This headlines really say it all:
"Iran says Obama's offer to talk shows US failure... 'Western ideology has become passive'..."
Seems that all the prognostication of Obama making the world love us was a bit overblown. Obama may have managed to give the western critics a moment of pause, but not because they suddenly love us, only because they need a new thing to bitch about.
It's way past time for America to wise up, grow a backbone, and own up to its place in the world, at the top. Someone has to be at the top, and the whole world should get on its knees and thank God it is the US. The US has shown so much restraint in the use of its power that it is unprecedented in all of history. We just tend to get more by bashing fewer heads.
That all said, some people in the world still don't like us. It would not matter who was president. They don't like us.
The Libertarians say, this is a fine state of affairs and that we should only concern ourselves where our direct national interests lie. If we were at all smart about this we would be running head long to break the dependence we have on foreign oil. This would allow us to keep our troops at home, and let the rest of the world take care of itself.
You want a stimulus package? Spend 700 billion dollars increasing our abilities to produce energy here in the USA. Drill oil. Mine coal. Build nuclear power plants. Erect wind and solar farms. Put those millions of reserved acres of land back into corn production. Find new sources of energy. That would do something worth while.
But no matter what we do or who is president, people are going to hate us. Let them. And keep our American boots ready to apply to their necks if they should even think of attacking us.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
A moment of clarity
My ex-party, the Republican party, did something right. When anyone does something right you need to positively reinforce them so they might do it again.
Good job for resisting the "stimulus package".
EXCELLENT JOB. Not one of you, not a single one, crossed the line and followed the Democrats into the abyss of that bad legislation. It's not often that any party shows complete unity.
Were I still a Republican, I would have been proud.
I hope your men in the Senate can follow your example.
Good job for resisting the "stimulus package".
EXCELLENT JOB. Not one of you, not a single one, crossed the line and followed the Democrats into the abyss of that bad legislation. It's not often that any party shows complete unity.
Were I still a Republican, I would have been proud.
I hope your men in the Senate can follow your example.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Git'mo Respect - A Conservative's Perspective
Well it wasn’t the shock to end all shocks….
Perhaps the most repeated promises of his Presidential Campaign, the newly sworn in Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, would move quick to make good on it. The doors of the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closing, shutting for good, the first major policy break from the Administration of George W. Bush put into play.
It was a move that, by the best of arguments, was aimed at restoring American moral authority, both at home and abroad. After all, questionable interrogation techniques had been used there, one that, by the accusations of some, violated the base human rights of the enemy combatants being detained at the facility. If the United States is to be regain its moral authority to be seen as a world leader, then it can’t be seen as torturing its prisoners.
At home his base could almost be heard sigh a collective sigh of relieve when that first stay would be issued. Abroad, the move would find itself well received as well by world leaders such as the Chancellor of Germany who would give it her approval, saying that this… well this would go a long way in restoring America’s reputation abroad. Just don't expect a lot of help from her in dealing with the situation created by shutting the prison.
The end of Bush… the end of Gitmo… what more could people ask for? Well besides perhaps the answer to the question of what is going to happen to these prisoners.
That isn’t a tough one to figure out.
Let’s take a brief trip through time. With all things being considered equal it’s perhaps not the favorite practice of some out there, those who wish to either forget the past eight years as if they never happened, believing, as Director Spike Lee once claimed, that there are two periods of American History, Before Obama and After Obama, or because they wish to look back fondly on the eight years of President Bill Clinton as the good ole days in American politics, when the only enemy the nation had were apparently the White House Interns and the President had that issue well in hand.
Perhaps one of the least advertised aspects of the Clinton foreign policy was a practice his administration engaged in called Rendition. Quite simply, without putting too much on the details, it’s the act of shipping off your prisoners and your terror suspects, which were more than a few in number, off to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where obviously human rights are a foremost concern, so that they can “interrogate” your prisoners for you. Apparently Don’t ask, Don’t tell was more than just a military policy, it was the order of the day.
Now, let’s fast forward a few years, who is that are in the White House advising the new President on foreign policy and legal matters? Well for all those folks who sat back and longingly waxed nostalgic for the return of the Clinton Administration, it was a welcome showing of the usual suspects. Hillary Clinton in the State Department, after all the bullets she dodged from sniper fire one has to know she will be tough on terrorists, and Eric Holder, President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General, as the soon to be confirmed head of the Justice Department. And they are not alone, the appointment process has seem to be a veritable Who’s Who of the old White House.
But don’t worry, these questionable interrogation techniques are going to stop here at home, the dark days of Gitmo are gone, American’s can sigh a sweet, long awaited sigh of relief and they will be so loved abroad that drifter teenagers can stop sewing Canadian flags to their backpacks when they go to foreign countries. Life is good.
