Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Ukraine, Ron Paul, and It’s not our problem: The suicidal joys of Isolationism

“[America’s] previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does. America has to act.”—P.J. O’Rourke, Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism

So yesterday I was treated to Ron Paul  appearing on The Russian Propaganda Network Russia Today where he blamed the whole Ukraine mess on THE JEWS “Global Bankers” and the “Military Industrial Complex” and also took a few cheap shots at America including a lie about America being an empire.  He also said it’s up for argument if Russia has violated the sovereignty of Ukraine (it’s not up for argument Ron you daft ass, it’s a fact).  He then defended Obama and compared the actions of a tyrant like Putin trying to extend his empire to the acts of the US when trying to destroy tyranny (the complete inability of this man to understand ethics is really sickening).

But despite his usual mixture of idiocy, anti-Semitism, implicit hatred of America, and evil that defines Ron Paul we have the isolationism he that is the hallmark of his vile rants. He keeps making the a point that boils down to “It’s not our problem.”

I’ve heard a lot of people talking about getting out of world affairs in the wake of the current Eastern Europe ruckus. As is always so popular in America, Isolationism seems to be making a comeback in the psyche of the nation, it’s not just Ron Paul, he is just the mouthpiece for a larger movement.  Isolationism.  Because, it’s not our problem.  Great idea. Let’s take a look at how well isolationism has always worked in this country’s favor over the last century…
Coming off our crazy Manifest Destiny kick, Americans swung into a full isolationist mode in the early 20th century. So much so that when people started dying by the thousands in WWI we chose to do nothing. Thousand of soldiers—British, French, Italian, German, Austrian, to name a few—suffered in trenches with some of the most horrific conditions modern warfare has to offer. But it’s not America’s problem so we do nothing. The Ottoman Empire (ally of Germany and Austria) begins genocidally slaughtering Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks so brutally the Allies actually issue a statement using the words “crime against humanity” for the first time (so I doubt everyone in America was ignorant of this). America still does nothing, because still not our problem. Then one of our ships gets torpedoed while going through a war zone, so now it’s our problem. We come in with enough troops to end the war (if we had come in years earlier it would probably have ended the war then and spared thousands upon thousands suffering and death, but, oh, that’s right it wasn’t our problem at the time).

 

“some men just want to watch the world burn.”

So World War I ends. President Wilson has a good idea in the form of a world organization to oppose tyranny and support democracy around the world, the League of Nations, but the isolationist quickly take power again in America and decide not to be a member of the organization. I’m not saying American participation in the League would have stopped World War II from happening, but explain to me how it would have hurt. So in the end the League of Nations is filled by almost nothing but countries that have pacifist views that will cower when anyone with a gun shows up.
The first major failure of this war weary League and America (both parties are equally guilty) is allowing the continuation of the Red Army in the former Russian Empire. World War I ended officially in 1919, but the Russian Civil War didn’t end until 1923, yet no one even really offered to help the White Army put down the communists (good call, because the Soviets didn’t cause any problems over the next 70 years or so). No, rather than actually take out the root of the problem at maybe the cost of a few thousand more lives for Western nations, here in America we chose the policy of going into a hysterical fit over the fear of communists in our country, mobilizing every federal and state power to track down what turned out to be nothing more than a few dozen radicals with access to gun powder and a rough skill in making bad mail bombs.( I’m not saying there weren’t Soviet agents ever in America, there were, but odds are they didn’t become entrenched until after the Russian Civil War was over.) So we’ll use police powers against our own people over the fear of a foreign nation but won’t actually deal with that foreign nation we fear, because it’s not our problem.

Unknown

Isolationism…because evil isn’t coming after you…yet…

The next few years brought up other things that weren’t our problem. The Spanish Civil War, which allowed the country to fall to fascism. Italian aggression and empire building in Africa, but not our problem. The growing Maoist Army in China, not our problem. Invasion of China and Korea by Japan, not our problem. And dare we forget all those things Germany under Hitler did that weren’t our problem. Crimes against humanity each and every one of them. Not even counting the Holocaust, literally millions of people are being killed, raped, enslaved, and tortured. Americans can’t be that stupid to not know anything about this. Yes, many chose not to learn anything, just as nowadays many don’t bother to read about what goes on in the Sudan, because we know deep down if we knew we would be morally required to act, but American ignorance was one of choice, not one of lack of information (also much like how after we went into Germany all we found was a country filled with “Good Germans” who never knew what was going on in the concentration camps). And if all American’s were really that ignorant of these things, then how does one explain the very few Americans who went to all these wars to fight against fascism, to fight for what they believed to be right. They had to learn about it somewhere.
But these things weren’t our problem.
Then once again a weird thing happened. Low and behold after nearly every other nation who opposed fascism had fallen or was under siege, all of a sudden the fascists turned their eyes to us and it became our problem. Who could have guessed that an ideology founded on conquering the world would ever come to American shores. Completely unpredictable. So once again it suddenly became our problem again, and we went in and took down most of the bad guys. Then we went back to isolationist tendencies. Now some history buffs out there will call me crazy, because Truman’s post war policies could hardly be called isolationist—after all, we helped rebuild Western Europe and contained the Soviet Union. True, we contained the Soviet Union. This was isolationist in itself. Let’s go back to the day immediately following Japan’s surrender and look at the situation. You have Soviet Russia preparing to take total control of Eastern Europe as a “buffer zone” between them and Germany. Even at this point in history everyone knows Stalin is a worse butcher than Hitler. The bulk of the Soviet Army (devastated far more than the rest of the Allies by the war) is racing across Asia hoping to get a foothold into Japan and thus more land to control, thus leaving everything up to Moscow with minimal defenses. Gen. Patton (certainly not the most stable of men, but a strategic and tactical genius nonetheless) has this wacky plan to push the Russian army in Europe back to the Russian border if not destroy it completely. It was August, giving us at least a couple of months before those infamous Russian winters set in. Oh, and America was the only country that was a nuclear power at this point. It wouldn’t have been bloodless, but had the Allies decided to attack Soviet Russia it wouldn’t have been a long war, nor would it’s outcome been in the favor of communism. But we chose once again to not deal with a problem until it affected us.
We create the U.N., but then give two of the most evil governments in the world veto power to stop any action intended to stop their tyrannical ways.
Some more things that weren’t our problems after that. Eastern Europe is placed under a dictatorship as brutal and bloodthirsty as the one we just liberated them from. China, with Soviet help falls to communism. Tibet, after asking for U.S. help, receives no help and falls to Maoist butchers. The Soviet Union becomes a nuclear power (yes we did recognize that as our problem, but the fact is if we had recognized them as a problem a few years earlier, they wouldn’t have been around to become a nuclear threat). And after some half-hearted (I’m insulting the politician who made war policy, not the soldiers who fought) fighting we allow the communist to take North Korea (it’s not like allowing that one would ever lead to problems). Cuba also falls to communism, but not directly our problem, until low and behold communist from one part of the world start giving communist in another part of the world nuclear missiles.
So isolationism is not looking like a good option at this point to anyone who can count hundreds of millions tortured and killed as a direct result of it, but the U.S. still can’t give up it’s isolationist way. So we now try a kind of halfway isolationism. The use of the CIA to work behind the scenes and the use of the U.S. military only in “police actions.” The problem with police actions is if you have rules about when and where your troops can fire back at the enemy, and what lines they can cross, and just generally the falling short of fighting a real war then all you end up with is a lot of U.S. soldiers in body bags and a wall in D.C. commemorating the fact that despite being excellent soldiers, who never actually lost a real battle, politicians will make their deaths completely worth nothing by just leaving countries like Vietnam to communist governments.
Then Khmer Rouge takes over Cambodia and does things that might turn a Nazi’s stomach, but again, not our problem.
All this time it would take a whole book to recount all the bloody things being done in Africa that weren’t our problem.
Iran falls to a dictator whom we don’t support, falls to a dictator whom we do support, then falls to a radical Islamic cleric who no one in the world of the sane is not disturbed by. Our president at the time of this final change of power decides it’s best to be weak, and let them hold American hostages until he leaves office. But then again this is the same man whose grand stand against the invasion and resulting crimes against humanity in Afghanistan by the Soviets was best combated by boycotting the Olympics. Way to take a stand, Jimmy.
So we learned not to use police actions. So still not wanting to actually fight real wars, because it’s not really our problem, we just start arming people in their wars against our enemies. People like the rebel soldiers in Afghanistan to fight the communists (this guy named Bin Laden comes to mind), and people like Saddam Hussein to fight off Iran. I wonder if that policy ever came back to haunt us?
Oh wait, it did. Hussein invades other countries; we kick him out of Kuwait but leave him around for the next generation to deal with (incompetently I might add).
Our genius plan of dealing with the collapsing Soviet Union is to support whatever dictator comes along in the Balkans, which once again leads to genocide and U.S. troops having to go in under the cover of the U.N. (really wasn’t even our idea, it required Tony Blair twisting Clinton’s arm to get U.S. troops to go). And I’m still trying to figure out what drugs were being passed around when it came to our policies involving Russia itself, but the result was what it always is, let’s not get involved.
Then let’s try and help out in Africa, until a few bullets get fired (in a war zone of all places, who could have predicted that) and it’s decided that’s it’s better for a few soldiers to have died in vain, than to actually clear Somalia of the warlords.
Afghanistan falls to psychotic religious fanatics, not our problem. At least until the New York skyline gets a permanent makeover.
Is it just me, or does it seem that all of these things that aren’t our problem have a bad tendency of becoming our problem, and rather big problems at that? Ironic because they weren’t necessarily always big problems, in fact they would have been more easily dealt with problems back when it wasn’t our problem.
And let’s look at another pattern that seems apparent to me, when what wasn’t our problem becomes our problem we go in long enough to stop the current problem without sticking around long enough to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The few places we gone into with a plan and have stuck around in (Germany, Japan) seem to be pretty stable.
So no matter how you want to look at it isolationism on any country’s part, but especially one as large as the U.S. seems to lead to three things: (1) Torture (2) Death (3) and problems that become so big they do become our problems.

