems to have come as a surprise even to the House Republican leadership, which strongly
opposed the Amash amendment. Speaker John Boehners (R-OH) decision to bring the amendment to the floor for a vote suggests that he didnt think the amendment would come nearly as close to passing as it did. Ads by Google Will Adams, the spokesman for Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), the amendments co-sponsor, told me that he believes the

generational divide reflects the changing views of the Republican base, as well as the fact that newer members of Congress have more political flexibility on civil liberties issues since they havent voted for surveillance programs in the past. page 2 6:21 PM 07/30/2013 Its encouraging for us, because we have newer members with us, and if people who oppose these programs continue to come into Congress, well have a majority soon, Adams said. I can tell you that we have the majority of our constituents today. Congress just sometimes
lags behind where the people are.

Tea party Republicans gaining influence now Washington Post 7/29 (Chris Christie vs. Rand Paul: A fight with two winners,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/29/chris-christie-vs-rand-paul-afight-with-two-winners/)
The fact that Paul now has a large bulls-eye on his back reaffirms the fact that the Kentucky

senator is the de facto leader of a movement that is concerned about the perils of government surveillance efforts and wary of too much U.S. government intervention abroad. If youre getting hit in politics, it means you pose a threat and hold some real power. Paul clearly does both. And the movement he is leading is gaining more steam than ever in GOP circles. Just last week, 94 House Republicans voted for a failed measure that would have restricted how the National Securi09- collects phone records. As recently as a few years ago, it would have been unheard of for such an amendment to win so much Republican support. In short, Paul is at the forefront of an effort that is gaining more steam than ever in Republican circles. I didnt start this one, and I dont plan on
starting things by criticizing other Republicans, Paul said Sunday. But if they want to make me the target, they will get it back in spades.

Foreign policy focus is dividing the party now NSA wiretapping debate CSM 7/26 (Chris Christie-Rand Paul tiff on foreign policy reflects deep rift in GOP,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0726/Chris-Christie-Rand-Paul-tiff-on-foreignpolicy-reflects-deep-rift-in-GOP/%28page%29/2) The foreign policy tussle between Chris Christie and Rand Paul , two likely 2016 Republican presidential contenders, marks the most public flaring of a long-simmering debate between the GOPs long-time hawkish bent and the libertarian infusion the party has experienced in

the last two election cycles. Skip to next paragraph When push comes to shove, do Republicans weigh in on the side of
national security and foreign intervention or of privacy and greater international detachment? And which path will help grow a political party that even some of its leaders fear faces deep demographic challenges? Of course, both Senator Paul (R) of Kentucky and New Jersey Governor Christie would argue their path does all those things they just strongly disagree about how to proceed. RECOMMENDED: 13 Republicans who might run in 2016 This strain of libertarianism thats going through parties right now and making big headlines I think is a very dangerous thought, Christie said on a panel in Aspen, Colo. on Thursday, according to the New York Times . Later, he continued: The next attack that comes, that kills thousands of Americans as a result, people are going to be looking back on the people having this intellectual debate and wondering whether they put before abruptly ending his thought. In a Facebook post, Paul, who most famously launched an hours-long filibuster over domestic US drone use and who has pushed to cut off foreign aid to many restive Middle East nations, rejoined that Chris Christie thinks freedom is dangerous. What's dangerous is a foreign policy that borrows from China to pay people who burn our flag in Egypt. Want your top political issues explained? Get customized DC Decoder updates. Pauls political Facebook page was less restrained, calling Christie Obamas favorite Republican and wondering if the governor approves of sending weapons to al Qaeda allies in Syria. While

the tiff is a spot of positioning between two presidential contenders at either end of a particular policy debate, its also an argument that reverberates deep down into the Republican Party. In Congress, theres a stark divide between Team Christie and Team Paul. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and a veteran foreign policy hawk, said he isnt saying no to a potential presidential run in part because when I see people like Rand Paul talking about drones killing people out to get a cup of coffee, I don't want that to be the face of the national Republican Party," he told The Hill. But the reason Congressman King, a 20-year House veteran, has found himself back in the congressional majority is because of a surge of more Paul-minded reinforcements like Rep. Raul Labrador (R) of Idaho. And those folks want more Rand, not less. page 2 Representative Labrador frequently speaks about adding a libertarian fourth leg to the traditional three-legged stool of Republican support: evangelicals, fiscal conservatives, and foreign policy hawks . Skip to next
paragraph If you do away with any of the legs of that stool, you get rid of an entire coalition, Labrador told the Washington Examiner . We are concerned about fiscal matters and about civil liberties issues. But the

relative size and strength of that fourth leg and how this debate splits Democrats , too was on display Wednesday, when the House took up an amendment to the bill funding the Department of Defense from Rep. Justin Amash (R) of Michigan, the most obstreperous House libertarian. Representative Amashs amendment would have de-funded a National Security Agency program started in the President George W. Bush administration that collects Americans phone records. Although House speakers rarely vote, Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio voted against the amendment and many House GOP security heavyweights inveighed against it. While that brought a majority of the GOP conference (134 votes) against the bill, 94 Republicans voted against the partys mandarins and for the bill. And those 94
Republicans were joined by a majority of Democrats in what Labrador jokingly called the wing nut coalition earlier in the day.

IRS Scandal Thumper

IRS scandal gives Tea Party momentum now Reinhard 5/30 (Beth Reinhard, As Washington Is Scandalized, The Tea Party Salivates,
National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/as-washington-is-scandalized-thetea-party-salivates-20130514) The tea party is back. Just months after President Obama's reelection deflated conservative activists, a slew of rapidly unfolding scandals involving government malfeasance is giving the movement new life. Between the IRS targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the Justice Departments seizure of journalists phone records, and allegations of a cover -up after the attacks in Benghazi, the tea party has been injected with momentum it hasn't seen since its heyday rallying against Obamas health care law. The movement had already begun rebounding from the November election with a string of successes. A 13-hour filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., raised nationwide awareness about potential abuses of executive power. The push to expand background checks on gun buyers failed under an antigovernment line of attack that a new law would lead to a federal registry. Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the first governor to reject Obamas economic stimulus money back in 2009, won election to Congress. This is a defining moment for our movement, and it will test us and the country to make change, said Matt Kibbe, president and CEO of FreedomWorks. Our social networks are on fire, and the intensity continues to build.

Plays to their pet issues Reinhard 5/30 (Beth Reinhard, As Washington Is Scandalized, The Tea Party Salivates,
National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/as-washington-is-scandalized-thetea-party-salivates-20130514) For Republican politicians seeking to shore up their tea-party credentials, the IRS scandal and Benghazi offer crowd-pleasing talking points, noted Theda Skocpol, a Harvard University professor of government and sociology and the co-author of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Enter Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who was elected with tea-party support but is facing some resistance to his immigration plan. He quickly sought to capitalize on the IRS scandal with a fundraising appeal Tuesday from his Reclaim America political committee. "If there ever was a time for conservatives to take a stand against an expanding federal government, it is now," read the Rubio e-mail. "With this issue, the very message of the Tea Party has been validated." The IRS scandal could also reinvigorate the battle against Obama's health care law because the agency is charged with enforcing the laws individual mandate to buy insurance. If we cant trust the IRS to play fair and by the rules, I dont think we can trust them to enforce Obamacare, said Megan Stiles, spokeswoman for the Campaign for Liberty, the tea-party group founded by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.

NSA Thumper
NSA surveillance is firing up Tea Partiers now Jaffe 6/9 (Alexandra Jaffe, June 9, 2013, Paul walks fine line on NSA snooping, The Hill,
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/304337-paul-walks-fine-line-on-nsasurveillance) Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has seized on the controversy surrounding N ational S ecurity A gency surveillance programs, quickly emerging as perhaps their most high-profile opponent. Government surveillance is an issue that's near and dear to his libertarian base, and one hes advocated against for some time now. Following the revelations that the NSA has collected domestic phone records, Paul introduced a bill that would require a warrant before the government could seize such records, and has called the program "an astounding assault on the Constitution." But Republican consensus on the issue is still emerging. While Pauls opposition to the surveillance programs is likely to invigorate the libertarian and Tea Party base that helped him get elected to the Senate, it could ruffle some feathers in the GOP, as most lawmakers have thus far taken a cautious approach to evaluating the programs. This issue crystallizes Pauls dilemma heading into 2016: To make it through the Republican primaries, hell need to prove he can work with establishment Republicans while managing to avoid alienating his far-right base. To the extent that he's going to get worked up and really use it as something to campaign on, he's the face of the opposition to this situation, said Tim Hagle, professor of political science at the University of Iowa. Hagle said that Paul would have to answer for his position on the surveillance program if it eventually becomes counter to the mainstream, but that it would likely sell well in early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Iowa, with its conservative leanings and Tea Party faction, and New Hampshire, with its libertarian streak, are likely to be receptive to Pauls outspoken opposition to the surveillance programs. But establishment Republicans are walking a far finer line on the programs. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would only go so far as to call for an investigation into the scandal, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), another potential 2016 contender, was even more tempered in his response, going so far as to say programs like this have great utility. A Paul aide pushed back against the idea that the senator has trouble with the establishment, noting his close relationship with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The aide balked at the suggestion that Paul may be outside the mainstream on this issue. I think there is an emerging consensus in the GOP that it needs to stand for basic civil liberties and civil rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, the aide said. But, tellingly, McConnell hasnt yet commented on the NSA surveillance revelations, a clear indication the party position on the issue remains murky. However, its unlikely Paul will temper his position on the issue, as hed risk a base thats growing increasingly skeptical of his commitment to libertarian causes. Preston Bates, head of the libertarian Liberty for All super PAC, said libertarians are waiting to see what Paul will do next. Rand has done a great job using a bullhorn to raise awareness, but some of his supporters want to see how that education and engagement translates into action, he said. Many libertarians have pushed for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act entirely, a proposal thats extremely unlikely to gain any traction in Congress. Pauls bill to prevent similar NSA surveillance is also unlikely to go anywhere. Its unclear whether hed be willing to stage another highprofile filibuster going forward, like the one that catapulted him to national prominence for his opposition to the administrations use of drones. He met widespread support from both

sides of the aisle for his filibuster, and was joined on the Senate floor by Sens. Rubio and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Link Defense
Tea Party doesnt care about foreign policy Drezner, 11
(Daniel, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest, "Tea Partied out" March 7, drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/tea_partied_out NL) As for foreign policy, Beck and Palin have radically different foreign policy worldviews, which suggests the inchoate nature of the Tea Party movement itself. O'Rourke noted last fall: What is the Tea Partys foreign policy? Its a difficult question on two counts. There is no Tea Party foreign policy as far as I can tell, and, on inspection, there is no Tea Party. There are, of course, any number of Tea Party Coalition groups
across the country. But these mix and mingle, cooperate, compete, debate, merge, and overlap with countless other groups grouped together as the Tea Party movement in the public mind. Mead makes a similar observation, but argues that passionate minorities can still wield veto power in American politics, and that eventually, "the contest in the Tea Party between what might be called its Palinite and its Paulite wings will likely end in a victory for the Palinities." This implies the status quo of different elements of the Tea Party movement holding contradictory views cannot hold -- and I see no reason why it can't. The

simplest fact

about the Tea Party is that, by and large, they don't care about foreign policy.