The dirty little secret, well, just wait and see, it won’t be long until once more start shipping these prisoners out, putting them on the quickest plane to these places that will once more do our dirty work. But so long as our hands our clean we have little left to worry about. What we don’t know, it can’t hurt our reputation with the other countries of the world, right? After all, we’ll still have our moral authority in the world to lead.
The simple reality of the matter is that, whether the American people like it or not, is that Gitmo was one of those necessary evils in a time of war. Perhaps it made us queasy to the stomach to think about, perhaps it offended our collective consciences, and yet it served as a valuable tool to combat terrorism. It could have been that, at times, the methods employed crossed a line and could be considered extreme, but then when one thinks about what this country was up against then there has to come the realization that there is a necessity to take action, even if it leaves us uneasy. That is why they are called tough choices and we elect people to make them for us.
It is yet to be seen what the Obama Administration will do with enemy combatants, but if history is any example, it’s been pre-determined by his high level appointments to these positions. There, policies such as Rendition are not an act of leadership but a void of it, believing somehow that you can hold a degree of integrity while still embracing questionable means of interrogation, so long as it’s not publicly or done by your administration.
Otherwise what else are you going to do with these terrorists? Last thing any responsible President is going to want is to bring them to American shores, and give them a home here, even if it’s in a prison.
But then just a few thoughts I suppose…
Online Blogger and commentator Wyatt McIntyre is a guest contributor to Manatee Libertarian, his regular Podcasts, Blogs and V-Logs can be viewed at www.wyattmcintyre.com.
Perhaps the most repeated promises of his Presidential Campaign, the newly sworn in Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama, would move quick to make good on it. The doors of the Guantanamo Bay prison would be closing, shutting for good, the first major policy break from the Administration of George W. Bush put into play.
It was a move that, by the best of arguments, was aimed at restoring American moral authority, both at home and abroad. After all, questionable interrogation techniques had been used there, one that, by the accusations of some, violated the base human rights of the enemy combatants being detained at the facility. If the United States is to be regain its moral authority to be seen as a world leader, then it can’t be seen as torturing its prisoners.
At home his base could almost be heard sigh a collective sigh of relieve when that first stay would be issued. Abroad, the move would find itself well received as well by world leaders such as the Chancellor of Germany who would give it her approval, saying that this… well this would go a long way in restoring America’s reputation abroad. Just don't expect a lot of help from her in dealing with the situation created by shutting the prison.
The end of Bush… the end of Gitmo… what more could people ask for? Well besides perhaps the answer to the question of what is going to happen to these prisoners.
That isn’t a tough one to figure out.
Let’s take a brief trip through time. With all things being considered equal it’s perhaps not the favorite practice of some out there, those who wish to either forget the past eight years as if they never happened, believing, as Director Spike Lee once claimed, that there are two periods of American History, Before Obama and After Obama, or because they wish to look back fondly on the eight years of President Bill Clinton as the good ole days in American politics, when the only enemy the nation had were apparently the White House Interns and the President had that issue well in hand.
Perhaps one of the least advertised aspects of the Clinton foreign policy was a practice his administration engaged in called Rendition. Quite simply, without putting too much on the details, it’s the act of shipping off your prisoners and your terror suspects, which were more than a few in number, off to other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where obviously human rights are a foremost concern, so that they can “interrogate” your prisoners for you. Apparently Don’t ask, Don’t tell was more than just a military policy, it was the order of the day.
Now, let’s fast forward a few years, who is that are in the White House advising the new President on foreign policy and legal matters? Well for all those folks who sat back and longingly waxed nostalgic for the return of the Clinton Administration, it was a welcome showing of the usual suspects. Hillary Clinton in the State Department, after all the bullets she dodged from sniper fire one has to know she will be tough on terrorists, and Eric Holder, President Clinton’s Deputy Attorney General, as the soon to be confirmed head of the Justice Department. And they are not alone, the appointment process has seem to be a veritable Who’s Who of the old White House.
But don’t worry, these questionable interrogation techniques are going to stop here at home, the dark days of Gitmo are gone, American’s can sigh a sweet, long awaited sigh of relief and they will be so loved abroad that drifter teenagers can stop sewing Canadian flags to their backpacks when they go to foreign countries. Life is good.
The dirty little secret, well, just wait and see, it won’t be long until once more start shipping these prisoners out, putting them on the quickest plane to these places that will once more do our dirty work. But so long as our hands our clean we have little left to worry about. What we don’t know, it can’t hurt our reputation with the other countries of the world, right? After all, we’ll still have our moral authority in the world to lead.