 

I’m not entirely sure what should be done about Venezuela, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, or Sudan right now, mostly because we need to wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan before further overextending ourselves…but not doing anything is a really dumb idea as history has shown and it shows that Paul’s claim that non-interventionism is “Pro-American” is a vile lie that can only be told by the very stupid or the very evil (or both if you’re Ron Paul).

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy

No matter how destructive Obama is, I see no reason to give up on America

So it becomes very clear from the State of the Union either due to incredible arrogance and idiocy or just vile evil Obama and his ilk are out to destroy this nation.  Yeah let’s raise the minimum wage, that only ever lowers employment and hurts the economy.  Let’s spend more and tax more, because that always works.  Let’s pay only lip service to the problems abroad.  We’ve got problems in education let’s throw money at it, that always works.  Even his best example, the return on the Human Genome Project, has a bizarrely overblown number attached to it…and oh, that’s right, the private sector did better on spending and results in their concurrent research.  And gun control I’m sure that will make us all safer. Either intentionally or through idiocy, it really doesn’t matter,  Obama’s plans seem to be putting us on a one way course for economic ruin, the expansion of tyranny the world over, and the contraction of freedom and prosperity everywhere.

Flag of the United StatesSome people, clearly not the masses of idiotic liberals, but some rational people are worried about this. There is a lot of depression out there lately.  From the people who see a coming economic collapse (but the stock market is really high…yeah because a lot of long term investors just got out and this bubble is being fuelled by day traders and emotional buyers…you know just like it does before every crash…when you look at the fundamentals we’re in for some pretty bleak moments) to those who are seeing a revolution coming (not a desirable outcome by any stretch of the imagination but certainly one that will happen if this idiot were to actually make the move against private ownership of guns he seems to be suggesting).  Any honest look for the long term outlook of this nation is worrisome. And many are worried.

 

But I’m not.

I know liberals, and probably libertarians as well, have a problem with this, but there is something truly special about this nation.

This nation has been knocked down over and over again.  This nation has not just beat but defied odds, defied likelihood, defied certain destruction.  We have come so close to death so many times, and each time like a Phoenix risen from the mess we have created.

 “Some people believe that our Declaration and Constitution were written by very brilliant men, others believe that they were divinely inspired when they wrote it—I believe it was a bit of both.”

Go on name for me one other time there were as many great minds in one place?

Go on name for me one other time there were as many great minds in one place?

The documents were written by men, albeit brilliant men, but men nonetheless, who were capable of error and thus you could not claim absolute perfection in their documents…but also the beliefs and ideas in these documents represented an immeasurable leap forward in human society and that at some level the hand of God was present.  Name for me a time when you would have an Adams, a Jefferson, a Washington, a Franklin all in the same room together.  History provides few men of such insight, intelligence, and character (not that they were perfect, but they were certainly ahead of their time by massive steps); occasionally you get two of them together at the same time; at very special moments you get three together at once…at both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention you had whole rooms of these men.  Please tell me of another time in history when you had such a grouping (and to see it happen twice in one generation).  To a group of men who believed in ideals of right and true being more important than their personal fortunes (a good portion of the signers of the Declaration went broke, many were tortured all of them suffered for signing that document…not one recanted their signature.)  How do you not see the hand of providence in that?

If more divinely inspired words have been written, I do not know about them.

How do you not see it in:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Please tell me which passage of the Tanakh, the New Testament, the teaching of Buddha, the Gita, the Tao or any other holy book surpasses that passage in its understanding of the relationship between God and man (that we are given free will and liberty by our creator with the expectation that we will use them), that understands the teleology, the purpose, the end of life (to achieve Happiness), and how men should treat one another (not violating the rights of others, but setting up a society to protect them from those that do seek to violate those rights).  The heart of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics answered correctly in one sentence.  And you don’t think God had anything to do with that?  Do you see the hand of God in anything?

And then you look at our history.  Time and time again, if Vegas odds makers had existed from the 1750’s to today, you would have bet against the survival of the U.S. over and over again.  Yet somehow we’re still here.  The history of America is often the history of convenient accidents.  Convenient in that reinforcements were mistakenly diverted from helping General Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga, letting the Americans win when they most needed a win.  Convenient that when Lee, a general of unquestionable skill, was a week’s march from capturing D.C. he has the 3 dumbest days of his life at a little town in Pennsylvania.  Convenient that all of our carriers were out of harbor on December 6.  Convenient that we found the Japanese Navy almost by chance at Midway.  To name a few, there are so many others.  In science, in economics, in politics, we have been blessed with having the right people in the right place in the right time over and over again.  You can believe in chance, I don’t.

I don’t believe in chance and I don’t believe we get all these lucky breaks just because…

We make mistakes, and dear God have we made some abhorrent ones.   Liberals love to point out all the evil things we have done, ignoring that at anytime in history, we didn’t even rank in anything but the top third of what the rest of the world was doing at that time.  Oh and I know pointing that out is wrong, because that’s their culture.  Oh that’s right anyone else does something worse than America and it’s racist to hold them to the same standard…but we have to hold America to the standard of perfection (which, ironically, shows that even liberals believe in American Exceptionalism, otherwise why hold it and it alone to such a standard).  We’re not perfect, no one is.  But we have always been the beacon that sings to the best in humanity, not the example that speaks to the worst.

We’re the nation that fought to create a republic where the haves and have nots gave equal measure.  We’re the nation that fought our own citizens to free slaves.  We’re the nation that pioneered capitalism and law that gave liberty and opportunity and progress to more people than any other country in history.  We’re the place where “tired, the poor, the huddled masses” come to be energetic, successful and stand on their own feet.  We’re the country that conquers whole nations so that others may be free then tries to rebuild them and then leaves without tribute or power.  If you don’t think we’re the “shinning city on the hill” you don’t know history, philosophy or human nature.  We’re not perfect, we’re not always right, but we are consistently the nation that calls for the best in humanity to put down the worst.

Too often I think people forget that this is a nation where people still regularly risk their life to get to.  America-or-die isn’t a slogan it’s a fact of existence.  Whether you were born here or came here you should take more than just a day out of every year to remember what a blessing this country is.  Of course there are some ignorant jackasses out there, who don’t seem to understand this blessing who say “I didn’t sign up for a country that’s the rest of the world’s police, I just happened to be born into it.”

And these ideas are important.  This is a nation founded on the purest, most noble ideas yet to grace the face of the Earth and even though we waver we always come back to them.  And that is why I think we see the hand of Providence, yeah I said it, in our history.  This country should have fallen by now, but it hasn’t and one or two times you could put it up to the American nature of not giving up and our ingenuity.  But time and time again everything has lined up just right for us, in ways I can’t see for any other nation in modern history.

For some reason we have been pulled back from the brink, and I believe it is because of the truth and righteousness of our ideals. And we haven’t lived up to them yet.  We haven’t spread them over the world.  We haven’t finished being the shinning city on the hill.  So I can’t see why we would have been pulled back all those other times and simply let go this time.

I have faith that some higher power has a purpose for America that has still yet to be completed, so I am not worried too much over the next few years.  Yes I know they will be terrible, but I know that something better is on the other side.  That what I fight for and strive for is not in vain and that I will not witness the end of this nation and its ideals, but rather see them rise again, stronger, brighter, more just and right than they ever have before.