Plan doesnt affect Tea Party take overthey dont care Healy, 10
(Gene, vice president of the Cato Institute, "Tea Party Could Wreck Foreign Policy? Great", Dec 7, www.cato.org/publications/commentary/tea-party-could-wreck-foreign-policy-great NL) We already knew the Tea Party scared liberals to death, but it seems the movement also terrifies liberals nearest cousins, the neoconservatives, on an issue dear to their bellicose little hearts: foreign policy. Bush-speechwriter-turned-Washington-Post-columnist Michael Gerson warns that the Tea
Partys ascendancy could have the scariest kind of influence on Americas role in the world: massive and unclear. It might even turn against our endless nation-building adventure in Afghanistan! Also in the Post, American Enterprise Institute analysts Danielle Pletka and Thomas Donnelly worry that American international leadership is threatened by an almost Calvinistic call to fiscal discipline, with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., leading the ascetic elect. For the first time in a decade, there are tentative yet hopeful signs of new thinking in conservative defense policy. Color

me skeptical: Im not convinced that the TPers plan to pry us loose from our outdated and dangerous entangling alliances and downsize our bloated Pentagon budget, very little of which can
fairly be classified as defense. I am convinced thats what they should support if they mean what they say about limited, constitutional government. Near as I can tell, the TPers dont care much about foreign policy. In the largest national survey of movement supporters, Aprils New York Times/CBS News poll, vanishingly small numbers put Iraq, Afghanistan or terrorism at the top of their concerns.

Aff Hurts GOP Influence

Plan destroys GOP unity over foreign policy---guarantees loss in future election Michael D. Shear 13 is NYT Staff, Republicans Are Divided on Proper Role for U.S. Abroad, 314-13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/us/politics/in-republican-party-schism-overamericas-role-abroad.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k
WASHINGTON For more than three decades,

the Republican Party brand has been deeply tied to a worldview in

power abroad

which the aggressive use of American

is both a policy imperative and a political

advantage . Now, a new generation of Republicans like Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is turning inward , questioning the
approach that reached its fullest expression after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and signaling a willingness to pare back the military budgets that made it all possible.

That holds the potential to threaten two wings of a Republican

Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush.

national security

establishment

that have

been warring for decades: the internationalists who held sway under the elder President George Bush and the neoconservatives who led the country to long and costly wars in

Members of both camps said this week that they fear returning to a minimalist foreign policy, as articulated in different ways by Mr. Paul, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Representative Justin Amash of Michigan. The
foreign policy hawks fear it would lead to a diminished role for America in an increasingly unstable world. And they worry about their party losing its firm grasp of what has traditionally been a winning issue.

A real challenge for the Republicans as they approach 2016 is what will be

their brand? said Richard N. Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former aide to the first President Bush. The reason Rand Paul is gaining traction is overreaching in Iraq. What he is articulating represents an alternative to both. The split in the party was on display in muted terms here on Thursday at the opening session of the Conservative Political Action Conference when
Senator Marco

Rubio , Republican of Florida and a possible

Without mentioning

presidential candidate in 2016 , expressed concern about a return to isolationism.

Mr. Paul directly, Mr. Rubio said that the United States cant solve every war but added that we also cant be retreating from the world. Moments later, Mr. Paul told the conference that the filibuster he conducted last week over the Obama administrations drone policy was aimed at the limits on presi dential power and American power abroad. No one person gets to decide the law, he said. Some Republicans are so nervous about the positions championed by Mr. Paul and his supporters that they have begun talking about organizing to beat back primary challenges from what Dan Senor, a veteran of the younger Mr. Bushs team of foreign pol icy advisers, described as a push to reorient the party toward a neo-isolationist foreign policy. That policy, Mr. Senor said, is sparking discussions among conservative donors, activists and policy wonks about creating a

in Mr. Paul and the Tea Party, Republicans face a philosophical disagreement from within their ranks. Senator John McCain of Arizona, who is his partys most prominent spokesman for an aggressive foreign policy, recently dismissed Mr. Paul and those who agree with him as wacko birds. But other party leaders are rushing to embrace Mr. Paul and Tea Party Republicans as they build coalitions of young voters who dislike the foreign wars and the cost of fighting them. Those voters may be a key to winning back the White House in 2016. After Mr. Pauls 13-hour
political network to support internationalist Republicans. But filibuster last week, leading Republican figures heaped praise on the freshman senator. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Mr. Lee joined the filibuster, offering their ideological support for his cause. Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican Party, said Mr. Paul was able to capture some national attention in standing up to the president. My vie w is that he is an important voice in our party. Mr. Haass said Republican leaders are beginning to recognize the electoral power appeal among some voters to Mr. Pauls foreign policy views. Some of what Rand Paul says resonates, he said. Either party that ignores it does so at its peril. On the ot her hand, one does not simply want to embrace it because it goes too far. Mr. Paul calls himself a realist, not a neoconservative nor an isolationist. But his view of America resembles that of his father, f ormer Representative Ron Paul, who built a deeply committed following of libertarians and Tea Party Republicans by opposing most American involvement overseas. Senator Paul, who is mulling a presidential bid in 2016, is less strident and more subtle than his father. In a speech at the Heritage Foundation last month, he insisted he is not against all foreign intervention,

The question for the Republican Party is whether Mr. Paul and his followers will emerge as a vocal enough part of the Republican electorate to reshape the partys foreign policy without taking it back to the strictly isolationist approach. This is a divide that has been festering and deepening for a generation , said Thomas Donnelly, a fellow at the
but pledged to fight for a saner, more balanced approach to foreign policy. American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy group.

Its bad for the country, bad for the party in a whole host of

ways particularly in presidential elections.

Plan guarantees fight with in GOP Daniel Rigney 13The Republican Civil War: 15 Early Skirmishes, 3-24-13,
http://open.salon.com/blog/danagram/2013/03/24/the_republican_civil_war_early_skirmishes, DOA: 8-1-13, y2k In the months since Novembers presidential election, Republican Party leaders seem to be turning their collective grief and anger back upon each other , setting off a ferocious melee among factions . Each days news brings fresh evidence that the party's conservative thought leaders are turning on one another and letting arrows of rancor fly that once were saved for the likes of socialists, Muslims, and climate scientists. We can begin to see the outlines of an incipient Republican civil war emerging along multiple and cross-cutting battle lines. The
numerous

the partys

old GOP establishment is lining up against upstart teabaggers.

Social conservatives are standing firm against

lifestyle libertarians. Militarists are pushing back against isolationists. Urbanites against small-town and rural folk. Hunters against gun fanatics on the semi-automatic right. Science advocates against science deniers. GOP environmentalists and conservationists against carbon conservatives. Log Cabin gays against their haters. Younger conservatarians against older generations. Modern-minded women against traditionalist (often older white Southern) men. Big-tent pluralists against monoculturalists. Pitchfork populists and religious evangelicals against a cynically secular financial elite. RINOs against dinosaurs. Moderates against immoderates. And as always, money against money. In

general, its a battle between

the partys near right and its far right , with no armistice in sight. Future political historians may argue that the partys current surge of self-destructive behavior began in the Republican primary campaigns of 2012, when presidential aspirants eviscerated each other in nationally televised debates and
intraparty attack ads. The primary campaign of 2012, lavishly funded by wealthy political investors -- the Koch brothers (supporting Cain and Gingrich), Sheldon Adelson (Gingrich and Romney) and others -- spurred on the party's political mudders in the run for the Rose Garden. The

primary

season saw one round after another of Republican self-abuse. Newt Gingrich attacked Romney for his knowledge
of the French language, and for having the gall to perform shameless francophonic acts in public. Ron Paul, when asked why his campaign had run an ad calling Rick Santorum a fake, replied flatly, "because he's a fake!" (Santorum was seated next to him at the time.) The elevation of Republican discourse went downhill from there.

Fresh and abundant new signs of Republican self-destruction are

everywhere to be seen in the days since the November elections. Did you miss any of these post-election stories?

GOP Party cohesion is on the brink---renewed wave of isolationism will spur inner-party conflicts Lobe 13 James R. Lobe is an American journalist and the Washington Bureau Chief of the
international news agency Inter Press Service.-Ten Years After Iraq War, Neo-Cons Struggle to Hold Republicans, March, 2013, http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/ten-years-after-iraq-warneo-cons-struggle-to-hold-republicans/ DOA: 7-30-13, y2k Ten years after reaching the height of their influence with the invasion of Iraq , the neoconservatives and other right-wing hawks are fighting hard to retain Republican Party . That fight was on vivid display
(CPAC) here last week their

control of the

at the C onservative P olitical A ction C onference and a libertarian-

where, as the New York Times observed in a front-page article, the party appeared increasingly split between
a decade ago

the aggressively interventionist wing that led the march to war adventures

realist coalition that is highly sceptical of, if not strongly opposed to , any more military
abroad.