The simple reality of the matter is that, whether the American people like it or not, is that Gitmo was one of those necessary evils in a time of war. Perhaps it made us queasy to the stomach to think about, perhaps it offended our collective consciences, and yet it served as a valuable tool to combat terrorism. It could have been that, at times, the methods employed crossed a line and could be considered extreme, but then when one thinks about what this country was up against then there has to come the realization that there is a necessity to take action, even if it leaves us uneasy. That is why they are called tough choices and we elect people to make them for us.
It is yet to be seen what the Obama Administration will do with enemy combatants, but if history is any example, it’s been pre-determined by his high level appointments to these positions. There, policies such as Rendition are not an act of leadership but a void of it, believing somehow that you can hold a degree of integrity while still embracing questionable means of interrogation, so long as it’s not publicly or done by your administration.
Otherwise what else are you going to do with these terrorists? Last thing any responsible President is going to want is to bring them to American shores, and give them a home here, even if it’s in a prison.
But then just a few thoughts I suppose…
Online Blogger and commentator Wyatt McIntyre is a guest contributor to Manatee Libertarian, his regular Podcasts, Blogs and V-Logs can be viewed at www.wyattmcintyre.com.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Racism and the First Lady
Michelle, welcome to the frank discussion about race that your husband predicted.
You're now going to be sharing ground zero with him for the next four years where every decision you make will be scrutinized. And you didn't even get a pass on your very first day!
Yes, it turns out the racists are already snipping at you. The racist organization known as The Black Artists Association is tossing mud because you choose the apparel you thought was best, apparently with no regard for the skin color of the designer of the apparel. CONGRATULATIONS AND APPLAUSE FOR THE FIRST LADY!
But for the openly racist Amnau Eele I have nothing but disdain and scorn. Such race mindedness is exactly the sort of thing that holds minorities out of the mainstream. Amnua, I can only hope this was a lapse in judgement and that otherwise you are willing to judge an artist by the content of his work and not his skin, but considering the group you founded, I can only expect that you are a dedicated racist. Your kind is nothing more than the cerebral soul mates of the KKK.
The thinking you are exhibiting will never lead you to the land of equality you seek for you're not allowing others to think for themselves. You would oppress the first lady with your racist ways. I'm glad Michelle Obama has a much broader mind than you. In this instance she set a very fine example for her daughters and the world.
If this is the sort of thinking we can expect from the Black Artists Association then it may be a very long four years indeed for you as it seems clear that Michelle Obama has the potential to rise above your kind and show the world in no uncertain terms that she is an American first, woman second and black person third and in so doing will elevate the all of America and, thankfully, show your last century thinking to be exactly what it is, out of time.
You're now going to be sharing ground zero with him for the next four years where every decision you make will be scrutinized. And you didn't even get a pass on your very first day!
Yes, it turns out the racists are already snipping at you. The racist organization known as The Black Artists Association is tossing mud because you choose the apparel you thought was best, apparently with no regard for the skin color of the designer of the apparel. CONGRATULATIONS AND APPLAUSE FOR THE FIRST LADY!
But for the openly racist Amnau Eele I have nothing but disdain and scorn. Such race mindedness is exactly the sort of thing that holds minorities out of the mainstream. Amnua, I can only hope this was a lapse in judgement and that otherwise you are willing to judge an artist by the content of his work and not his skin, but considering the group you founded, I can only expect that you are a dedicated racist. Your kind is nothing more than the cerebral soul mates of the KKK.
The thinking you are exhibiting will never lead you to the land of equality you seek for you're not allowing others to think for themselves. You would oppress the first lady with your racist ways. I'm glad Michelle Obama has a much broader mind than you. In this instance she set a very fine example for her daughters and the world.
If this is the sort of thinking we can expect from the Black Artists Association then it may be a very long four years indeed for you as it seems clear that Michelle Obama has the potential to rise above your kind and show the world in no uncertain terms that she is an American first, woman second and black person third and in so doing will elevate the all of America and, thankfully, show your last century thinking to be exactly what it is, out of time.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Inauguration Day
Today is one of the greatest days in the history of the world, and it has nothing to do with Obama.
There is a veritable avalanche of media hype about the inauguration of President Obama, and some of it makes good sense. After all, he is the first bi-racial President.
Today is important for something far greater than the man. Today the world will witness, once again, the peaceful transfer of power in the greatest nation on the face of the earth. These men are political opponents, and yet President George W. Bush will stand right next to Mr. Obama as he takes the oath of office.
Not many countries can say that about themselves, and we were the first and we can still say it. If you ever needed a reason to be proud of your country, Mrs. Obama, this legacy is it.
There is a veritable avalanche of media hype about the inauguration of President Obama, and some of it makes good sense. After all, he is the first bi-racial President.