And yes you can whine about how I’m believing in faith, and God, and something you don’t believe in.  But odds are you’re one of the people I’m fighting against, so I don’t really care for anything you have to say about my faith.

And for those of you who do have faith but are having a hard time to have hope…do you really believe that the ideal this nation stands for would be abandoned after all this time?  I doubt it.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2nd Amendment, American Exceptionalism, Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Foreign Policy, Free Will, God, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Obama Ceasar, People Are Stupid, politics, Religion, Spirituality, Taxes, Tyranny

Romney at VFW: America the Hope of the Earth



But remember we’re arrogant

But remember we’re not special in the world

And let’s not forget that we believe in American exceptionalism like Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism (yeah thanks Barry for comparing us to that excuse for a nation)…and that we should apologize to the butchers who kill our men but not when you slander a man and accuse him of felonies when you have not even an iota of proof (by the way we have tons of proof, the least of which is your Executive Privelage order, that shows you actually were complicit in the string of felonies known as Fast and Furious)…and that we should support every revolution backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (Syria, Lybia, Tunisa, Egypt) but let people in Iran who want democracy to be murdered.
I’m ready for a change, how about you?

Also, Mitt is going to meet with anti-Communist figher Lech Walesa and the great Tony Blair, two men who understand what America is, and Obama isn’t (by the way Walesa has refused to meet with Obama).



1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Israel, Mitt Romney, Obama, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Greatest Patriotic Movies: Tie for #14 The Outlaw Josey Wales

An icon of American individualism

Bounty hunter: You’re wanted, Wales.Josey Wales: Reckon I’m right popular. You a bounty hunter?

Bounty hunter: A man’s got to do something for a living these days.

Josey Wales: Dyin’ ain’t much of a living, boy.

This is as close as this list is going to get to an anti-war movie.  Liberals and isolationist libertarians, I don’t care if you’re offended by that, your foreign policy beliefs are an offense to everything this nation stands for.

Now, certainly an argument could be made that many of Eastwood’s movies (and I mean his work as a director) have a strain of patriotism.  The virtue of the common man as seen in Gran Torino, the somewhat dark take on the American Dream in Million Dollar Baby, the blatant patriotic high of Space Cowboys, the high and low points of war in Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, even his mildly sympathetic treatment of J. Edgar  showed Hoover, for all his faults, as being motivated by love of country.  But while I think Gran Torino is Eastwood’s masterpiece, it is a work that focuses more on the man than the nation…meanwhile The Outlaw Josey Wales is very much a film that looks at what makes America America.

Now, unlike some of the previous films, I feel this movie might be one of those some people may not have seen recently.  So a quick recap.  The movie begins with Josey Wales a Missouri farmer with a wife and young son being set upon by a Kansas guerrilla division known as the Red Legs.  The Union soldiers knock out Wales, kill his wife and son and burn his house to the ground.  When he recovers he takes out a gun and re-acquires the skill of using it in only a few hours and spends the rest of the Civil War attempting to get revenge.  His unit is the last to surrender at the end of the Civil War and are massacred by the Union, with only Wales making it out alive but chased by federal authorities.  As he tries to go South and West and stay out of the hands of bounty hunters, soldiers, Comancheros and the Comanche he acquires an odd family of an old Cherokee man, a Navajo woman, a Kansas woman heading west and her granddaughter.  Finally this small group settles in a ranch somewhere in the Arizona territory where Wales, just as he was about to head further southwest has a final battle with Union soldiers who killed his family.

Now so what makes this a patriotic film?

Well first off is it’s recognition of what makes America.  Near the end, after having avoided a battle with the Comanche, Wales’s group celebrates and revels in the new family they have put together.  By this point you have Northerners, Southerners, two different tribes of Indians, plus the most recent additions the local town folk which include an Irish prostitute, two Mexican gentlemen, and an Easterner.  It’s quite the American melting pot of people from all different origins and walks of life.  And Eastwood isn’t very subtle about making this melting pot imagery clear.

Now I said this movie is anti-war and to a degree it is.  It is not anti-war in the sense of all war is wrong and all violence must be avoided at all costs, as many liberals and libertarians (cough cowards cough) would have it, even if that cost is the liberty of others or themselves.  Wales is not afraid to fight to survive or to protect those he loves.  But the movie does not delude itself into portraying war as not having consequences (as Flags of our Fathers would do again many years later).  The fact that out of it come people who only know how to fight; the emotional scars and the all around suffering.   The last lines of the film between Wales and a man he thought had betrayed him recall the pain of war.

Fletcher: I think I’ll go down to Mexico to try to find [Wales] [at this point Fletcher is pretending to not recognize Wales]

Josey Wales: And then?

Fletcher: He’s got the first move. I owe him that. I think I’ll try to tell him the war is over. What do you say, Mr. Wilson?

Josey Wales: I reckon so. I guess we all died a little in that damn war.

And disgust at the horrors of war is actually one of the strengths of this nation.  The odd thing about America is that (1) we have the ideal of spreading liberty no matter the cost and (2) we have no stomach for war.  And that’s a good thing.  Probably more than any other nation we tire of war very quickly, even if we’re winning, even if we’re doing the right thing (for instance did you know that we never lost a battle in Vietnam?  Or that in some of the battles for every U.S. soldier we lost the VC lost 50+…logically it would be hard to portray a war like that as a loss or a hopeless cause, yet somehow we did it.)  Even in Eastwood’s Flags of our Fathers it’s pointed out that by Iwo Jima America had just tired of war (a whole 4 years in a battle against unquestionable evil) and just wanted it over.  (And the same is true historically of the Civil War).   For all the liberal BS that Americans love war and bloodshed, there is no historical proof of that.  Any war we get into we try and get out of it as quickly as possible.  It’s why American Imperialism (a silly term, when compared to the historical reality of European Imperialism) amounted to a few islands, most of which don’t want to leave the U.S.  And dare we forget that our biggest gain from our “imperialist” Spanish-American war was Cuba, which we immediately gave up so the Cubans could have self rule (that one worked out well).  And, I’ll admit, it’s a good thing we tire of war easily.  There are cultures that don’t tire of war quickly and just keep throwing wave after wave of people into suicidal assaults all for the glory of their county or their perverse ideal of God…can you imagine the bloodshed if it was mixed with an actual just cause from a country whose national anthem includes the line “and conquer we must when our cause it is just”…it’s a good thing we tire of war.  It allows us time to take stock of our losses, to let the world try and progress without us saving it every time, and hopefully, to learn from our mistakes (like next time we invade a country maybe we could have a plan on what to do after their military is defeated.

And finally the film is patriotic because it expresses what is best in both our foreign policy and our economic behavior, that we deal with everyone pretty much in the same way, we “hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”  Or in the words of the film.

Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.

Josey Wales: That’s true. I ain’t promising you nothing extra. I’m just giving you life and you’re giving me life. And I’m saying that men can live together without butchering one another.

Ten Bears: It’s sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life… or death. It shall be life.

Notice also the typical loathing of government in this conversation, and the mutual contracts of individuals placed as highest…the beauty of American Capitalism.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Capitalism, Foreign Policy, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics

The Best Patriotic Films: Tie for #14 Air Force One

 

“The dead remember our indifference; the dead remember our silence. I came here tonight to be congratulated. But today, when I visited the Red Cross camps, overwhelmed by the flood of refugees fleeing the horror of Kazhakstan, I realize I don’t deserve to be congratulated. None of us do. The truth is we acted too late. Only when our own national security was threatened did we act. Radek’s regime murdered over 200,000 men, women and children and we watched it on TV. We let it happen. People were being slaughtered for over a year and we issued economic sanctions and hid behind the rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we? The dead remembered: real peace is not just the absence of conflict; it is the presence of justice. And tonight I come to you with a pledge to change America’s policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons, and to those who would use them, your day is over. We will never negotiate. We will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It’s your turn to be afraid.”

I will vote for anyone who speaks like this about foreign policy and has the courage to back it up.

This is the American ideal.  A country that does what is right not is what is convenient.  A nation that stands for principle not rank short-sighted avarice.

Dear god, have we failed to live up to that ideal.

The last good film Harrison Ford made.

But at least we have the ideal; whereas with most nations the majority considers only saving its own hide…we at least keep that feeling here in the majority (I hope.)

But the movie does point out that there have been times we have not acted in our self interest. The villain smugly remarks, “You who murder a 100,000 Iraqi’s to save a nickel on a gallon of gas are going to lecture me on the rules of war.”  This is a typical liberal piece of bull (Blood for oil) because it ignores the basic rules of economics.  Economics states that if you want cheap things you deal with dictatorships, as they somehow have much lower production costs (something about slave labor being very cheap).  Any idiot who has taken more than a nanosecond to think about it knows that if we really wanted cheap oil and only cheap oil we would have (1) let Saddam have Kuwait instead of driving him out and (2) lifted the embargoes on Iraq rather than invading it.  We in fact did the thing guaranteed to raise oil prices; we protected one nation and tried to bring democracy to another.  We stood on principle, not greed for cheap goods.  (Now if only we could stand on principle AND bother to come up with a plan for rebuilding the nation after we defeat the military, that last part was kind of lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq).