The libertarian component, which appears ascendant at the moment, is identified

most closely with the so-called Tea Party, particularly Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, whose extraordinary 13-hour

filibuster against

the hypothetical

use of drone strikes

against U.S. citizens

on U.S. territory on the Senate floor last

week made him an overnight rock star on the left as well as the right.

Republican unity was not helped by the hostile

reaction to Pauls performance by Sen. John McCain, and his long-time ally, Sen. Lindsay Graham, whose national security views tilt strongly neo-conservative and who are treated by most mainstream media as the partys two most important foreign policy spokesmen. McCain dismissed
Paul and his admirers as wacko birds on the right and left that get the media megaphone and charged that Republican senator s who joined Paul among them, the Senate Republican Leader, Mitch McConnell during his oratorical marathon should know better.

But, beyond drones, the party is

deeply divided between deficit hawks , including many in the Tea Party who do not believe the Pentagon should be exempt from budget cuts and are leery of new overseas commitments, and defence hawks, led by McCain and Graham. The split between the partys two wings, which have clashed several times during Barack Obamas presidency over issues such as Washingtons intervention in Libya and how much , if any, support to provide rebels in Syria , appears certain to grow wider , if for no other reason than deficit-cutting will remain the Republicans main obsession for the
foreseeable future. For now, it appears that the deficit hawks have the upper hand, at least judging from the reactions so far to the Mar. 1 triggering of the much-dreaded sequester which, if not redressed, would require the Pentagon to reduce its planned 10-year budget by an additional 500 billion dollars beyond the nearly 500 billion dollars that Congress and Obama had already agreed to cut in late 2011. Indefensible, wrote neo-conservative chieftain Bill Kristol in his Weekly Standard about Republican complacency in the face of such prospective cuts in the military budget. (T)he Republican party has, at first reluctantly, then enthusiastically, joined the

The great fear of the neo-conservatives is that, given the countrys war weariness and the partys focus on the deficit, Republicans may be returning to isolationism a reference to the partys resistance to U.S. intervention in Europe in World War II until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbo r in Dec
president on the road to irresponsibility, he despaired. 1941. Just as Adolf Hitlers subsequent declaration of war silenced the isolationists, the rise of the Soviet Union after the war and its depiction as a global threat

The end of the Cold War, however, created a new opening for those in the party particularly budget-conscious, limitedgovernment conservatives who saw a big national security establishment with major overseas commitments as a threat to both individual liberties and the countrys fiscal health. Thus, many Republican lawmakers went along with significant cuts in the defence budget that began during the George H.W. Bush administration. The party
ensured that the party remained committed to a hawkish foreign policy over the next 45 years. also split over a number of military actions in the 1990s, including Bushs humanitarian intervention in Somalia, and Bill Clintons campaigns in Bosnia and later Kosovo. Republican lawmakers also strongly opposed Clintons dispatch of troops to Haiti to restore ousted President Jean -Bertrand Aristide in 1994. Indeed, it was during this period that the neo-conservatives allied themselves with liberal interventionists in the Democratic Party to help prod an initially reluctant Clinton to intervene in the Balkans. And in 1996, Kristol and Robert Kagan co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs entitled Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy, that was directed precisely against what they described as a drift toward neoisolationism among Republicans. The following year, they co -founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), whose charter was signed by, among others, eight top officials of the future George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. The new group was not only to serve as an anchor for Republicans who supported its founders vision of a benevole nt (U.S.) hegemony in world affairs based on overwhelming military power, but also as a lobby for ever higher defence budgets and regime change in Iraq, as well as a more confrontational relationship with China which it saw as the most likely next challenger to a U.S.-dominated global order. Occupying key positions in the new Bush administration, these hawks took full advantage of 9/11 and reached their greatest influence when, exactly 10 years ago this week, the U.S. launched its invasion o f Iraq to shock and awe the rest of the world into compliance with the new order. And while a tiny minority of Republicans, including notably, Pauls father, Rep. Ro n Paul, and Sen. Chuck Hagel who was just confirmed as Obamas defence secretary despite an all-out neo-conservative campaign to defeat him voiced strong reservations about the war at the time, the

that domination is increasingly under siege, not only because of the growing national consensus that the Iraq invasion was a major strategic debacle, but also because of the increasing popular concern noted in a number of major polls over the past six months that Washington simply can no longer afford the kind of imperial vision the hawks have promoted. And the fact that
overwhelming majority of the party enthusiastically embraced it, sealing the hawks own domination of the party. Ten years la ter, however, younger voters so-called millennials, aged 18-29 are, according to the same polls, especially repelled by that vision can only strengthen those in the party calling for a more restrained foreign policy. Still,

true to their nature , the hawks will not give up without a fight , and their

hold on the party remains strong , as demonstrated most recently by the fact that only four Republican senators, including Paul, voted to confirm Hagel, a Republican realist, in his new post. It is way too early for budget hawks to declare victory, noted Chris Preble of the libertarian Cato Institute on foreignpolicy.com last week. The neocons wont go down without a fight, and they will have other chances in the months ahead to ratchet the Pentagon budget back up to unnecessary levels.

Loss of party control guarantees Dem takeover in the coming election Nicholas Wapshott 13 is a Reuters contributing columnist, The return of isolationism, 3-2913, http://blogs.reuters.com/nicholas-wapshott/2013/03/29/the-return-of-isolationism/ DOA: 8-1-13, y2k Isolationism is back in the news . The big thinkers of the Tea Party , in their pursuit of slashing taxes, lowering public spending, and severely shrinking the size and power of the federal government, have revived an idea that has not been respectable among senior Republicans for more than 70 years. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky believes that, to encourage more young people to vote for the GOP, the party should stop chasing divisive social issues, like incarcerating people for petty drug offenses, and take up civil liberties issues, like protecting American suspected terrorists on American soil
from being summarily executed by American drones. But that is just a start. According to a recent speech in Cincinnati, Paul thinks that, for the GOP to win younger voters, even bigger to me than the social issues is the idea of war. If we didnt have to be everywhere all the time, if maybe we tried to reserve it for when our national interests were impacted or a vital interest of ours was . . . [he left the thought unfinished] and if Republicans didnt seem so eager to go to war I think wed attract more young people. He would prefer it if we had a less bellicose approach, if we were for a strong defense but a little bit less aggressive defense around the world. Paul is not suggesting pacifism. What he means by a less aggressive foreign policy is that he wishes America would stop taking its international responsibilities so seriously

This is an extraordinary about-face for a leader of a party that in the post-war world has always proudly defended Americas right to intervene with force when and wherever it wishes. The GOP has always been the natural home for isolationists. The
because it costs taxpayers a lot of money. Irreconcilables that kept America out of the League of Nations were overwhelmingly Republican and it was largely Republican isolationists who advocated the neutrality laws in the Twenties and Thirties. Robert Taft nudged the party towards isolationism in his many failed bids to become the Republican presidential candidate through the Forties and Fifties. And rogue isolationist Patrick Buchanan gave the GOP establishment a scare when in both 1992 and 1996 he prospered in early primaries. But

internationalism and support for the military has been the GOPs backbone

since Abraham Lincoln.

Despite Dwight Eisenhowers belated warnings about the military-industrial complex, he was the most accomplished military figure to occupy the White House since Ulysses S. Grant. Richard Nixon had no compunction about secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos in an attempt to bring the Vietnam War to a close. Ronald Reagan may have wanted to trade away our nuclear weapons, and his finest hour as commander-in-chief may only have been the invasion of Grenada, but no one doubted his resolve to counter the Soviet threat by military means if necessary. After a wobble, George H. W. Bush successfully prosecuted the Gulf War with admirable restraint. And his son, in thrall to neo-conservative hawks, waged war simultaneously in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though the casus belli of the Iraq War proved to be a tragic red herring, expensive in monetary and military and civilian losses. Navy fighter pilot John McCain, taken prisoner and tortured by the Vietnamese, was likely only half joking when he urged, Bomb, bomb, bomb/ Bomb, bomb Iran to the tune of Barbara Ann. Romney, who dodged the draft by trying to convert Frances Catholics to Mormonism, was

Until this Congress, Paul, Senator for Kentucky, was a way outsider, the son and ideological heir of the former failed Republican presidential hopeful Senator Ron Paul, who ran for president in 1988 as the Libertarian Party candidate. Rand Paul, having recently drawn attention to
the beginning of the end of the fighting tradition. Now, merely to attract fickle younger voters, decades of the GOPs warrio r tradition is to be jettisoned.

himself by mounting a filibuster over

whether the CIA could use

drones

to kill domestic suspected terrorists,

has

become a darling of the GOPs libertarians and a frontrunner to become the 2016 presidential candidate . A straw poll for presidential nominee at the recent CPAC powwow put him neck and neck with another Tea Party favorite, Florida senator Marco Rubio. It is a mark of how quickly the once staid and stolid Republicans have been over-run by revolutionary Tea Party types that Paul can instantly gain such wide backing . Only last year, his father, who holds near-identical views, could at best muster only about 10 per cent support in the presidential primaries. Rand Paul is more ambitious than his father inasmuch as he is wary of being thought of as too extreme and is cagey about how he presents his libertarian views.
Interviewed at length on Fox (strangely there was not a single question about defense), he looked anxious lest he let slip s omething that would upset mainstream

Still he is bold enough to advocate the GOP in 2016 offering something maybe a little different than the cookie-cutter Conservatives that weve put out in the past. He means, of course, they should choose him. It was the moderate cookie-cutter Conservative leadership that agreed with the
Republicans. President to impose the sequester automatic profound cuts to public spending, including half of them coming from the Republican holy cow, defense if a deficit reduction package could not be agreed by Congress. By steaming through the sequester deadline and allowing the savage, often arbitrary cuts to start, Pauls Tea Party supporters in Congress tacitly agreed an immediate sharp reduction in the defense budget. Pauls remarks about the need for America to draw in its horns, cut foreign aid, start shutting military bases and bring troops home unless our national interests were impacted explains why Republicans, t raditionally the party of a strong defense and a large military, are now leading the charge to shrink the defense budget fast.