Today is important for something far greater than the man. Today the world will witness, once again, the peaceful transfer of power in the greatest nation on the face of the earth. These men are political opponents, and yet President George W. Bush will stand right next to Mr. Obama as he takes the oath of office.
Not many countries can say that about themselves, and we were the first and we can still say it. If you ever needed a reason to be proud of your country, Mrs. Obama, this legacy is it.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Kings progress.
Today we celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. III, a great man who had a great impact on this nation.
And what did he do?
Did he free the slaves? no, not literally, but in a sense yes. When Dr. King began his civil rights efforts the average black man or woman was in the bondage of second class citizenship. It might seem like centuries ago, especially to those of us such as myself who are too young to have lived through it, but in terms of history it is still fresh. There are plenty of people alive today who marched with King and who can relate their personal experiences.
Was he out to make it so that Rosa Parks could sit in the front of a bus? No.
Was he out to make it so that white-only restaurants had to serve black people too? No.
Was he out to see schools opened to people of color? No.
Those were symptoms of a bigger problem he was hoping to address. The problem was racism itself. Not personal racism so much, although I'm sure he stood against that as well, but the systemic racism that cast one group of people into a second class citizenship.
What, then, was his goal? How would we know if he succeeded?
He told us plainly in his famous "I have a dream" speech. He dreamed of a time when people of all colors would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
I propose that, in a great measure, his dream has failed as much as it has succeeded.
That has to come as a shock to many of you, for anyone can see that, at least by the very minimal measurements I have just put forth his movement was a raging success. The system is free of such things as white-only restaurants, bus seating by color and school segregation. How then can I make such a bold statement?
I make the statement because his dream was bigger than just racism, but involuntary servitude of any kind was repugnant to him. And yet today there is just such a system being placed around the necks of Americans of all color.
My mind is drawn to the racist concept of affirmative action. The very bedrock of the idea is that, all other things held equally, in any give industry or profession the mixture of people in all levels of an organization should be roughly equivalent to the racial distribution of the people who make up that organization. It's a nice sounding theory. I even agree with it, in theory.
But what does that theory say about the American black voter? If it were true then there should be, roughly, 50% of the black voters in the GOP and 50% in the DNC. But that's not what we see. One is forced to ask why?
The reason is because the movement was derailed. It lost its dream when it lost Dr. King. He never dreamed of government housing projects and affirmative action and free schools and high taxes and motrgage company bail outs and all the other things that have inserted themselves into the mindset of the civil rights movement. This is because none of those things are civil rights.
None of those things are rights because they are all services that must be supplied by someone. That someone is the tax payer. The taxpayer does not derive any benefit from those services and is therefore in involuntary servitude.
We all lost when King died. King would never have stood for the welfare state as we see it today. King would have recognized that such a redstributionist policy is nothing more than theft with grandious verbage to mask the injustice.
All King wanted was a fair shot at the American dream. He wanted a better life for his children. He didn't want a goverment nanny state, as those who have hijacked his movement have corrupted it with the introduction of these false civil rights.
But where does this leave us, the Libertarian party? It leaves us with a golden opportunity to revive some of the dream.
The Obama administration will fail to deliver on even a small portion of its promises, and those it does deliver on will cost the US economy such that all will suffer. The fact that a bi-racial man will soon occupy the whitehouse will allow many of the minority voters to put down their blind party aliengence and reliaze that, no matter what the color, the content of a liberals character leads to bondage of people of all color.
This will leave them wondering where they might turn? They will see that the GOP offers no solutions for they are simply the other half ot he DNC.
We can offer them a true alternative.
The Libertarian party offers respect of the individual.
The Libertarian party offers protection of private property.
The Libertarian party offers freedom of life style choices.
The Libertarian party defends the right to defend yourself.
The Libertarian party offers the one neither old party will, freedom.
All we have to do is get the message out.
And what did he do?
Did he free the slaves? no, not literally, but in a sense yes. When Dr. King began his civil rights efforts the average black man or woman was in the bondage of second class citizenship. It might seem like centuries ago, especially to those of us such as myself who are too young to have lived through it, but in terms of history it is still fresh. There are plenty of people alive today who marched with King and who can relate their personal experiences.
Was he out to make it so that Rosa Parks could sit in the front of a bus? No.
Was he out to make it so that white-only restaurants had to serve black people too? No.
Was he out to see schools opened to people of color? No.
Those were symptoms of a bigger problem he was hoping to address. The problem was racism itself. Not personal racism so much, although I'm sure he stood against that as well, but the systemic racism that cast one group of people into a second class citizenship.
What, then, was his goal? How would we know if he succeeded?
He told us plainly in his famous "I have a dream" speech. He dreamed of a time when people of all colors would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.