But it is not jus the speech that embodies the best in American ethics that makes this movie great.  It is its understanding of patriotism, and the interesting way it goes about showing how American patriotism is actually different than most forms of patriotism.

When justifying his actions of killing a defenseless man to the captured first daughter, the villain, Korshunov (played by the ever chameleon like Gary Oldman) states:

Korshunov: That’s the first time you ever seen a man killed, huh? You think I’m a monster? That I would kill this man? Somebody’s son? Somebody’s father? I am somebody’s son too. I have three small children. Does that surprise you?

Alice: Why did you kill him?

Korshunov: Because I believe. And when I shoot this man I know…how deep was my belief. That I would turn my back on God Himself…for Mother Russia. My doubts, my fears, my own private morality…it dissolves in this moment…for this love.

You may think this is extreme and farcically overblown…but then you realize that good little Nazis, and good little Brownshirts, and followers of Franco and Saddam and Tito, all probably decent people from supposedly Christian nations, did unspeakable things in the name of country. And the in the east, the Chinese crucified Tibetan monks for the glory of China, the Khmer Rouge created the killing fields for the greatness of Cambodia and the list goes on.

And up front, yes we’ve had our insane sons-of-bitches.  No doubt, no question, no argument there.  But we tend not to hold them up as our great patriots.

Our great patriots don’t “would turn [their] back on God Himself” and don’t put their “private morality” below country.  No our patriots tell their nation and their king, ‘Up yours George, we’re leaving the nation we loved with all of our heart and starting our own.’  Our patriots head north, saying, ‘my love of state is nothing compared to my love of what is right, and the Union is what is right.’  Our patriots go to Britain and fight the Kaiser and the Nazis when our country says no it’s not our fight.  Our patriots go to China and fight the Japanese when our nation says it’s not our problem.  Our patriots understand that when it comes to a choice between country and personal morals, it’s time to tell the country and its leaders something that ends with “…and the horse you rode in on.”  Because America isn’t a just a nation of borders and history, it is a nation not founded on where one race or tribe settled or conquered.  It is a nation of ideals and if the people that inhabit the land betray those ideals, a patriot’s duty is to the ideals before “king and country.”

Also the movie points out very important part of America:

“The Presidency is bigger than any one man.  Didn’t they teach you that at Yale?”

I don’t know about Yale but they clearly don’t teach it at Harvard these days.  Yes, the presidency is an important office (not really, it’s supposed to be the weakest of the three branches), but while the office is important, the person who holds is human and very easily disposable (we get rid of them every 4 to 8 years), and even the best of them are replaceable and flawed.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Best Patriotic Films #19 Star Trek—The Original Series: The Omega Glory

Jim Kirk, Constitutional Scholar

Now some may find this an odd choice.  Isn’t Star Trek a fairly liberal show?  No, as shown here, here, and here it understood conservative principles quite well.  But nowhere is it more conservative and more patriotic than the episode “The Omega Glory.”

Remember how when talking about comedy films, and I picked out the Star Trek episode “The Trouble with Tribbles” that original series Star Trek episodes tended to fall into one of two categories: Category A (mainly in the third season) crap beyond the telling of and Category B some of the greatest moments of science fiction television ever.  But there are some rare middle ground episodes, not spectacularly great, but with one or two really redeeming qualities…the patriotism of this episode is its redeeming quality.

The plot of the episode revolves around Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise finding a world that developed with the exact same history as Earth but with only a few differences (that might be a cool topic, if it wasn’t like the fourth time they used that plot…Star Trek may have been groundbreaking in many ways, but original plot points weren’t always their strong points).  On this planet, after an apocalyptic war between Chinese Communists and Americans most of the world has been destroyed.  Kirk, Spock, and McCoy come in just to find the final victory of the Communists, or Kohms, by the American Yankees, or Yangs.  And the most holy of holies to the Yangs is a document that over the years they’ve slurred the meaning of…luckily for them Kirk came just in time to explain what it really means”

KIRK: This was not written for chiefs. (general consternation) Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying ‘We the People’. That which you call Ee’d Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, ‘We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.’ These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!

CLOUD: The Kohms?

KIRK: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?

CLOUD: I do not fully understand, one named Kirk. But the holy words will be obeyed. I swear it.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.  In fact, did you know that there are legitimate college courses out there that use this scene to help teach the Constitution? 

“So he quotes the Constitution, what’s so patriotic about that” I’m sure some liberal out there is saying.

First it puts the primacy of the Constitution over all other attempts at democratically-republican government, “Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way.”  Unlike some of our dumber Supreme Court Justices, the writers of Star Trek, realized that for all of it’s flaws and places where it could be improved (let’s start by reaffirming the sacrosanct nature of property and contracts or maybe the limited nature of government, we seem to have forgotten those), the U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever produced.

It is patriotic because the writers understood that “They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing!” “We the people” through our representatives at the Constitutional Convention may have created this document for this nation in 1787, but its principles were not meant for just the citizens of the U.S.  The posterity they saw wasn’t just the future generations of the U.S. but hopefully for the world, that we would be the beacon for all to learn from so that all may have “secure the blessings of liberty” (or are you so foolish and closed minded as to think blessings, which the Declaration clearly points out come from God, are only for America.)  No, it was meant for all the people.  Liberty is a right, not just for Americans, but for all people.  Which is why in this episode Kirk skirts the Prime Directive and shows the people of this planet what the words mean.

Of course, as science fiction is best when used to make a point to the audience, one must ask to whom this episode was being directed at.  I would say it would be the bigoted, small minded, worthless excuses for Americans who say such unquestionably evil things like “our obligation is to defend Americans, not people under a different flag. Let those people fight for their own freedom and establish their own government” otherwise known as taking the side of tyranny and thus being morally guilty of all the evil which you choose not to stop when you have the power to do so.  Nowadays we call them liberals and Paulbots, and make no mistake they are as opposed to what makes the Constitution worthy of admiration as it gets.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Natural Rights, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

Most Patriotic Films #20 The Hunt for Red October

“If we meet the right sort, this will work.  We get some…buckaroo…”

Yesterday I discussed a film about immigration I wasn’t too thrilled about.  But also it was talking about the kind of immigration that most immigrants attempted, the kind that while there was risk the odds were in your favor.

Now onto a form that more or less is unique to the 20th and 21st century.  The kind where you are escaping a country so evil, and trying to get to a place so good, that it is literally a journey where death is the more likely outcome.  It says something about a country when people regularly climb into unseaworthy rafts (and that’s a generous term) just for the chance to get here.  With the exception of a few other Western nations, who pays smugglers to get them to any country but America?  And with those other countries (most of them also current or former members of the British Empire as we are—say what you will about the redcoats, but British Common Law is one of the most ingenious and ethical creations civilization has ever come up with).  They’re not risking life and limb because the American dream is a lie without basis.

And of course the most dangerous way of all…defection…and we do seem to get more than our fair share (even more when you figure we don’t know about most of it.  Let’s be honest, you ever hear of anyone defecting to Russia…I know of only one person who did that—Lee Harvey Oswald, not exactly the poster boy for mental stability.  I’m sure there have been others, but the fact of the matter is most people are defecting to liberty not away from it.

And that brings us to today’s movie The Hunt for Red October.

Yes I love Jack Ryan as much as the next person.  A man who was paralyzed because of an accident and battled his way back to walking through force of will.  What could be more American than the story of a lowly cubicle dwelling analyst through nothing but integrity and drive working his way up from his cubicle in Langley to the Oval Office.  But that’s the books and this is about the movie.

And while I actually prefer Alec Baldwin’s Jack Ryan to the other (I know I’m alone in that, I don’t care), this isn’t a movie about Ryan as much as it is about Captain Marko Ramius and the officers of Red October who are willing to risk going up against the entire Soviet Navy just to experience the American Dream.

And what is this lavish dream they wish for that is so superior to the highest echelons of Soviet existence (officers in the military were second only to high ranking party members in the USSR)?  What dreams beyond the wildest avarice?

Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck… maybe even a “recreational vehicle.” And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?

Captain Ramius: I suppose.

Borodin: No papers?

“I would like to see Montana…”

Ramius: No papers, state to state.

Borodin: Well then, in winter I will live in… Arizona. Actually, I think I will need two wives.

Ramius: Oh, at least.