Pauls arch-rival Rubio takes issue with Paul

over defense and American involvement in the world, thereby establishing an important point of difference in determining the direction of the post-Romney GOP . Conceding that we cant solve every humanitarian crisis on the planet, we cant be involved in every dispute, every civil war and every conflict, Rubio insists that we also cannot retreat from the world. Its not that America will continue to function as the

worlds police officer. The problem is that like anything in the world, if you pull back from it, a vacuum will be created. The alternative to U. S.
*engagement+ on the global stage is chaos. Isolationism is simply not an option, he argues. Like savin g money on maintenance, withdrawing from our global responsibilities is short-sighted. Every single time that nations have retreated from the world, every single time this nation has retreated from the world, we have paid for it in the long run, Rubio said. We have paid for it dearly. Rubio is right. The failure of America to follow Woodrow Wilsons lead in joining the Leagu e of Nations after World War One indicated to the dictators Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo they would not be challenged if they embarked on the territorial conquests that eventually dragged the democracies into World War Two. And the strength of the isolationists in America through the Thirties, and the succession of neutrality laws that insisted we remain aloof from foreign entanglements, delayed the day of reckoning, allowing the dictators a head start, and did nothing to prevent our inevitable entry into World War Two. While Rand Paul is proposing isolationism as a means of achieving his real libertarian aim, a shrunken, weakened federal government, he has yet to make the geo-political case for an American withdrawal from the role it inherited from the bankrupt and defeated British in 1945. Nor has he explained that if we shrink our military we will not bring the troops home to serve at home but to fire them to save money.

For every young voter tempted by Pauls apparent

radicalism and his softness on drugs there will be a military family who will no longer vote Republican . All credit to Paul, though, for daring to think the unthinkable and for shifting his party away from the stale sectarianism that currently makes it unelectable . However, giving the dangerous nations of the world a free hand to bully and plunder as they wish merely to save a few dollars in the short term is plain crazy.

Constraining prez war powers divides Republicans McCain, 13

(Senator John McCain, "How to Save the Republican Party", April 26, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/26/how_to_save_the_republican_party_john_mccain NL) I am a proud internationalist, but I recognize that an internationalist foreign policy is a tough sell in America today, especially among Republicans. And I understand why. Americans are intensely warweary. And they are tired of bearing the burdens of world leadership when our domestic and economic problems seem far more urgent. This is leading to a broader political rebalancing . After the September 11 attacks, we embarked on an expansive foreign policy. Spending on defense and foreign assistance went up, and energy shifted to the president. Now things are changing. Americans want a foreign policy contraction. Our foreign assistance and defense budgets are on a steep decline. The

desire to curb presidential power is growing, and the political momentum is shifting toward the Congress. America has gone through this kind of political rebalancing before, and much of the time we have gotten it wrong. That is how we got isolationism and disarmament after World War I. That is how we got a hollow army after Vietnam. And that is how we weakened our national security after the Cold War in the hope of cashing in on a peace dividend. We can't afford to repeat these mistakes. We can't afford to think the world will give us a holiday from history just
because we are tired. We can't assume the tide of war will recede just because we wish it so. Protecting our national security, as always, requires American leadership and an internationalist foreign policy. But the American people today want to do less, not more. So the

key question, especially for Republicans like me, is: How do we make internationalism viable and sustainable amid today's political realities?

Plan divides Republican party McCain, 13

(Senator John McCain, "How to Save the Republican Party", April 26, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/26/how_to_save_the_republican_party_john_mccain NL) From Teddy Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, Republican internationalists have affirmed that the expansion of freedom, and democracy, and prosperity not only makes our world more just, but also more secure. We have affirmed that America must stand up for people who share our values because
it is right -- but also because we have an interest in seizing opportunities to make more friends and fewer enemies, and to shape conditions in the world that allow our citizens to live in peace and freedom at home. That

is what Republicans must reaffirm now -- for when our values are in retreat in the world, our interests are usually not safe either. I am a loyal Republican, and I care deeply about the future of my party. But the future of my country will always be more important. Right

now, the far left and the far right in America are coming together in favor of pulling us back from the world. The president and I have had our differences. Many of those differences will persist. But there are times these days when I feel that I have more in common on foreign policy with President Obama than I do with some in my own party. It is incumbent upon the internationalists in this country, both Republicans and Democrats, to join together to sustain America's global leadership amid our current political realities. Republican internationalists must do our part. But we will never succeed without
presidential leadership. We internationalists need the president to speak to the American people, to shape their thinking about the world, to explain why the benefits of our global leadership are worth the costs, and to help us sustain a bipartisan consensus in favor of a new American internationalism. This should be a Republican have the privilege and honor to serve my country, it will remain my goal.

goal. It should be a Democratic goal. And so long as I

Tea Party Resilient

The tea party is resilient Economist 2010 (September 16, 2010, The future of the tea-party movement,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/tea-party_movement) It's possible that the tea-party movement will have a more lasting impact than parties like Mr Perot's, which fizzled by the late 1990s, or Mr Fortuyn's, which flamed out of existence within a year or two of seizing some of the largest vote totals in the country. For one thing, the tea-party movement has made the smart move of organising as a faction within the Republican Party, evading the eternal doom that befalls third parties in the American system. For another, it is not too closely tied to a single charismatic personality, though a split between Sarah Palin and any large segment of the movement might do some damage. And third, it runs no risk of actually wielding power for several years. Pim Fortuyn's List evaporated into incoherence when it made the mistake of joining the ruling coalition, and being forced to craft policies and take positions its followers might dislike. By organising as a faction within the minority party, with a president in office who is guaranteed to excite its followers' rage for at least two more years, the tea-party movement has ensured it can drum up votes for quite some time on the basis of opposition to taxes and proclamations that "the people have had enough."

A2 Debt Ceiling
No impact to debt ceiling its exaggerated Fisher Investments 12/10 (Fisher Investments, independent investment adviser serving
both individual and institutional investors, December 10, 2012, Debt Ceiling Worries Are Overblown: Opinion, www.thestreet.com/story/11787447/1/debt-ceiling-worries-areoverblown-opinion.html) The debt ceiling debate seems to have returned from the dead. But as our boss Ken Fisher has said, what many folks miss is that the debt ceiling is a purely political (and arbitrary) machination. And it's one that members of Congress aren't terribly motivated to fix, so it's unlikely to kick
the bucket anytime soon. For context, Congress used to have to approve debt issuance, but during World War I, lawmakers feared such a mundane task might slow potential war funding. Hence, they created the debt ceiling in 1917 to (try to) take themselves out of the picture. Noble enough! But the limit was arbitrary and didn't account for debt's tendency to grow in sympathy with the broader economy. Hence, over time and as the country grew, our debt rose as well, butting up against Congress's arbitrary ceiling.

lawmakers began using the debt ceiling as a political tool to leverage concessions from a president and/or the opposing party by threatening a government shutdown and a potential debt default. This political gamesmanship has occurred over and over. Often the deliberations go down to the wire (or even a bit beyond) before a new ceiling is established. In fact, the debt ceiling has been lifted 91 times in the last 40 years. No politician wants to be tainted with causing the U.S. to default. Yet, at the same time, neither party wants to give up this potential battering ram. Hence, we likely will continue to have debt ceilings, debt ceiling debates and half-hearted "solutions" for "solving" the debt ceiling dilemma. One such solution we've heard in recent years is minting a $1 trillion platinum coin, as explained in a post at AEIdeas, the public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute. At CNN, Jack M. Balkin wrote, "some commentators have suggested that
Congress mostly rubber-stamped debt ceiling increases until the mid-1950s, when the Treasury create two $1 trillion coins, deposit them in its account in the Federal Reserve and write checks on the proceeds." That is ... one ... (theoretical) option. Yet we'd hasten to add it's entirely unnecessary and likely comes with unintended costs of its own. There is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch. But beyond that, this theoretical $1 trillion platinum coin (and why must we use platinum, by the way?) is merely another arbitrary measure on top of the already arbitrary debt ceiling -- a Band-Aid on top of a

Failing a congressional debt ceiling lift, the government would issue new checks against the coin ad nausem until ... it reached the $1 trillion limit. But then perhaps Treasury would add another $1 trillion coin, and so forth and so on. This merely would create a temporary bypass to the debt ceiling that likely would need to be
Band-Aid. Imagine for a moment that the Treasury does authorize creating and stashing a $1 trillion coin at the Fed. revisited as the economy continues growing (as it always has, in fits and starts). Make no mistake: We're not fans of ever-increasing relative debt (mostly because we prefer smaller government relative to the private sector). But the absolute amount of debt pretty much has always grown and likely will continue to do so. (The government never repaid all the WW II-related borrowings after the war ended, yet a slower debt growth rate combined with economic growth reduced the size of debt relative to GDP). We just

a debt ceiling serves little purpose outside of creating a periodic opportunity for political posturing. And remember, since 1921, Congress has been required to develop and pass a budget that ultimately determines what the nation spends in a given fiscal year. The Treasury merely issues debt to cover differences between government expenses and revenue. Our bet is pols fold like they have 11 times in the last decade and find compromises to raise the debt ceiling again. But we'd be remiss if we didn't address the economic consequences if the government doesn't lift the ceiling before borrowings hit the $16.4 trillion debt ceiling as projected in February 2013. Those consequences, at least in the near term, aren't catastrophic. The government need only delay some nonessential spending or shut down some services, such as national parks or passport issuance. At only 1.4% of GDP (as of 2011), debt service costs are tiny and likely easily paid by revenues (only 9.9% of total tax revenue in 2011, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.) So the likelihood of default is also exceedingly low. And of course, it's probably also likely that the government finds some extra cash in the sofa cushions or a $20 bill in the laundry, buying further time for Congress to find resolution. The debt ceiling is so arbitrary and so lacking in real, economic impact that you just don't need to spend the time conjuring schemes like trillion-dollar coins, Fed vaults and check writing. Given time, politicians are highly likely to do what they've nearly always done: Politick to the last moment, then raise the debt ceiling.
think