I propose that, in a great measure, his dream has failed as much as it has succeeded.
That has to come as a shock to many of you, for anyone can see that, at least by the very minimal measurements I have just put forth his movement was a raging success. The system is free of such things as white-only restaurants, bus seating by color and school segregation. How then can I make such a bold statement?
I make the statement because his dream was bigger than just racism, but involuntary servitude of any kind was repugnant to him. And yet today there is just such a system being placed around the necks of Americans of all color.
My mind is drawn to the racist concept of affirmative action. The very bedrock of the idea is that, all other things held equally, in any give industry or profession the mixture of people in all levels of an organization should be roughly equivalent to the racial distribution of the people who make up that organization. It's a nice sounding theory. I even agree with it, in theory.
But what does that theory say about the American black voter? If it were true then there should be, roughly, 50% of the black voters in the GOP and 50% in the DNC. But that's not what we see. One is forced to ask why?
The reason is because the movement was derailed. It lost its dream when it lost Dr. King. He never dreamed of government housing projects and affirmative action and free schools and high taxes and motrgage company bail outs and all the other things that have inserted themselves into the mindset of the civil rights movement. This is because none of those things are civil rights.
None of those things are rights because they are all services that must be supplied by someone. That someone is the tax payer. The taxpayer does not derive any benefit from those services and is therefore in involuntary servitude.
We all lost when King died. King would never have stood for the welfare state as we see it today. King would have recognized that such a redstributionist policy is nothing more than theft with grandious verbage to mask the injustice.
All King wanted was a fair shot at the American dream. He wanted a better life for his children. He didn't want a goverment nanny state, as those who have hijacked his movement have corrupted it with the introduction of these false civil rights.
But where does this leave us, the Libertarian party? It leaves us with a golden opportunity to revive some of the dream.
The Obama administration will fail to deliver on even a small portion of its promises, and those it does deliver on will cost the US economy such that all will suffer. The fact that a bi-racial man will soon occupy the whitehouse will allow many of the minority voters to put down their blind party aliengence and reliaze that, no matter what the color, the content of a liberals character leads to bondage of people of all color.
This will leave them wondering where they might turn? They will see that the GOP offers no solutions for they are simply the other half ot he DNC.
We can offer them a true alternative.
The Libertarian party offers respect of the individual.
The Libertarian party offers protection of private property.
The Libertarian party offers freedom of life style choices.
The Libertarian party defends the right to defend yourself.
The Libertarian party offers the one neither old party will, freedom.
All we have to do is get the message out.
Friday, January 16, 2009
No More World Police
I was speaking with a colleague when the question was put to me "Would the Libertarians have supported America's entry into World War II?"
This is not a simple question, and it behooves us to remember we are looking at this from decades after the event, but I think we can still draw some important conclusions.
When the Libertarians say that the US should not be the world police, we mean this specifically in that we should not be sticking our nose into conflicts where we have no direct interest, such as was the case in Mogadishu.
There are three compelling cases that the Libertarians would support military action.
The first one is easy, self defense. Few will deny the right to protect yourself, and the Libertarians are absolute on this point. Everyone has the right to defend himself. This extends to preemptive actions as well. One does not have to wait to be attacked to defend oneself.
The second is a clear economic interest. This is really an extension of the first, only in terms of property and not life. The USA cannot stand by idle while its supply of oil or other needed commodities are threatened. Libertarians absolutely support the right to protect property.
The third case is a bit trickier, and has lead us into some sticky situations where we do not belong. The third case is that of genocide. The systematic extermination of a class of people, for any reason, is an attack on humanity at large, and as members of humanity we have the moral obligation to act if we can.
With these as the ground rules, what conclusions can we draw?
Would the Libertarians support America's entry into world war II? Absolutely, on all three counts. Americans were being killed on ships being torpedoed, our economic interests were in serious jeopardy, and of course, Pearl Harbor removed all doubt about the intent of the combatants. The presence of holocaust was largely unknown, and it is only with hindsight that we can say the Libertarians would support war on that criteria as well.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Afghanistan? Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from a clear, present and proven danger.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the first time? Yes, the threat of Iraqi expansion into the Saudi oil fields was compelling.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the second time? Yes, but not for the reasons the Bush administration put forth. I find it preposterous to think that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US mainland, and it was well contained against expansion into the Saudi oil fields. However, it should be acknowledged by all that we set Saddam Hussein up and used him in our proxy war against Iran. Therefore we are partially responsible for his actions, and he proved to be a genocidal bastard. It rightly falls to us clean our own proxy house.
Would the Libertarians support any military action in the pirate situation off of Somolia? Of course. American interests are being threatened.
Would the Libertarians support any military action in Gaza? No. We have no interested there.