Ignoring the polygamy joke at the end, think about how simple this “dream” is.  An RV, a wife, a house, some rabbits (tell me about the rabbits George…sorry couldn’t resist), and some interstate travel.

Granted it’s a movie, but this is the kind of dreams people come for.   You know it is.  To own a small business in a strip mall.  To be able to go where you want.  To have a place where your children will be better off than you.  Nothing grand and overblown…but something real, something that is worth fighting for (and maybe even dying for).

And this theme of what America offers permeates the whole movie from the first moments to the last scene with Ramius and Ryan.  America is a place that you would die for just the chance to get there.

And let us not forget that Ramius is looking for the American cowboy mentality of “I care about what’s right, not about the rules”…or in Ramius’ words “a buckaroo.”  Only in America do you not only get that kind of mentality with any regularity, but it is only here that this mentality is praised as the ideal we should all strive for.

Ramius and his “Buckaroo”

Now the rest of the film is just a great thriller and action movie, I don’t even have to discuss why, it’s pretty obvious.  Even without the patriotic undertones it would be a good movie, with them it’s really good one (can’t quite say great because I can’t honestly say this is in my top 50 of all time, but it’s up there).

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

The Most Patriotic Movies #26: The films of Michael Bay

“We will never forsake freedom”—Optimus Prime, Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Okay let me say upfront that some day I will be writing a series on the top 20 directors of all time.  Michael Bay is not on that list.  Michael Bay isn’t on the list of honorable mentions either.   Michael as a director, has many flaws…some directors can save a bad script or a push a bad actor to the point that you wouldn’t know either was bad.  Michael Bay is not one of those directors.  Pearl Harbor, The Island, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (how exactly do you have a movie called Revenge of the Fallen, when the character named The Fallen is in the movie for what a whole of 10 minutes?).  These movies suck beyond the telling of it.  Now when things work (i.e. decent script, decent actors) his films are enjoyable and re-watchable…no one will ever say his work is on par with Casablanca, but it’s fun and even probably worth buying before it even hits the five dollar bin at Wal-mart.  But if he has one great quality it’s that his films are patriotic.

So what makes his movies patriotic?

Well there is first the fact that he almost obsessively puts the America flag into scenes with our heroes, no matter what the film.  You see the stars and stripes you see heroes.  During the President’s speech in Armageddon I counted at least 7 flags in a speech that isn’t 3 minutes.  Bay has the correct amount of respect for the flag (infinite) and the proper understanding of what is means (it is a symbol of heroism and the good guys).

Could we get another flag in that shot with the special forces team coming into save the day?

Pretty much the last scene in the film and what’s still flying even though the entire city of Chicago has been reduced to rubble?

Okay, the size of the flag there is standard for an astronaut’s uniform…but still it’s would be hard to make that more prominent…and these are just a sample…Bay’s films are filled with flags all over the place.

Second for all of his flaws, Bay understands good and evil and doesn’t shy away from the basic concept that sometimes the way to deal with evil I “we will kill them all.”  Yes we’ll try talking, sanctions and diplomacy and whatnot but sometimes you realize as in the case of Bay after three Transformers films it’s just time to plant a giant battle axe into Megatron’s head and blow Sentinel to hell…because it’s just not going to end any other way or in the case of America, you can sink a nation’s entire navy, destroy all their overseas holdings, fly thousands of leaflets over a city telling people you need to leave the city NOW!…and in the light of this you there are still sometimes when you’re faced with costs of tens of millions of civilian lives plus maybe a million soldiers because the country in question is too dumb to know when to call it quits…you know it’s just time to nuke two cities off the map (we should have followed it with taking Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, and wherever Mao’s army was concentrated, but we had a coward in the Oval Office and also we only had three of the things at time and we wasted one in New Mexico…Sacramento would have been such a more useful choice).  Sometimes you just have to go the whole way and bomb the enemy into oblivion (again we should have tried it in Russia, China and Iran), because their stock in trade is absolute evil (before some liberal wants to say that my claims about the Japanese is unfair, look up the phrases “Rape of Nanking” and “Bataan Death March”…you’ll wonder why we didn’t ship the entire Japanese hierarchy from Hirohito to the lowest ensign to Nuremberg and hang them all.)  There is good and there is evil, and America at its best is one of the few countries that has ever really understood this…and Michael Bay also understands this one.

Finally, of course, Bay had endless respect for the armed services.  Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, all three Transformers the U.S. military is shown to be just the biggest bunch of bad-asses who are more than worthy of your undying respect.

Throw in some not so subtle insults at Obama in Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon it just gets even better.

Again, unless something miraculous happens, Bay will never be up for an Oscar, but he is still a enjoyable story teller who will always show America as the good guys.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Popular Culture, Tyranny

Most Patriotic Films #28: Stripes

“We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A’, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse.”

Stripes.  This is not the greatest movie ever made.  This is not the best work by the actors, the writers or the director if you look at any of their careers.   And perhaps it’s just the snob in me, but I don’t find much of the film very funny (with the exception of their drill performance at graduation…sorry couldn’t find a decent youtube clip to share).

So if this isn’t the best film, why did it make this list?  Well for this scene.

The night before their graduation from boot camp, this band of losers has lost their DI and is on the verge of either having to repeat boot camp (or just be dishonorably discharged, which is probably more what they deserve)…but Bill Murray brings them together by reminding them more than anything, they’re American soldiers and that means something.

“Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell’s the matter with you? Stupid! We’re all very different people. We’re not Watusi. We’re not Spartans. We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A’, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts! Here’s proof: his nose is cold! But there’s no animal that’s more faithful, that’s more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw “Old Yeller?” Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end? Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I’m sure. I cried my eyes out. So we’re all dogfaces, we’re all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We’re mutants. There’s something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us – we’re soldiers. But we’re American soldiers! We’ve been kicking ass for 200 years! We’re 10 and 1! Now we don’t have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don’t have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.” [Italics Added]

Why is this a great scene?  Because it points out all the things that make America great.

Yes, “that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world.”  And as Americans we’re proud of that.  We even have a sign at the front door “”Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” with the implication, our nation will turn the tired into the productive, our nation will turn the poor into the prosperous, our nation will turn the huddled masses into individuals who stand tall.  The statue may be standing with a torch in her hand, but she really is giving the finger to Europe.  Or put another way, in the opening to his book Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism, P.J. O’Rourke describes America’s relationship to the old world:

“Americans hate foreign policy. Americans hate foreign policy because Americans hate foreigners. Americans hate foreigners because Americans are foreigners. We all come from foreign lands, even if we came 10,000 years ago on a land bridge across the Bering Strait.  We didn’t want anything to do with those Ice Age Siberians, them with the itchy cave-bear-pelt underwear ad mammoth meat on their breath.  We were off to the Pacific Northwest—great salmon fishing, blowout potluck dinners, a whole new life.

“America is not ‘globally conscious’ or ‘multi-cultural.’ Americans didn’t come to America to be Limey Poofters, Frog-Eaters, Bucket Heads, Micks, Spicks, Sheenies or Wogs. If we’d wanted foreign entanglements, we would have stayed home. Or – in the case of those of us who were shipped to America against our will – as slaves, exiles, or transported prisoners – we would have gone back.  Events in Liberia and the type of American who lives in Paris tell us what to think of that.”

In other words, every “decent country” that threw us out, can go do something anatomically impossible to itself.  We took the worst of your worst and created the best of the best.

But O’Rourke’s lighthearted listing of racial epithets leads to the next point that makes the speech in Stripes so great. We’re mutts.  Over 2 centuries we have taken bits and pieces of almost every culture in the world, kept what works, kept some stuff that is neither good or bad, and thrown out most of the B.S. (we’re still trying to get rid of all of the stuff that doesn’t work).  We’re mutts.  I haven’t heard the phrase used a lot lately, which is sad, but I’m sure we all remember the phrase “the melting pot.”  The idea that, time and time and time again, we have incorporated new cultures into our own and made those cultures part of us. It’s gone a little out of use as liberals now love to promote every subgroup to embrace their difference at the cost of success and the cost of remaining an outside group…but the sane among us remember that it used to be standard practice that no matter how bad you were treated when you got here, once you assimilated into American culture you were not only accepted but American culture assimilated your culture into its own (everyone seems to forget that the Irish were once treated worse than anyone…and while a lot of Romney’s ancestors were Scots and Germans, I seem to recall that 2008 was two men of Irish decent battling against each other for the highest office in the land).  With the exception of first and second generation immigrants, it’s damn near impossible to find someone in this country who can trace their ancestry back to one country.  Hell, Elizabeth Warren seems to be the only person in the country without a drop of Native American blood.  And I think we all know that within one to two centuries race will be a forgotten concept in this nation as most people will be able to trace ancestors back to every major ethnic group in the world.  And that’s what makes us great.  We’re mutts.  As a whole we don’t care about anything but merit.