A2 Credit Downgrade
No impact to downgrade Walker 2012 (Susanne Walker and Joseph Brusuelas, November 8, 2012, "U.S. Downgrade
Threat Nonsense, OppenheimerFundss Willis Says," Business Week, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-08/u-dot-s-dot-downgrade-threat-nonsenseoppenheimerfunds-s-willis-says) Bond investors would ignore a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating if lawmakers fail to reach a budget agreement that avoids the fiscal cliff, according to panelists at a money manager conference. It would not be a problem if the U.S. received a downgrade, said Mike Materasso, co-chairman of the fixed- income policy committee at Franklin Templeton Investments in New York, at the Bloomberg Portfolio Manager Conference in New York. The U.S. is experiencing problems many other developed countries are facing. Congress and President Barack Obama must confront more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts set to
take effect in 2013 or risk the economy tipping back into recession. Standard & Poors stripped the U.S. of its AAA credit rating on Aug. 5, 2011, after months of political wrangling that pushed the nation to the deadline an agreement to lift the debt ceiling. Fitch Ratings warned yesterday that the U.S. may be downgraded next year unless lawmakers avoid the fiscal cliff and raise the debt ceiling in a timely manner, while Moodys Investors Service said it will wait to see the economic impact should the nation experience a fiscal shock. Its

nonsense, said Troy Willis, vice president at senior portfolio manager at OppenheimerFunds Inc. Tell me whats a better credit out there. Bond Rally Since Treasuries were downgraded in 2011, the securities have returned 6.7 percent as of Nov. 7. Even with the downgrade and a jump
in marketable Treasuries outstanding since 2007 to $10.9 trillion as of Oct. 31 from $4.5 trillion, 10-year yields are down from 2.56 percent when S&P cut the U.S. one step to AA+. The yield touched a record low 1.379 percent on July 25. You

can be downgraded and your yields can rally, said Eric Stein, a Boston-based portfolio manager at Eaton Vance Management, which oversees $198 billion. Its the benefit of having a reserve currency .

Economy Defense
Countries turn inward creates peace Lloyd deMause, director of The Institute for Psychohistory, Nuclear War as an Anti-Sexual Group Fantasy Updated December 18th 2002,
http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/ja/nucsex.htm The nation "turns inward" during this depressed phase of the cycle. Empirical studies have clearly demonstrated that major economic downswings are accompanied by "introverted" foreign policy moods, characterized by fewer armed expeditions, less interest in foreign affairs in the speeches of leaders, reduced military expenditures, etc. (Klingberg, 1952; Holmes, 1985). Just as depressed people experience little conscious rage--feeling "I deserve to be killed" rather than "I want to kill others" (Fenichel, 1945, p. 393)--interest in military adventures during the depressed phase wanes, arms expeditures decrease and peace treaties multiply.

Economic collapse doesnt cause war no causal connection Thomas P.M. Barnett (senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC and a contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire magazine) August 2009 The New Rules: Security Remains
Stable Amid Financial Crisis http://www.aprodex.com/the-new-rules--security-remains-stableamid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to world war, as it
were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past

globalization's first truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape. None of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the global recession. Indeed, the last new entry
year and realize how (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for

Looking over the various databases, then, we see a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea, Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global economic trends. And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our
that sudden spike in an almost two-decade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions. involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin

Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command, for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces. So, to sum up: * No significant uptick in mass violence or unrest (remember the smattering of urban riots last year in places like Greece, Moldova and Latvia?); * The usual frequency maintained in civil conflicts (in all the usual places); * Not a single state-on-state war directly caused (and no great-power-on-great-power crises even triggered); * No great improvement or disruption in great-power cooperation regarding the emergence of new nuclear powers (despite all that diplomacy); * A modest scaling back of international policing efforts by the system's acknowledged Leviathan power (inevitable given the strain); and * No serious efforts by any rising great power to challenge that Leviathan or supplant its role. (The worst things we can cite are Moscow's occasional deployments of strategic assets to the Western
America, the usual military exercises with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). hemisphere and its weak efforts to outbid the United States on basing rights in Kyrgyzstan; but the best include China and India stepping up their aid and investments in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Sure, we've finally seen global defense spending surpass the previous world record set in the late 1980s, but even that's likely to wane given the stress on public budgets created by all this unprecedented "stimulus" spending. If anything, the friendly cooperation on such stimulus packaging was the most notable great-power dynamic caused by the crisis. Can we say that the world has suffered a distinct shift to political radicalism as a result of the economic crisis? Indeed, no. The world's major economies remain governed by center-left or center-right political factions that remain decidedly friendly to both markets and trade. In the short run, there were attempts

there was no great slide into "trade wars." Instead, the World Trade Organization is functioning as it was designed to function, and regional efforts toward free-trade
across the board to insulate economies from immediate damage (in effect, as much protectionism as allowed under current trade rules), but agreements have not slowed. Can we say Islamic radicalism was inflamed by the economic crisis? If it was, that shift was clearly overwhelmed by the Islamic world's growing

disenchantment with the brutality displayed by violent extremist groups such as al-Qaida. And looking forward, austere economic times are just as likely to breed connecting

At the end of the day, the economic crisis did not prove to be sufficiently frightening to provoke major economies into establishing global regulatory schemes, even as it has sparked a spirited -and much needed, as I argued last week -- discussion of the continuing viability of the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. Naturally, plenty of experts and pundits have attached great significance to this debate, seeing in it the beginning of "economic warfare" and the like between "fading" America and "rising" China. And yet, in a world of globally integrated production chains and interconnected financial markets, such "diverging interests" hardly constitute signposts for wars up ahead. Frankly, I don't welcome a world in which America's fiscal profligacy goes undisciplined, so bring it on -- please! Add it all up and it's fair to say that
evangelicalism as disconnecting fundamentalism. this global financial crisis has proven the great resilience of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order. Do I expect to read any analyses along those lines in the blogosphere any time soon? Absolutely not. I expect the fantastic fear-mongering to proceed apace. That's what the Internet is for.

Democracy Defense
Democracy does not spread peace historical record proves their evidence is uninformed hype. Christopher Layne (Associate Professor in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University) 2007 American Empire: A Debate p 94
Wilsonian ideology drives the American Empire because its proponents posit that the United States must use its military power to extend democracy abroad. Here, the ideology

the architects of Empire champion democracy because they believe in the so-called democratic peace theory, which holds that democratic states do not fight other democracies. Or as President George W. Bush put it with his customary eloquence," democracies don't war; democracies are peaceful.."16 The democratic peace theory is the probably the most overhyped and under supported "theory" ever to be concocted by American academics. In fact, it is not a theory at all. Rather it is a theology that suits the conceits of Wilsonian true believersespecially the neoconservatives who have been advocating American Empire since the early1990s. As serious scholars have shown, however, the historical record does not support the democratic peace theory."' On the contrary, it shows that democracies do not act differently toward other democracies than they do toward nondemocratic states. When important national interests are at stake, democracies not only have threatened to use force against other democracies, but, infact, democracies have gone to war with other democracies.
of Empire rests on assumptions that are not supported by the facts. One reason promotion is

Tea Party Good--- Moon Colonization

Tea Party takeover leads to Moon colonization
TPIS 6/6/11 - Non-partisan organization dedicated to educating the public about the space frontier (Tea Party Supports Senators Feinstein and Boxer Demand For Open Competition On SLS Contracts, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=33758)
TEA Party in Space (TPIS), a non-partisan organization, today publicly praised

a letter sent by California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (link to the letter) about competing NASA's procurement of the Space Launch System (SLS). TPIS values non-partisan cooperation among all political leaders who seek a successful space program based on fiscal responsibility, limited government, and the competitive free market. TPIS is happy to join with these two Senators who
wisely recognize that NASA must compete its contracts to be fair to the tax payers in this time of budgetary crisis. The letter specifically cites the provisions of the NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010, which calls for only extending existing contracts where "practicable". But NASA's own assessment in January showed that the full cost of developing the "reference" Space Launch System recommended by the Act, much of it using existing contracts that were sole source cost plus awards, could not fit in NASA's budget run out. "The contract to award the solid rocket motor contract was a carefully disguised earmark that virtually guaranteed the work to Alliant Techsystems (ATK) of Utah. Basically, Congress

tried to earmark $12 billion for existing Shuttle and Constellation contractors. But California's Senators are standing up for all of its taxpayers in saying 'no, you must compete this'" said Everett Wilkinson, spokesperson for TPIS. "It is time to bring competition and fiscal sanity back into the NASA procurement system." Congress should instruct NASA to forgo its traditional cost plus contract procurement model and bid the Space Launch System in an open competition and only award fixed price contracts with specific milestones that must be met before payment. It is our hope more members of Congress will build on the example
set by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and join with TPIS to fight for a space program we can afford and which actually leads America into space.

Private companies can colonize the moon Rees 09

Martin, Cambridge University astrophysicist and cosmologist, Astronomer Royal, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, President of the Royal Society from 2005 to 2010, July 22, Our next giant leap will need private backing, The Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6722405.ece)

Manned spaceflight could be a lot cheaper if it were not state-funded or a multinational programme, but bankrolled privately. There have long been maverick dreamers with schemes for space exploits. Such enthusiasts now include wealthy people with genuine commercial and technical savvy. Companies funded by Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, and Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, are developing new rockets. The recent Google prize to launch a robotic lunar lander is engaging many ingenious inventors, and leveraging far more money than the prize itself. Potential sponsors with an eye on posterity might note that Queen Isabella is now remembered primarily for her support of Columbus. If humans venture back to the Moon and beyond, they may carry commercial insignia rather than national flags. Perhaps future space probes will be plastered in logos, as
Any of these motives could drive the first travellers to Mars, or the first long-term denizens of a lunar base. Formula One racers are now. Perhaps robo-wars in space will be a lucrative spectator sport. Perhaps pioneer settlers in space

One plausible scenario would involve a permanently manned lunar base, pioneers on Mars, and
communities will live (and even die) in front of a worldwide audience the ultimate in reality TV.

perhaps small artificial habitats cruising the solar system, attaching themselves to asteroids or comets.