Would the Libertarians support preemptive attacks on Iran? If a clear and present danger presents itself, of course.
Would the Libertarians support military action in Darfur? Only if genocide can be shown, which I believe is the case.
What wars would the Libertarians not support? The invasions of Panama and Grenada to name a few.
This is not a simple question, and it behooves us to remember we are looking at this from decades after the event, but I think we can still draw some important conclusions.
When the Libertarians say that the US should not be the world police, we mean this specifically in that we should not be sticking our nose into conflicts where we have no direct interest, such as was the case in Mogadishu.
There are three compelling cases that the Libertarians would support military action.
The first one is easy, self defense. Few will deny the right to protect yourself, and the Libertarians are absolute on this point. Everyone has the right to defend himself. This extends to preemptive actions as well. One does not have to wait to be attacked to defend oneself.
The second is a clear economic interest. This is really an extension of the first, only in terms of property and not life. The USA cannot stand by idle while its supply of oil or other needed commodities are threatened. Libertarians absolutely support the right to protect property.
The third case is a bit trickier, and has lead us into some sticky situations where we do not belong. The third case is that of genocide. The systematic extermination of a class of people, for any reason, is an attack on humanity at large, and as members of humanity we have the moral obligation to act if we can.
With these as the ground rules, what conclusions can we draw?
Would the Libertarians support America's entry into world war II? Absolutely, on all three counts. Americans were being killed on ships being torpedoed, our economic interests were in serious jeopardy, and of course, Pearl Harbor removed all doubt about the intent of the combatants. The presence of holocaust was largely unknown, and it is only with hindsight that we can say the Libertarians would support war on that criteria as well.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Afghanistan? Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from a clear, present and proven danger.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the first time? Yes, the threat of Iraqi expansion into the Saudi oil fields was compelling.
Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the second time? Yes, but not for the reasons the Bush administration put forth. I find it preposterous to think that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US mainland, and it was well contained against expansion into the Saudi oil fields. However, it should be acknowledged by all that we set Saddam Hussein up and used him in our proxy war against Iran. Therefore we are partially responsible for his actions, and he proved to be a genocidal bastard. It rightly falls to us clean our own proxy house.
Would the Libertarians support any military action in the pirate situation off of Somolia? Of course. American interests are being threatened.
Would the Libertarians support any military action in Gaza? No. We have no interested there.
Would the Libertarians support preemptive attacks on Iran? If a clear and present danger presents itself, of course.
Would the Libertarians support military action in Darfur? Only if genocide can be shown, which I believe is the case.
What wars would the Libertarians not support? The invasions of Panama and Grenada to name a few.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Time to Get Angry
We see it all the time, a marching liberal mob demanding some concession from the mainstream. And it makes the news. And it has a corrosive effect. And it does not have to be the exclusive tool of the left.
The right can, and should, get angry!
You think you're grumpy now because Obama is about to be president, just wait until he actually is!
Get out your signs.
Get out your bullhorns.
And get out the message.
Socialism is not the answer.
Socialism exists only to keep the socialists in power. It does nothing to solve the problems of the average citizen and only exacerbates those of the poor citizen, at the expense of the rich.
Socialism is the enemy.
Americans still believe in freedom, they just don't fully understand it.
Americans still believe in fair play, they have been sold a fraud.
Americans still believe in conservative values, they just haven't gotten passionate about them.
In the meanwhile, the left has done nothing but erode the foundations of the country, and many of us has sat on our asses and watched it happen.
So get pissed off already!
You're not helpless. You hold the keys to power. You are the majority. Why do you think the TV continues to pump its pablum into your house day in and day out? It's not because of the market forces! The market has proved the liberal message is a loser with the American people. It is because they have to do this to put forth even the illusion of acceptance. People tend to follow other people and people tend to believe what they hear over and over.
Stop acting like you can't win, like it's out fate to slide into a socialist system.
Organize.
Protest.
BE SEEN PROTESTING.
And take the country back, so you can give it to your children.
The right can, and should, get angry!
You think you're grumpy now because Obama is about to be president, just wait until he actually is!
Get out your signs.
Get out your bullhorns.
And get out the message.
Socialism is not the answer.
Socialism exists only to keep the socialists in power. It does nothing to solve the problems of the average citizen and only exacerbates those of the poor citizen, at the expense of the rich.
Socialism is the enemy.
Americans still believe in freedom, they just don't fully understand it.
Americans still believe in fair play, they have been sold a fraud.
Americans still believe in conservative values, they just haven't gotten passionate about them.
In the meanwhile, the left has done nothing but erode the foundations of the country, and many of us has sat on our asses and watched it happen.
So get pissed off already!