And finally there is the line, “There’s something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us – we’re soldiers. But we’re American soldiers! We’ve been kicking ass for 200 years! We’re 10 and 1!” Now I’m actually going to forgive the fact that there is a little insult here to the armed services.  The film started filming in November of 1980, which means it was probably written in 1979 and early 1980…that is during the impotent Presidency of dim Jimmy “I’ll always support anti-Semitism given a choice” Carter.  Can you blame someone for having a low opinion of this nation when U.S. citizens are being held by insane zealots and the proper response of blowing Iran to hell isn’t being taken, or when the strong stance against Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is to boycott the Olympics?  And as to the 10 and 1, it’s only been in recent years that it has been pointed out that we never lost a military encounter, we only lost the political ones because Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon were all too gutless to actually fight a real war, opting instead for police actions.  But the point is correct we’ve been kicking ass for 200 years and have never lost a war because of our military, only because of our politicians.  And it’s not because of numbers or arms, it’s because, unlike a lot of other countries, we have a reason that is morally right to fight for: liberty.

Again, this is not the greatest film ever.  But it is a great scene that does highlight what is great about this nation.

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Individualism, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics

Most Patriotic Movies #29: Movies that are stand-ins for American Patriotism

There are a lot of movies set in the ancient past or distant that are meant to be metaphors for our current problems.  Frank Herbet’s Dune was a warning about the over reliance of oil dependence on a single source ruled over by a culture that by most standards of civilization is backward and barbaric (one wonders what the book would have looked like if his knowledge of said culture had included their propensity for genocide).  There is a certain logic to this, when you provide enough distance between the audience and the subject you allow them to put aside immediate prejudices about party or history and allow us to see the thematic truth of something and then reapply it to our own present situation.
There are a lot of movies and shows, but I have chosen three to highlight this point.

300

An action movie that was ruined by too much action.

But from free Greek to free Greek, the word was spread that bold Leonidas and his 300, so far from home, laid down their lives, not just for Sparta, but for all Greece and the promise this country holds […] This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny, and usher in a future brighter than anything we could imagine.”

 

Ironically this would have been a truly great movie if there hadn’t been as many action scenes.  It was odd that the movie that was supposed to be 110% mindless action, actually had strong character development, excellent writing, and powerful themes…so much so that it was the over-the-top action that ruined the film.

 

How do I know this is a metaphor for America?  Because the tyrannical, dictatorial Spartans, make fascists look warm and fuzzy by comparison, Spartans would never speak about an “age of freedom” that was coming.  They were pretty much opposed to freedom in all ways, at all times, with all people.  The actual economics of Sparta would have a been a dream for Marx, and the rest of society made Nazi Germany look libertine.  But this movies isn’t really about the real Sparta…it’s about America.

 


 

Now how is this patriotic toward America?  Well, to state the obvious, this was a bit of a love letter to the troops fighting in the war against terror.  It states that our service men are willing to die not so much for country (the Spartans are certainly fighting for more than just Sparta, and that point is made quite explicit) but to stand against tyranny (represented by Persia instead of the modern world where Iran is one of the major centers of tyranny…hey, wait a second…), to draw a line against an evil which seeks to conquer the world and say you will not cross this line as long as I live.  And while there is always the disenchanted minority of whiners in any group, I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of our armed services, do not do it for glory or a pay check, but because they wish to defend the liberties of not only friends and families, but of people they don’t even know.

And how many countries breed an attitude like that?

 

Now we have to hope this pro-American theme is carried by director Zach Snyder into his next movie, The Man of Steel.

 

Firefly

Mal: Well, look at this! Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What does that make us?

Zoe: Big damn heroes, sir.

Mal: Ain’t we just?

 

The West.  A constant metaphor for the freedom and greatness of America.  Also a genre populated by some of the corniest, most poorly done films and TV shows of all time.

But never underestimate Joss Whedon for breathing life back into a genre.  Confederate soldiers in a post-Civil War west surviving as bandits, soldiers of fortune, and whatever jobs come their way a little tired….no problem, just put the whole thing in the 23rd century and add a lot of wit.

The crew of the firefly class ship Serenity time and again exemplifies the classic ideal of what makes the cowboy the American ideal of a hero.

Honor and ethics above all else

Sheriff Bourne: You were truthful back in town. These are tough times. A man can get a job, he might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours… well… then he has a choice.

Mal: I don’t believe he does.

Even the law

A government is a body of people; usually, notably ungoverned

Fair play

“You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed”

 

Capitalism…

“Let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job…I get paid.”

…over the destructive forces of government regulation

Jayne: You save his gorram life, he still takes the cargo. Hwoon dahn.

Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don’t care, I’m still free
You can’t take the sky from me

Mal: He had to. Couldn’t let us profit. Wouldn’t be civilized.

 

 

Notably this show does something that is also very America…it points out that when your government (which should not always be confused with your country) is corrupt and in it’s constant arrogance to think that it and it alone can make people better must be opposed.  Which in many ways is one of America’s greatest strengths and most heroic qualities (but I will admit that many whiners have stolen the idea of opposition to tyranny and applied the appellation of this form of heroism to a lot of whiners).

If you have the time, go through the virtues listed by Alexis De Toquville when he discusses what makes America a great democracy.  You’ll find that almost a T the virtues listed in Democracy in America are the ones that are exemplified in Mal Reynolds and his crew.

Although I will admit I’m getting a little worried about this trope I’m seeing more and more that shows the Confederates to be men who fought for principle and state’s rights and liberty.  That may have been the way they viewed themselves, but let us not forget the real Confederacy was not some libertarian dream land, it was an oppressive slave state with very heavy socialist economics.  And I while I will admit this trope can be useful in certain contexts, I would be more than happy to see it die for a few years before people actually start viewing the entirety of the Confederacy as a heroic bastion of idealism.

And finally…

Gladiator

 

“I will not believe that they fought and died for nothing. They fought for you…and for Rome.  I’ve seen much of the rest of the world, it is brutal and cruel and dark.  Rome is the light.”

It’s a favorite thing of historians to compare Rome to America.  Always with the implication as with Rome, America will fall not with a bang but with a whimper.  And while there are volumes of lessons to be learned from what worked and didn’t work in the Republic, the comparisons can often get a bit to hackneyed to be taken too seriously, in art where the lax rules of allegory allow for some wiggle room, the story of Rome, of a mighty nation that was destroyed more from within than from without, is always an interesting comparison.

In Gladiator we see this from the perspective of a nation at the point of collapse, ready to fall into chaos but still potentially able to rise out of it own corruption and regain the past of being a republic of laws and not a nation that follows one man blindly if he just offers them bread and circuses.  “There was once a dream that was Rome” they several times and if you’re looking for the message it would be hard to not find this a bit of a call against the oppressions of our own government which in 2000 and still now is becoming more about Caesar, er, I mean the president, and less and less about law.  (Which brings up an interesting point to make about how we view the past.  Remember in 2000 when were coming off 10 years of liberals screaming about how wrong it was for  a GOP Congress to lower government entitlement spending and balance the budget and how the GOP as tying the hands of Clinton who would have spent more if he could have…and now Clinton is taking all the credit for being the great president who had surpluses in his presidency.  People really need to have a better memory of the past.)

“Is Rome worth one good man’s life.  We believed it once.  Make us believe it again.”

Now unlike Rome we are not going to saved by one man…maybe one president and a Congress that will back him, but really that’s up to the people.  But the fact of the matter is that idea of what America is, is waning.  And to a degree it is up to up to us to make ourselves believe in America again.  May I suggest by booting the tyrant out.

Now again, I’ll admit these are at best allegorical comparison, that are meant to be taken loosely.  Don’t read too much into them.  There is a reason that these 3 only got one blog and came in below a few films that only made it onto the list because of a single scene…as you will see tomorrow…

 

1 Comment

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Art, Conservative, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Humor, Joss Whedon, Movies for Conservatives, Patriotism, politics, Tyranny

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock wave after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Romney’s “Lack of Specific Plans” or Romney The Man with A Plan

Recently I’ve been hearing from all sides things like, “Romney isn’t specific enough about what he’s going to do” “I don’t know what he would do in office” “He needs to be more clear about his plans” “he’s doing well for someone who hasn’t articulated a plan yet.”  I’ve heard it from the right, from the left, from the far right, from the far left, on Beck, on O’Reilly, on Blitzer, Maddow, Matthews, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, RealClearPolitics, DrudgeReport.  From pundits I love, from pundits I have no feelings about one way or another, from pundits I loathe with a fiery passion.  You name a media outlet I will show you someone who said Romney doesn’t have any specifics just vague generalities.