Solves extinction
Shapiro Prof Emeritus & Snr Research Scientist - Chemistry at NYU 2007 Robert Space Review http://www.thespacereview.com/article/832/1 I am not writing here to add my voice to the chorus of Moon-bashers, but to express my astonishment that NASA, and most supporters of space, have overlooked the one goal that, even if taken alone, would justify the massive cost of a permanent lunar base: insuring the survival of our species, and of the civilization that sustains us. Each year I insure my home for perhaps one percent of its value, and use a smaller amount to rent a safe deposit box to store valuable documents. What value do we place on our entire scientific, medical, and technical literature, together with our literary, artistic, and musical heritage? To raise the stakes, let me add the value of our own lives and those of all of our unborn descendents. This possibility was described eloquently more than two decades ago by Johnathan Schell in his anti-nuclear was treatise The Fate of the Earth. In his words: But although the untimely death of everyone in the world would in itself constitute an unimaginably huge loss, it would bring with it a separate, distinct loss that would be in a sense even huger-the cancellation of all future generations of human beings. Of course, we have been hearing predictions of Doomsday for years, and we are still here. According to geologists, the eruption of Mt. Toba in Indonesia 71,000 years ago darkened the sky for years. The event caused killed much of plant life on the planet. The famine that resulted caused a severe drop in the human population of that time. The Black Death of the 14th century killed perhaps one-third of the population of Europe and the great flu epidemic of 1918 claimed an estimated 40 million victims. Despite these disasters, and others such as global wars, humanity has muddled through and even prospered. Why should things be different now? The answer is simple. Our prospects have worsened because we have come to a unique place in human history. Suppose we wanted to conjure up a recipe for human disaster. Here is my suggestion about steps that we might take: (1) Let the population swell up to seven billion or more. Then we will need vast and complex systems to ensure the production of food, materials, and energy sources, as well as transportation to deliver the goods. By increasing our numbers, we will also increase the playing field in which new viruses can develop, increase pollution and the probability of dramatic climate change, and hasten the day when important natural resources are exhausted. (2) Computerize the operation of the food, energy, and transportation systems, and store all of the instruction manuals and needed references within the computers. Similarly, place all of our scientific, technical and medical knowledge within computers. Make the computers more and more complicated, so that only a handful of experts are prepared to deal with a massive failure. (3) Arrange to have the computers, and most other functions of society, dependent upon the operations of an intricate power grid that is subject to massive and unexplained failure. We have already had a rehearsal of such an event. For example, on August 14, 2003, 50 million people in the northeast United States were deprived of power for many hours. The main cause of the blackout, according to the task force charged with its investigation, was the failure of an Ohio power company to trim trees in part of its service area. In September of that year, a similar blackout shut off power to almost all of Italy and part of Switzerland. Unintended causes might of course be eclipsed by the deliberate actions of terrorists. Gregory McNeal estimated in the New York Times that a coordinated attack on four or five critical sites could send much of the nation into darkness for weeks. (4) Streamline the production of nuclear and biological weapons so that they become available not only to most heads of state, but also to groups of religious zealots and of extreme nationalists. Encourage both the exchange of information about such weapons, and

their availability on the international black market. Individuals who are technically competent but mentally unbalanced will then also have access to such weapons, enriching their current arsenal of computer viruses, bombs, and hijacked airplanes. All of the above events have already taken place or are likely to occur in the near future. We may also expect that single disasters may trigger a cascade of others. For example, my local power company has circulated a card advising its customers to assemble at least a three-day supply of water and non-perishable food as part of a family emergency preparedness plan. But what would we do, in urban centers, when that supply was exhausted but power and transportation had not been restored? Looting of stores and warehouses might be expected, together with an attempt by residents to flee to less populated areas where conditions might be better. Famine and civic disorder will inevitably produce casualties; unburied bodies could then lead to disease epidemics. Considerations of this type led Dr. Martin Rees, Professor of Cosmology at Cambridge and President of the Royal Society , to publish a gloomy estimate. In his 2003 book, Our Final Hour, he gave civilization only a 50percent chance of surviving until the year 2100. When we face a brand new situation, such probabilities are impossible to calculate. Countermeasures against each individual threat can of course be taken, but we would also be prudent to back up our civilization and our species. We need to place a self-sufficient fragment of society out of harms way, which for practical purposes means off the Earth. A buffer of empty space would protect that sanctuary from virtually all of the catastrophes named above. Physicist Stephen Hawking, and a number of others, have called for humanity to spread out to distant planets of our Solar System. But there is no need to go so far to protect ourselves. After a few decadescenturies at worstdust and ash will settle, radioactive materials will decay, and viruses will perish. Earth will once again become the best home for humanity in the Solar System. Return would be easiest if a safe sanctuary were nearby. In the more probable instance that only a limited disaster took place, that nearby sanctuary could also play a valuable role in restoring lost data and cultural materials, and coordinating the recovery. And of course, construction of the rescue base will be much easier if it is only days, rather than months or years, away.

Tea Party Good--- Space Colonization

Tea party key to space colonization Newsmax 11 (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/teapartyspaceexploration/2011/08/16/id/407529) Not content with stonewalling President Barack Obamas agenda, grabbing the House of Representatives, and forcing Beltway types to change their big-spending ways, the grass-roots conservative movement is now ready to launch into the final frontier space. Perhaps sending the tea party movement into outer space might sound like a skit by Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart. But the Tea Party in Space is a real grass-roots organization with a very serious objective: Restoring U.S. leadership in space exploration and settlement, while
reining in budget-busting aerospace programs they say are costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Andrew Gasser is a retired Air Force officer and founder of TeaPartyinSpace.com. His interest in applying tea party principles to the space program began when the Obama administration canceled the Space Shuttle and Constellation programs in favor of domestic spending. President

Obama really didnt show he had a serious vision for what he wanted America to do in space, says Gasser. Basically, hes relinquishing our leadership role in that capacity. What he has essentially done is pulled money out of NASA and put it into other programs, and allowed NASA to wither on the vine, he says. Theyre not giving clear direction on what NASA should be doing, and how NASA should be going forward.

Tea party key to space privatization Rayfield 11 (Jillian Rayfield August 9, 2011, 4:50 PM ,
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/to_infinitea_and_beyond_tea_party_in_space_aims_t.php)
Andrew L. Gasser

launched Tea Party In Space in June as a way to bring fiscal responsibility into the space program, he told TPM Tuesday. He called the group, which was formed in conjunction with the South Florida Tea Party, the first issue-specific tea party in the country. Gasser explained that the group aims to bring the free markets into the space program, because right now, he say, there is only the government which amounts to socialism. It is socialism when you have the government coming down and saying, this is what we
want to build, and this is how we want you to build it, he said. But Gasser stopped short of saying the government should be out of the space entirely. There has to be limited government, he said. There has to be a partnership. Some people inside NASA get it and some people dont, he later added. The In Zero G on its site, and encourages

TPIS, which describes itself as non-partisan, boasts the motto Get Your Tea supporters to attend their Congressional representatives town halls. In a press release announcing the launch of the groups platform, Gasser said: The TEA Partys core values are just what Americas space endeavors need right now in this volatile economy. NASA is being forced
to fund programs that are behind schedule and ridiculously over budget. Its time to ask: how much is enough? Both NASA, and the American taxpayer deserve a better plan and thats what our platform provides. Gasser told TPM that members

of the Tea Party Caucus were the most interested in what he had to say about NASA, though he has heard from
both Democrats and Republicans. Some, he said, would even be appearing in a press conference with him next month to promote parts of the groups platform, including Commercial Crew Development, a program administered by NASA that helps private sector companies develop the technology to send private crew-operated spacecraft into low-Earth orbit. Gasser would not specify which Congressmen could appear.

Satellites Impact
American satellite systems are vulnerable to accidents and attack
Spudis MS in Planetary Geology PhD Geology 2010 Paul Space Ref http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376 Most people don't realize how the many satellites in various orbits around the Earth affect their lives. We rely on satellites to provide us with instantaneous global communications that impact almost everything we do. We use GPS to find out both where we are and where we are going. Weather stations in orbit monitor the globe, alerting us to coming storms so that their destructive effects can be minimized. Remote sensors in space map the land and sea, permitting us to understand the distribution of various properties and how they change with time. Other satellites look outward to the Sun, which controls the Earth's climate and "space weather" (which influences radio propagation.) No aspect of our lives is untouched by the satellites orbiting the Earth. In a real sense, they are the "Skynet" of the Terminator movies - they are our eyes (reconnaissance), ears (communications) and brains (GPS and Internet) in Earth orbit. Fortunately, they are not yet self-aware. But the people who operate them are. All satellites are vulnerable. Components constantly break down and must be replaced. New technology makes existing facilities obsolete, requiring replacement, at high cost. A satellite must fit within and on the largest launch vehicle we have; satellites thus have a practical size limit, which in turn limits their capabilities and lifetime. Once a satellite stops working, it is abandoned and a replacement must be designed, launched and put into its proper orbit. Satellite aging is normal and expected but satellites can also be catastrophically lost or disabled, either accidentally or deliberately. Encounters between objects in space tend to be at very high velocities. The ever-increasing amounts of debris and junk in orbit (e.g., pieces of old rockets and satellites) can hit functioning satellites and destroy them. NORAD carefully tracks the bigger pieces of junk and some spacecraft (e.g., ISS) can be maneuvered out of the path of oncoming debris, but smaller pieces (e.g., the size of a bolt or screw) cannot be tracked and if they collide with a critical part, it can cripple a satellite. It has long been recognized that satellites are extremely vulnerable to attack and anti-satellite warfare (ASAT) is another possible cause of failure. Both the US and the USSR experimented with ASAT warfare during the Cold War. Although it sounds exotic, ASAT merely takes advantage of the fragility of these spacecraft to render them inoperative. This can be done with remote affecters like lasers to "blind" optical sensors. The simplest ASAT weapon is kinetic, i.e., an impactor. By intercepting a satellite with a projectile at high relative velocity, the satellite is rapidly and easily rendered worthless.