You're not helpless. You hold the keys to power. You are the majority. Why do you think the TV continues to pump its pablum into your house day in and day out? It's not because of the market forces! The market has proved the liberal message is a loser with the American people. It is because they have to do this to put forth even the illusion of acceptance. People tend to follow other people and people tend to believe what they hear over and over.
Stop acting like you can't win, like it's out fate to slide into a socialist system.
Organize.
Protest.
BE SEEN PROTESTING.
And take the country back, so you can give it to your children.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Spending Our Way to Prosperity
I've been avoiding this topic because it seems so over done, and almost an irresistible fate.
The current economic issues are not and cannot be addressed by any "bail out", "rescue" or "stimulus package", no matter how well intentioned or how well executed. The reason is because these things violate fundamental laws of economics, and everyone knows it.
Why have them then?
One word: Politics.
But it's really worse than politics, it's dirty politics. It's time to call these beasts what they are, payoffs. Who do you think will be receiving all these billions (now trillions) of dollars? You? Your neighbor?
Don't be silly. The first people who will get them are the big time money people on Wall Street, and who will pay for them, the tax payers. While there is a bit of satisfying justice in recognizing that the rich people, who pay most of the taxes, will, in fact, be bailing out themselves, it will not be so simple. The government doesn't have this money just sitting around. It has to raise it, with taxes, or create it, with monetary policy. (Monetary policy is a euphemism for "out of thin air", in case you're not sure.)
But will "the rich" really pay for it?
Actually, yes and no. They will pay for it in the same way that we will all pay for it, via inflation. If it not possible to pump billions upon billions of new dollars into the system and not devalue the currency already in circulation. Economics 101 tells us about supply and demand, and the governments plans call for an increase in the supply that will cause a decrease in price (or in this case value). This is an irrevocable law no less potent than gravity. Good intentions cannot over come it.
The problem is that not enough people in Washington D.C. want to face the hard reality. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion for a very long time, and that you cannot continue to distort the market forever. Just as you can overcome gravity for a while by expending energy, eventually it pulls you back down, so you can overcome the forces of economics, for a while. We're headed back down, and I believe nothing on this earth can stop it.
Inflation is coming at us like a rushing train. Take actions now to survive, and even thrive, in such an environment if you can. The only question is, will the economic train of our destruction take with it "only" our standard of living, or will it stamp out our liberties as well?
Keep track of the names of those who put us on this track. Their parties are the old parties, the parties that have been bought and paid for by special interest groups. The GOP abandoned its conservative core, the DNC never had one. Only the party of principle holds any hope for us now. Cast off the elephant and the jackass, and stand tall with the lady holding the torch.
The current economic issues are not and cannot be addressed by any "bail out", "rescue" or "stimulus package", no matter how well intentioned or how well executed. The reason is because these things violate fundamental laws of economics, and everyone knows it.
Why have them then?
One word: Politics.
But it's really worse than politics, it's dirty politics. It's time to call these beasts what they are, payoffs. Who do you think will be receiving all these billions (now trillions) of dollars? You? Your neighbor?
Don't be silly. The first people who will get them are the big time money people on Wall Street, and who will pay for them, the tax payers. While there is a bit of satisfying justice in recognizing that the rich people, who pay most of the taxes, will, in fact, be bailing out themselves, it will not be so simple. The government doesn't have this money just sitting around. It has to raise it, with taxes, or create it, with monetary policy. (Monetary policy is a euphemism for "out of thin air", in case you're not sure.)
But will "the rich" really pay for it?
Actually, yes and no. They will pay for it in the same way that we will all pay for it, via inflation. If it not possible to pump billions upon billions of new dollars into the system and not devalue the currency already in circulation. Economics 101 tells us about supply and demand, and the governments plans call for an increase in the supply that will cause a decrease in price (or in this case value). This is an irrevocable law no less potent than gravity. Good intentions cannot over come it.
The problem is that not enough people in Washington D.C. want to face the hard reality. We've been spending ourselves into oblivion for a very long time, and that you cannot continue to distort the market forever. Just as you can overcome gravity for a while by expending energy, eventually it pulls you back down, so you can overcome the forces of economics, for a while. We're headed back down, and I believe nothing on this earth can stop it.
Inflation is coming at us like a rushing train. Take actions now to survive, and even thrive, in such an environment if you can. The only question is, will the economic train of our destruction take with it "only" our standard of living, or will it stamp out our liberties as well?
Keep track of the names of those who put us on this track. Their parties are the old parties, the parties that have been bought and paid for by special interest groups. The GOP abandoned its conservative core, the DNC never had one. Only the party of principle holds any hope for us now. Cast off the elephant and the jackass, and stand tall with the lady holding the torch.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Why I don't Care
Looks like Al Franken may become a US Senator.