Are you people living in a goddamn cave? A sensory deprivation chamber?  The darkness of space, where no one can hear Mitt Romney’s extensive plans?

Ignoring that his speech can get pretty detailed…spoken words are imperfect…let’s look at the written record,

This man has more specific plans the media knows what do with. So rather than critique him on points, they just say he’s lacking specifics.

namely MittRomney.com.  Have you been to MittRomney.com, because it’s not your typical campaign website.  Typical campaign websites, even Obama’s, are a half-dozen or so issues, most of them covered by a paragraph or two with a general statement of goals, and maybe one or two pages with two or three more pages of detail for the really important things.

And then there is Mitt Romney.   This is the CEO of Bain.  The Savior of the Salt Lake Olympics.  The guy who balanced the Massachusetts’s budget without raising taxes. This is not only a guy who gets things done, he gets them done because he plans out what he is going to do.

And this kind of shows you why of the hundred deals Bain did, Obama can only find a few that were failures.  This man plans for EVERYTHING.

26 Topics!  And he didn’t just put a paragraph in each…no, I think he hired a Russian Novelist to fill these pages up.

This man covers every issues you could have questions about…

Let’s for instance go to the Jobs and Economic Growth page…

Not only does he have a link to a 5 page pdf that explains the 5 bills he will send to Congress on his first day and the 5 executive orders he will sign literally seconds after finishing the inaugural address (hell he might actually sign them during)

Screw the first 100 days, the first 100 hours is going to be productive under Romney.

How many Presidents do you know who has 5 bills and 5 executive orders ready to go day one?

But that’s not all…on that same page you have a link to the 160 page plan of Romney’s for the Economy called “Believe in America.”  Let me say that again 160 pages of details of what caused our problems, what Obama did wrong and pages 31-153 of how Romney is going to fix the problem.  And if you read it, it becomes pretty clear that this is the combined work of CEO’s and economists that know what they’re doing.   “But I don’t have time to read 120 pages of plans” bitch the same people who claim that he’s not specific.  Well lucky for you there is an Appendix of the 59 specific things he’s going to do.  But you don’t know what he’s going to do to you…he only gave you 59 specifics.

Yeah, after these 59 major things, I have no idea what Romney will do…

But it gets better.

Want to know about foreign policy?…well, where Obama’s got one page of vague generalities Romney’s got pages on every section of the world…

plus a page that lists ALL of Romney’s advisors on foreign policy and their qualifications.  I’ll admit I don’t know the names of most of these people…but from the lists of credentials and experience this is a who’s who of foreign policy experience.   Do you know who’s advising Obama…probably not, as he devotes only a page to economics and a page to defense.  Ooooh…two whole pages for the most important issues facing the nation at this point.
Romney also has an impressive list of judicial advisors… as opposed to the crack team of Obama’s that gave us Sotomayor and Kagan, possibly the two most incompetent justices in the history of the Court, save Earl Warren.

There are over 670 blog posts by Romney supporters and advisors, 30 articles written by Romney himself, nearly 800 press releases, and 32 video .  Yeah, that’s a real lack of information from Romney.

As for most of the other pages, they follow a pretty specific format.  They list basic principles, describe what Obama is doing wrong, and give SPECIFICS on what Romney will do.  Don’t believe me, go read for yourself.

I mean how can that compare to Obama’s eight whole issues (one of them a made up issue) with pages full of nothing…oh and there’s pandering to a lot of different minority groups.  They spend more time telling you about Michelle’s life than they do on how they’re going to fix the economy.  But remember it’s Romney who is short on specifics.  Oh, and Obama has a massive button that says “Espanol” (let’s forget that speaking fluent English is a requirement for naturalization…so exactly which legal voters aren’t speaking English?)  Clearly Romney is the candidate who is just dealing in platitudes and vagaries, changing his talking points with the wind.  Clearly.

So when you get a moment, drop by MittRomney.com and actually read some of the stuff there.  I know that sounds boring, but you really should.  Because if you do you will realize that not only is the comment that he doesn’t have specifics is insane as saying 2+2=5 (yes there are some lack of specifics where it comes to things that will actually be the purview of Congress to work out the details, but that would mean that Romney actually understands how laws are made, unlike Obama who thinks he rules by fiat).

Now, you can tell me that you don’t think Romney is being honest in what he says, you can tell me that you think his plans won’t work, but please stop this bullshit about him not having specifics.

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, People Are Stupid, politics, Stupid liberal quote of the day, Taxes, Tea Party, Unions, Unjust legislation, Welfare

The Possible Future of the Republican Party

 

“Look at Europe, you fool. Can’t you see past the guff and recognize the essence? One country is dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the collective is all. The individual held as evil, the mass – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the proletariat.

That’s one version. Here’s another. A country dedicated to the proposition that man has no rights, that the State is all. The individual held as evil, the race – as God. No motive and no virtue permitted – except that of service to the race. Am I raving or is this the harsh reality of two continents already? If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective. Give the fools a chance, let them have their fun – but don’t forget the only purpose you have to accomplish. Kill the individual. Kill man’s soul. The rest will follow automatically.”—Elsworth Toohey, The Fountainhead [emphasis added]

 

Believe it or not Rick Santorum’s campaign gives me hope.   Why?  Because it proves beyond the shadow of all doubt that religious fundamentalists do not control this party.  Let’s be honest cowards are voting for Ron Paul, social conservatives for Santorum, (I haven’t the foggiest clue as to why anyone is voting for Newt) and fiscal conservatives are voting for Mitt Romney.

 

 

But listening to Santorum’s speech did make me think about his new theme: Freedom.  It’s ironic that this would be his theme as it is something that he is opposed to in every area of existence.  We know that Ricky is a social conservative and thus opposed to liberty in the social arena…no we need government laws and regulations backed with up with fines and jails and guns to control that part of the world.  From his earmarks, pro-union stance and wish to control the economy through loopholes and regulations we know he is opposed to economic freedom.  And while you might say at least he’s a conservative on the foreign policy arena, but you’d be wrong, as he doesn’t believe in holding the line against Islam-fascists or Communist China because of the relevant communist or fascists part…he opposes them because they’re Muslims and atheists…after all he has said it’s a “holy war” (his words not mine) that we’re fighting right now.  Rick Santorum, American Jihadist.  He’s not interested in beating back tyranny; he’s interested in beating back non-Christians.   In every form of political thought this man is opposed to liberty and freedom in every way possible.

And while Santorum may be in the running for worst politician in the history of presidential politics, it did start me thinking about the nature of freedom in relation to political parties (yes I’m weird and the most boring conversationalist…deal with it).

 

So, contrary to that two axis graph the libertarian love so much (with one axis being economic freedom and one being social freedom) modern politics is actually a balance of three axes.

  1. Economic Freedom ranging from zero freedom with socialism/communism (the name changes the government doesn’t) to full freedom (anarchy) with true capitalism being about 80-90% of the way to complete freedom.
  2. Social Freedom with communism/theocracy/fascism being at the zero end and again capitalism in the 80-90% range of full freedom.
  3. And finally you have the third access which I will call interventionism (for a much more protracted discussion see Republicans and Reincarnation).  This is the idea of whether or not we feel that freedom should be extended throughout the world as “all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” at the full freedom side or feel that tyranny, socialism and oppression are fine so long as they stay outside our borders at the zero freedom side, we call this side isolationism.

Sadly, right now each political party embraces at least one of these evils.  Democrats embrace the evil of restricting freedom in the economic sphere.  Libertarians embrace the evil of allowing oppression in other nations so long as it doesn’t bother them (much like Whigs in antebellum America or isolationist pre-WWII who didn’t mind 6 million people dying so long as it wasn’t them…we all see how well those policies worked)…and the Republican party embraces the evil of government intrusion in the social sphere.

 

And this is why I chose the quote I did to open this post.  The system seems rigged (more by human nature to want to control something not by nefarious evil conglomerates trying to control our every choice) to leave us with a between government control in the social sphere or government control in the economic sphere…and if we’re too disgusted with those we go to a party that turns a blind eye to evil, no matter how atrocious and antithetical to our most basic principles,

 

But there is hope.  Because right now we are seeing a rejection of that very evil represented in Rick Santorum (yes he embodies all three evils, but he’s running on his social “conservative” agenda).

 

But there is more hope than just the destruction of Rick Santorum and the defeat of the social conservatives in this election…but the possibility of the defeat of them for all time.

 

Look at it this way.  Almost every Tea Party candidate who ran in 2010 won.  The ones who didn’t, the ones who cost the GOP in the Senate (most notably Angle and O’Donnell) were portrayed not as fiscal conservatives but as wacky social conservatives (I’ll not be getting into whether that depiction is correct or not).  So it appears that when Republicans run on fiscal issues they win. 