VSE key to maintaining and access our satellite systems in the case of accidents or attacks
Spudis MS in Planetary Geology PhD Geology & Lavoie NASA Marshall Space Flight Center 2010 Paul & Tony Mission and Implementation of an Affordable Lunar Return Submitted to Space Manufacturing http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/Affordable_Lunar_Base.pdf Establishing a permanent foothold on the Moon opens the space frontier to many parties for many different purposes. By creating a reusable, extensible cislunar space faring system, we build a transcontinental railroad in space, connecting two worlds (Earth and Moon), as well as enabling access to all points in between. We will have a system that can access the entire Moon, but more importantly, we will have the capability to routinely access all of our space assets

within cislunar space (Spudis, 2010): communications, GPS, weather, remote sensing and strategic monitoring satellites. These satellites will then be in reach to be serviced, maintained and replaced as they age.

Satellite systems are key to hegemony and the economy

AIAA 10 Aerospace Industries Association of America, Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to Lift America, April, http://www.nationalaerospaceweek.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/04/whitepaper.pdf Space systems drive our nations competitiveness, economic growth and innovation. U.S. soldiers in the mountains of Afghanistan, farmers, bankers and emergency responders here at home all have a common reliance on a space infrastructure in orbit above the Earth. Everyday activities, taken for granted by many Americans, are supported or even driven by space systems. These systems are hidden to us and rarely noticed unless the services they provide are interrupted. However, the lack of visibility of space systems doesnt diminish their importance both our nations economy and national security are tied directly to this critical infrastructure. Communications drive todays commerce, and space systems are a chief global conduit of our nations commercial and national security communications. The Internet, e-mail and wireless devices have all become the standard for businesses and recreation. Direct-to-home television and satellite radio have become standard in many American homes and automobiles. These all depend on our satellite communications systems. Similarly, the Global Positioning System, originally designed for military use, is now relied on for banking transactions, ATMs, improved agriculture, air traffic and ground transportation systems and by emergency responders. All of these applications add up to substantial economic activity. Of $214 billion in aerospace industry sales in 2007, direct space system industry sales topped $40 billion.14 Total direct and indirect global space activity for 2008 was $257 billion.15 Even harder to quantify but no less valuable is the impact that technology spinoffs from space activities bring to our economy. In 2009 alone, NASA entered into more than 250 agreements with private and other external entities for development of dual-use technologies.16 Space is certainly becoming more contested, congested and competitive. More than 60 nations are engaged in space efforts and tens of thousands of man-made objects orbit the Earth. In January 2007, the Chinese used a ballistic missile to destroy an aging weather satellite. This anti-satellite test demonstrated the very real ability of a foreign power to attack and destroy space assets and resulted in a dangerous debris cloud. In addition, the February 2009 collision of a commercial U.S. satellite and Russian satellite showed that space systems not only face disruption from intentional attack, but are also at risk from unintentional events in an increasingly crowded environment. Using systems developed by Americas aerospace industry, the Defense Department currently tracks more than 21,000 manmade objects in the Earths orbit many of which could threaten civil and national security space systems, as well as our nations efforts to increase the commercial use of space.17 In such an environment, investments in rapid reconstitution, sensors, tracking, threat assessment and other space protection and situational awareness capabilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of an unexpected catastrophic space system failure. The cost and difficulty involved in developing and deploying space systems as well as the severe consequences of their loss necessitates that our nations space infrastructure be adequately protected. Part of ensuring robust space capabilities means that America must routinely replace and update its space infrastructure. It is highly problematic if not infeasible to perform maintenance or even refuel them. Space systems have limited life spans and, at todays pace of technology, can quickly become obsolete. Critical space systems that provide missile warning, global communications, positioning, navigation and timing and weather are in need of upgrade at a time when other nations are rapidly modernizing

their own space infrastructure. The United States must remain a leader in human and robotic space a position that is perishable if not properly supported. Research aboard the International Space Station and human and robotic exploration beyond low Earth orbit must remain national priorities. These activities demonstrate global leadership, sharpen our expertise for future longrange space travel, add to our scientific knowledge and inspire our youth to pursue engineering and science disciplines. Space systems often go unnoticed in our daily lives, but their impact is very real. It is imperative that we as a nation have the right plans, strategies and budgets in place to keep our space industry competitive and our space systems, and their supporting Earth-based infrastructure, operating when we need them. It is increasingly important that the United States develop and maintain a cohesive national approach to our efforts in space one that crosses civil agencies, the Defense Department and the intelligence community.

Satellite failure cripples the global economy

Dillow Researcher Popular Science Magazine, 2010 Clay, Pentagon: A Space Junk Collision Could Set Off Catastrophic Chain Reaction, Disable Earth Communications, Popsci, 5-27, http://www.popsci.com/technology/ article/2010-05/dod-space-junk-tipping-point-collisioncould-set-catastrophic-chain-reaction Our reliance on satellites goes beyond the obvious. We depend on them for television signals, the evening weather report, and to find our houses on Google Earth when we're bored at work. But behind the scenes, they also inform our warfighting capabilities, keep track of the global shipping networks that keep our economies humming, and help us get to the places we need to get to via GPS. According to the DoD's interim Space Posture Review, that could all come crashing down. Literally. Our satellites are sorely outnumbered by space debris, to the tune of 370,000 pieces of junk up there versus 1,100 satellites. That junk ranges from nuts and bolts lost during spacewalks to pieces of older satellites to whole satellites that no longer function, and it's all whipping around the Earth at a rate of about 4.8 miles per second. The fear is that with so much junk already up there, a collision is numerically probable at some point. Two large pieces of junk colliding could theoretically send thousands more potential satellite killers into orbit, and those could in turn collide with other pieces of junk or with satellites, unleashing another swarm of debris. You get the idea. To give an idea of how quickly a chain reaction could get out hand consider this: in February of last year a defunct Russian satellite collided with a communications satellite, turning 2 orbiting craft into 1,500 pieces of junk. The Chinese missile test that obliterated a satellite in 2007 spawned 100 times more than that, scattering 150,000 pieces of debris. If a chain reaction got out of control up there, it could very quickly sever our communications, our GPS system (upon which the U.S. military heavily relies), and cripple the global economy (not to mention destroy the $250 billion space services industry), and whole orbits could be rendered unusable, potentially making some places on Earth technological dead zones.

Economic collapse leads to great power wars

Auslin Resident Scholar AEI 2009 Michael, Resident Scholar American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman Resident Fellow American Enterprise Institute, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187 What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the

country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

Moon Race Good--- Hegemony

Winning the race to the Moon is key to hard and soft power
Spudis MS in Planetary Geology PhD Geology 2010 Paul Space Ref http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376 In this interpretation, the Apollo program achieved not only its literal objective of landing a man on the Moon (propaganda, soft power) but also its more abstract objective of intimidating our Soviet adversary (technical surprise, hard power). Thus, Apollo played a key role in the end of the Cold War, one far in excess of what many scholars believe. Similarly, our two follow-on programs of Shuttle and Station, although fraught with technical issues and deficiencies as tools of exploration, had significant success in pointing the way towards a new paradigm for space. That new path involves getting people and machines to satellite assets in space for construction, servicing, extension and repair. Through the experience of ISS construction, we now know it is possible to assemble very large systems in space from smaller pieces, and we know how to approach such a problem. Mastery of these skills suggests that the construction of new, large distributed systems for communications, surveillance, and other tasks is possible. These new space systems would be much more capable and enabling than existing ones. Warfare in space is not as depicted in science-fiction movies, with flying saucers blasting lasers at speeding spaceships. The real threat from active space warfare is denial of assets and access. Communications satellites are silenced, reconnaissance satellites are blinded, and GPS constellations made inoperative. This completely disrupts command and control and forces reliance on terrestrially based systems. Force projection and coordination becomes more difficult, cumbersome and slower. Recently, China tested an ASAT weapon in space, indicating that they fully understand the military benefits of hard space power. But they also have an interest in the Moon, probably for "soft power" projection ("Flags-and-Footprints") at some level. Sending astronauts beyond low Earth orbit is a statement of their technical equality with the United States, as among space faring nations, only we have done this in the past. So it is likely that the Chinese see a manned lunar mission as a propaganda coup. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that they also understand the Moon's strategic value, as described above. They tend to take a long view, spanning decades, not the short-term view that America favors. Thus, although their initial plans for human lunar missions do not feature resource utilization, they know the technical literature as well as we do and know that such use is possible and enabling. They are also aware of the value of the Moon as a "backdoor" to approach other levels of cislunar space, as the rescue of the Hughes communications satellite demonstrated.

Now is key leadership in exploration capabilities are crucial China and Russia are looking to outpace the US
Wolf US Representative and Ranking Member House Appropriations Committee 2010 Frank, Dont Forsake US Leadership in Space, Space News, 4-25, http://spacenews.com/commentaries/100425-dont-forsake-leadership-space.html Space exploration has been the guiding star of American innovation. The Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and shuttle programs have rallied generations of Americans to devote their careers to science and engineering, and NASAs achievements in exploration and manned spaceflight have rallied our nation in a way that no other federal program aside from our armed services can. Yet today our country stands at a crossroad in the future of U.S. leadership in space. President Barack Obamas 2011 budget proposal not only scraps the Constellation program but radically scales

back U.S. ambition, access, control and exploration in space. Once we forsake these opportunities, it will be very hard to win them back. As Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan noted on the eve of the presidents recent speech at Kennedy Space Center, Fla.: For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. In terms of national security and global leadership, the White Houses budget plan all but abdicates U.S. leadership in exploration and manned spaceflight at a time when other countries, such as China and Russia, are turning to space programs to drive innovation and promote economic growth. Last month, China Daily reported that China is accelerating its manned spaceflight development while the U.S. cuts back. According to Bao Weimin with the Chinese Academy of Sciences, A moon landing program is very necessary, because it could drive the countrys scientific and technological development. In a recent special advertising section in The Washington Post, the Russian government boasted of its renewed commitment to human spaceflight and exploration. Noting the White Houses recent budget proposal, the piece said, NASA has long spent more money on more programs than Russias space agency. But President Barack Obama has slashed NASAs dreams of going to the moon again. At the same time, the Russian space industry is feeling the warm glow of state backing once again. There has been concerted investment in recent years, an investment that fits in well with the [Vladimir] Putin doctrine of trying to restore Russian pride through capacity. Manned spaceflight and exploration are one of the last remaining fields in which the United States maintains an undeniable competitive advantage over other nations. To walk away is shortsighted and irresponsible. Our global competitors have no intention of scaling back their ambitions in space. James A. Lewis with the Center for Strategic and International Studies recently said that the Obama administrations proposal is a confirmation of Americas decline. The 2011 budget proposal guarantees that the United States will be grounded for the next decade while gambling all of our exploration money on unproven research-and-development experiments. Although I am an ardent supporter of federal R&D investments, I believe it is unacceptable that the administration would gamble our entire space exploration program for the next five years on research. The dirty little secret of this budget proposal is that it all but ensures that the United States will not have an exploration system for at least two decades. That is a fundamental abdication of U.S. leadership in space no matter how much the administration tries to dress it up. Our international competitors are not slowing down, and neither should we.