Looks like Roland Burris may not become a US senator.
Looks like lots of interesting things.
But it doesn't look like we Libertarians should give a damn!
None of it involves our party. It is a side show distraction.
The issues, terrorism, government wire taps, drugs, abortion, gay rights, and health care are all real, but the show is a circus put on to distract us from the work we should be doing. Contacting voters and getting registrations.
Let them have their media moments. It does not matter because our game is man to man. Each of us needs to be finding those disenchanted voters and reaching out to them and showing them the better way.
Let the elephant and jackass dance, I'm following the lady with a torch.
Looks like Roland Burris may not become a US senator.
Looks like lots of interesting things.
But it doesn't look like we Libertarians should give a damn!
None of it involves our party. It is a side show distraction.
The issues, terrorism, government wire taps, drugs, abortion, gay rights, and health care are all real, but the show is a circus put on to distract us from the work we should be doing. Contacting voters and getting registrations.
Let them have their media moments. It does not matter because our game is man to man. Each of us needs to be finding those disenchanted voters and reaching out to them and showing them the better way.
Let the elephant and jackass dance, I'm following the lady with a torch.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Christianity and Libertarian Thought
I have received more than a few comments to the effect that somehow Libertarian thought and Christian beliefs are in conflict. This is, thankfully, both untrue and easy to demonstrate as untrue.
The first thing that must be understood is the limits that Libertarian thought places on itself. Libertarian thought only addresses the interactions of two living, corporeal people. Libertarian thought is a minimalist morality in that it defines only the minimal requirements, and leaves up to the individual the right to take upon themselves higher codes of behavior.
Libertarian morality is the absence of force or fraud in human relationships.
To help you understand better, we Christians must look at the Libertarian philosophy through the lens of the Holy Scriptures. I draw your attention to ten commandments:
1: “You shall have no other gods before Me”
This is between man and God, not addressed by the Libertarian philosophy.
2: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again, this is between creator and creation, not between men.
3: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Same here
4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
More of the same.
5: “Honor your father and your mother.”
The Libertarian philosophy is not in conflict here. One could not be honorable to his parents by wielding either force or fraud being used against his parents.
6: “You shall not murder.”
No conflict here.
7: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Adultery is, ultimately, a lie, and thus fraud. No conflict here.
8: “You shall not steal.”
No conflict here.
9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
No conflict here.
10: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
No conflict here. This addresses what is in your heart, and the Libertarian philosophy does not speak to those issues, only to issues between people, not inside an individual.
Of course, we no longer live in the age of law, but in the age of Grace. Thus our highest arbiter must be the Lord Jesus Christ. Even He gives us no commandment with which the Libertarian philosophy is in conflict. This is precisely because the philosophy stops at actions, physical or spoken, between people.
Libertarians hold that you cannot hit someone else, nor can you lie to them for personal gain. These things are not counter to Christian values, nor could practicing them lead to conflict for the Christian, for Libertarianism demands respect of others, and control of your own behavior.
The first thing that must be understood is the limits that Libertarian thought places on itself. Libertarian thought only addresses the interactions of two living, corporeal people. Libertarian thought is a minimalist morality in that it defines only the minimal requirements, and leaves up to the individual the right to take upon themselves higher codes of behavior.
Libertarian morality is the absence of force or fraud in human relationships.
To help you understand better, we Christians must look at the Libertarian philosophy through the lens of the Holy Scriptures. I draw your attention to ten commandments:
1: “You shall have no other gods before Me”
This is between man and God, not addressed by the Libertarian philosophy.
2: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”
Again, this is between creator and creation, not between men.
3: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.”
Same here
4: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
More of the same.
5: “Honor your father and your mother.”
The Libertarian philosophy is not in conflict here. One could not be honorable to his parents by wielding either force or fraud being used against his parents.
6: “You shall not murder.”
No conflict here.
7: “You shall not commit adultery.”
Adultery is, ultimately, a lie, and thus fraud. No conflict here.
8: “You shall not steal.”
No conflict here.
9: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
No conflict here.
10: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
No conflict here. This addresses what is in your heart, and the Libertarian philosophy does not speak to those issues, only to issues between people, not inside an individual.
Of course, we no longer live in the age of law, but in the age of Grace. Thus our highest arbiter must be the Lord Jesus Christ. Even He gives us no commandment with which the Libertarian philosophy is in conflict. This is precisely because the philosophy stops at actions, physical or spoken, between people.
Libertarians hold that you cannot hit someone else, nor can you lie to them for personal gain. These things are not counter to Christian values, nor could practicing them lead to conflict for the Christian, for Libertarianism demands respect of others, and control of your own behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