Space leadership is key to warfighting capabilities

Young Chair Institute for Defense Analyses Research Group, et al., 2008 A. Thomas, Leadership, Management, and Organization for National Security Space, July, http://www.armyspace.army.mil/ASJ/Images/National_Security_S pace_Study_Final_Sept_16.pdf Today, U.S. leadership in space provides a vital national advantage across the scientific, commercial, and national security realms. In particular, space is of critical importance to our national intelligence and warfighting capabilities. The panel members nevertheless are unanimous in our conviction that, without significant improvements in the leadership and management of NSS programs, U.S. space preeminence will erode to the extent that space ceases to provide a competitive national security advantage. Space technology is rapidly proliferating across the globe, and many of our most important capabilities and successes were developed

and fielded with a government technical workforce and a management structure that no longer exist.

Lack of US superiority multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict and terrorism

Arbatov Russian Academy of Sciences and Editor 2007 Alexei, Member Russia in Global Affairs, Is a New Cold War Imminent?, Russia in Global Affairs, 5(3), July / September, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1130.html However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kievs sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediaterange missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russias strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other centers of power would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly. International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear strikes between them. Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.

Nuclear terrorism causes extinction

Sid-Ahmed 04 (Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Extinction!, August 26September 1, 2004, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm)

What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Colonization Good--- Asteroids

Space colonization protects the earth from asteroids
W. H. Siegfried, The Boeing Company, Integrated Defense Systems, 2K3, Space Colonization Benefits for the World, www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/ACF628B.pdf Over the last decade a large mass of evidence has been accumulated indicating that near-Earthobject (NEO) impact events constitute a real hazard to Earth. Congress held hearings on the phenomenon in 1998, and NASA created a small NEO program. Since 1988, a total (as of 7 August 2002) of some many thousand near-Earth objects (of which about 1,000 are larger that 1 km in diameter) have been catalogued that are potentially hazardous to Earth. New discoveries are accelerating. In just the last few months, a 2-mile-wide crater was discovered in Iraq dating from around 2000 to 3000 B.C. This impact was potentially responsible for the decline of several early civilizations. A similar crater was recently discovered in the North Sea. Major events have occurred twice in the last hundred years in remote areas where an object exploded near the Earths surface bur did not impact (such as in Russia). If either of these events had occurred over a populated area the death toll would have been enormous. Our armed forces are concerned that an asteroid strike could be interpreted as a nuclear attack, thus triggering retaliation. What higher goals could Space Colonization have than in helping to prevent the destruction of human life and to ensure the future of civilization? The odds of an object 1 km in diameter impacting Earth in this century
range between 1 in 1,500 and 1 in 5,000 depending on the assumptions made. A 1-km-diameter meteoroid impact would create a crater 5 miles wide. The death toll would depend on the impact point. A hit at Ground Zero in New York would kill millions of people and Manhattan Island (and much of the surrounding area) would disappear. The resulting disruption to the Earths environment would be immeasurable by todays standards. A concerted Space Colonization impetus could provide

platforms for early warning and could, potentially, aid in deflection of threatening objects. NEO
detection and deflection is a goal that furthers international cooperation in space and Space Colonization. Many nations can contribute and the multiple dimensions of the challenge would allow participation in many waysfrom telescopes for conducting surveys, to studies of lunar and other planet impacts, to journeys to the comets. The Moon is a natural laboratory for the study of impact events. A lunar colony would facilitate such study and could provide a base for defensive action. Lunar and Mars cyclers could be a part of Space Colonization that would provide survey sites and become bases for mining the NEOs as a resource base for space construction. The infrastructure of Space Colonization would serve a similar purpose to the solar system as did that of the United States Interstate Highway system or the flood control and land reclamation in the American West did for the United States development. In short, it would allow civilization to expand into the high frontier.

Extinction in less than a day Richard A. Posner, Senior Lecturer @ the University of Chicago Law School and Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 2004, Catastrophe, Risk and Response, p. 3
You wouldn't see the asteroid, even though it was several miles in diameter, because it would be hurtling toward you at 15 to 25 miles a second. At that speed, the column of air between the asteroid and the earth's surface would be compressed with such force that the column's temperature would soar to several times that of the sun, incinerating everything in its path. When the asteroid struck, it would penetrate deep into the ground and explode, creating an enormous crater and erecting burning rocks and dense clouds of soot into the atmosphere, wrapping the globe in a mantle of fiery debris that would raise surface temperatures by as much as 100 degrees Fahrenheit and shut down photosynthesis for years. The shock waves from the collision would have precipitated earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, gargantuan tidal waves, and huge forest fires. A quarter of the earth's human population might be dead within 24 hours of the strike, and the rest soon after.

Isolationism Good--- EU Leadership

Isolationism is key to EU economic and military stability Ed West 13 is a journalist and social commentator and the author of The Diversity Illusion:
What We Got Wrong About Immigration & How to Set It Right. Obama's isolationism may cure us of our Europe Syndrome, 1-21-13, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100199001/obamas-isolationism-may-cure-us-ofour-europe-syndrome/ DOA: 8-2-13, y2k Janey Daley had an interesting piece in yesterday's paper, in which she looked forward to a new era of American isolationism : On his triumphal tour of Eastern Europe, he greeted the rapturous crowds with a bluntly uncompromising message. Announcing the withdrawal of the US missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, he made it brutally clear how things were going to be from now on. The Cold War is over , he said, pretty much in so many words: youre on your The US could no longer be regarded as the protector of every free country in the world. If European countries were under threat from their neighbours (or, it seems, from Islamic fundamentalists) they would have to spend their own money to defend themselves . The US was going home to tend its own fire which is to say, build its own social democratic welfare state. How ironic that Barack Obama should follow an almost Pat
own. Buchanan-like foreign policy, though for different motives. Buchanan wanted America to be A Republic, Not an Empire, and feared (correctly, as it turned out) that the cost of imperialism would be bringing the empire home. Barack Obama was a beneficiary of those turn of events, as well as changing social mores that have made increasing numbers of people if not dependent on the state, at least expecting to be able to come around to the state's pad to borrow a cup of sugar. And thats not go ing to be cheap. From this side of the Atlantic the idea that a country might actually want to imitate the European welfare system is flattering, sort of (good luck with that, chaps!). But

for Europe, American disengagement could be a good thing . A few years ago Charles Murray wrote about the

Europe Syndrome, the problem of a system that takes away the satisfaction from life and robs it of meaning meaning that can only be achieved, not give, and in the context of family, community, vocation, and faith. That , he identified, was the deep-rooted problem with the post1945 system, and what caused the continents relative decline in the world.
But

the Europe

Syndrome is only possible because the U nited S tates has paid for the continents protection ever since American troops stormed Utah and Omaha. The US spends around 5 per cent of its budget on the military, Germany just 1.34 per cent; at the top of the EU table Britain, psychologically the most American-leaning of European nations, spends 2.56 per cent. So for almost 70 years western Europe has had historically the most essential aspect of any states existence defence taken care of by a foreign power, a benefactor who made little in the way of demands except that its political systems embraced freedom, democracy and the rule of law . The bastards. And, human
nature being what it is, as a consequence much of the European public hate Americans, instinctively give them no moral weight, always suspect the worst of their motives and believe the most cack-handed conspiracy theories about the evil imperialist Yankees.

Nato has turned a continent into spoiled,

ungrateful children . So perhaps it is time America cut off its ungrateful relatives, and let us deal with the reality of our economic malaise, which has deep-rooted spiritual origins. The European post-war project
round-the-clock welfare and the merging of nations into a superstate led by wise technocrats

was an attempt by a tired and

traumatised continent to exit from the stage of history and retire . From its amnesia over its own individual histories to its hiring of outside labour, the EU resembles the largest care home in history. The problem is that we cant afford to retire, and somethings got to change,

and that cant happen while Uncle Sam keeps on footing the bill. For Europes sake, the Americans need to stop infantilising us.

Strong EU solves crime, disease, the economy, and the environment

Bruton, 01 (John, Former Irish Prime Minister, Report before the Joint Committee on European Affairs, Parliament of Ireland, October, http://www.irlgov.ie/committees-02/ceuropeanaffairs/future/page1.htm) 2.5 As the Laeken Declaration put it, "Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation" adding that Europe must exercise its power in order "to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable development". 2.6 Only a strong European Union is big enough to create a space, and a stable set of rules, within which all Europeans can live securely, move freely, and provide for themselves, for their families and for their old age. Individual states are too small to do that on their own. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with the globalized human diseases, such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalized criminal conspiracies, like the Mafia, that threaten the security of all Europeans. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalized environmental threats, such as global warming, which threaten our continent and generations of its future inhabitants. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalized economic forces, which could spread recession from one country to another and destroy millions of jobs. Only a strong European Union is big enough to regulate, in the interests of society as a whole, the activities of profit seeking private corporations, some of which now have more spending power than many individual states. 2.7 These tasks are too large for individual states. 2.8 Only by coming together in the European Union can we ensure that humanity, and the values which make us, as individuals, truly human, prevail over blind global forces that will otherwise overwhelm us.