 

 

Or to look at it another way.  The highest Santorum has ever been is 39% of Republican voters who make up only about 36% of the voting public.  In other words social conservatives who place their social conservatism above all else make up only 14% (39% of 36%…and those are kind of high end estimates, it’s probably lower in reality) of the electorate.

 

Only 14%.  14% that has no choice but to vote for the Republicans or let a party that allows its economic liberalism turn into an excess of social liberalism.  Do you really think that 14% of the electorate that identifies itself as independent or libertarian aren’t driven from the Republican Party by its perverse adherence to social conservatism…to a belief that the government should tell people how to live their lives.  Hell, I know a few blue-dog Democrats who are fiscally conservative and whose only argument against Republicans is the pointless social concerns.

 

If we drove them out of power now, if we made this a party of fiscal and foreign policy concerns, and only of social moderation, that the government takes no sides in social issues (you know, as the Founders wanted)…and leave social issues to individuals, churches and local communities,  then we would experience not a drop in election results, but a surge, a powerful surge that would not only be a death blow to psychosis that is social conservatives desire to rule over people’s bedrooms but also to the evil that is the Democrat desire to rule over our wallets.

 

Or we can just keep going as we always have and let these lunatics have too much influence in our party.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Conservative, Constitution, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Republicans and Reincarnation, Taxes, Tyranny

I agree, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….

But we are a decent people.

I bring this up because I have been getting a lot of people telling me that “The U.S. is not the policeman of the world” in that snide way only a coward can manage.  And again let me say, I agree with you, America is not and cannot be the Policeman of the world….but we are a decent people.

What do I mean by that?

Well think about it this way.  If you are walking down the street and you see a woman getting raped in alley.   Do you just walk past?  I hope not.  I hope you at least scream, although it’s not quite as effective as looking for a piece of rebar and, in the parlance of Pulp Fiction, going medieval on someone’s ass.  You do it not because of some rule or regulation, not because of some obligation, but because you are ethical, we feel empathy and we understand a basic concept of natural rights.  You of course could walk by, but that would mean you are unethical, have no ability to feel empathy or any respect for another person’s natural rights.   But I assume you are a decent person and will stop evil when you see it and are in a position to stop it.  Now what if it wasn’t one person you had to fight off but a large group who caused not a single act of violence but were terrorizing your neighborhood.  I believe a neighborhood watch would solve that issue.  And the larger the problem the larger the group we form to counter that evil (I remember a couple hundred militias being formed to fight the greatest empire on Earth and their lobster-backs).  We as individuals know that we should stop evil when we find it and are in a position to do so.  We don’t do it for a reward or even to secure our own safety, as often ignoring the problem would put us at less risk…yet somehow we know that it is wrong to ignore evil and do nothing.

Yes we have police, country sheriffs, state troopers, and federal special agents…but we don’t say that these people make it ethically acceptable to walk by when we see evil right in front of us, we hire these professionals to be available to protect not just us, but those around us when we can’t be everywhere.  We believe everyone is entitled to be free of the threat of violence, even if we have never met them.

And we would rightly judge anyone who did walk by and ignore evil in front of them morally reprehensible.  Yes we might forgive someone if the problem was too big for them to deal with personally and if they did contact the police, but otherwise there is no ethical excuse.

Now some will say: Isn’t what you’re describing an ethical duty?  Something you claim to hate?  No, no it is not.  A duty is a moral obligation, a concept that you have to do this, not because is good for you, not because it brings you pleasure or makes you feel good, not because to not do it will bring you emotional pain…no a duty is done because that is the rule, that is what you do, and you don’t question it.  (Notice duty, when properly used is often in the context of a military organization, a place where you don’t get to question why, yours is but to do and die.  Improperly duty is often misused in the place of “virtuous.”)  We have a choice we can do something or not.  There is no rule or obligation or duty toward one side or the other.  But to do nothing does not mean we condone, we allow, we support that evil because we did nothing.  And we are thus guilty for doing nothing.   But we do act and stop evil where we find it, because we are a decent people.

But I go back to my original example.  There are times and places where there is no authority, no cop to call upon to stop evil and it falls unto you, the person who sees it and has the power to act.

And as this is true with individuals, and groups of individuals, so it is true of governments.  When a government is a tyranny, it is evil—the worst evil known, which commits as standard operating procedure the worst atrocities on a daily basis.

We as individuals see these evils, and we know our government is not ignorant of them.  There is no police force of the world (if you even thought the U.N. you clearly don’t know how corrupt, evil, and ineffective that organization is) thus there are only individual nations.  Nations which can act, which have the resources to act.  They just lack the will.  The world knew what Hitler was up to, maybe not down to the details of human skin lamp shades, but they knew he was killing people by hundreds of thousands and enforcing slave labor.  That alone should have necessitated attacking Germany, but everyone waited until it was their own country being invaded before it became an issue…and millions of innocents died because no one had the will to challenge what they knew to be evil.  Innocents were sacrificed, no one wanted to be viewed as acting unilaterally or being called the policeman of the world, no one wanted to take responsibility and say “This is wrong and it must stop.”  (At least nowadays.  Back in the old days Jefferson, the most anti-war of the Founding Fathers, would use the cutting down of a flag by the Bey of Tripoli as the justification to invade not just Tripoli, but Algiers and Tunis and bring the Barbary pirates to their knees.  Not because they were a direct threat to U.S. interests, hell might have been cheaper to pay them off…no, because they were engaged in piracy and extortion and they needed to be stopped.  And that was over piracy, nowadays we turn a blind eye to genocide, how distorted a policy is that?)

Nations like individuals have an ethical choice to make.  Do they stop the evil which they know about and have the power to do something about, or do they ignore it and thus condone and agree with it.  This is a choice every nation faces.  When the U.S. acts “unilaterally” as the misnamed “policeman of the world” it’s not because it’s our job, it’s because we recognize evil when we see it and choose not to stand by and willingly let it happen.  (I put unilaterally in quotations because I recall there being about 40 other countries that joined us in Iraq and Afghanistan, other nations that made the correct ethical choice to not sit quietly by and do nothing.)

Should the people in these nations rise up and overthrow their tyrants as the people of other nations have done.  Yes, they should.  But either they haven’t or they’ve been killed when they tried.

Does that mean we shouldn’t first try negotiation and diplomacy?  No. We should because we are the reasonable ones…but don’t expect it to do much.  Please tell me of the last time a dictator reformed when there wasn’t a threat or implication of force but just out the warm fuzziness of their cuddly heart?

Does that mean we should attack and not care about rebuilding?  No.  You do this to help the victims of evil, not because you enjoy beating up people.  That means, unlike the actions of Clinton, Bush and Obama, when you invade a country the first thing you do after you beat them militarily is you rebuild the nation.  Energy production and delivery systems, roads, plumbing, water…all the infrastructure we take for granted.   And creating government.  Notice that the biggest problem with Afghanistan and Iraq was we tried to immediately give control of the government back to the people (both within Bush’s first term).  I love democracy as much as the next sane person, but shoe horning it in before the people have the structural and local infrastructure necessary to support it is insane.  It was 4 years before we returned control of Germany to Germany (and that might have been rushed due to the Cold War) and 7 years before Japan was under self rule after their surrender.  Classical liberal democratic-republics take time and support, they cannot be rushed and that is one of the biggest flaws of our invasion and occupation of these two nations.  Oh, and why do we have a Peace Corp if we don’t use them in nations we’re helping to rebuild?…you know kind of what they’re supposed to be there for.

Now does this mean we should we invade every dictatorship this second?  No, are you out of your mind!  I said what you are aware of AND IN A POSITION TO STOP IT.   Right now we first need to disentangle ourselves from our current exploits abroad which have either been bungled to the point of being irreparable in the immediate future (Afghanistan) or simply it was pointless to be there (Libya, Yemen, Uganda).  I would say personally we should drop a massive amount of ordinance on every Taliban controlled area, carpet bomb (and possibly Dresden-style fire bomb) the hills where they are hiding (yes even in Pakistan), burn every poppy field, and send special forces in to kill every drug lord in the country and the get the hell out of there.  We screwed up Afghanistan so badly I think the best thing we can do is destroy the worst aspects of the evil still left in the country and try to let them find their own way at this point.  Had it been done better at first I would be having a different argument, but the actions of Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama in regards to that country had been so stupidly incompetent we need to disengage from there for a while.  Yes, right now the U.S. and the Western World need to re-embrace capitalism and get their economies straightened out, because then and only then will they be in a position where we can help others, but putting first things first does not mean we are not committed to the goal of stopping evil.

But we can’t act unilaterally, some say.  The hell we can’t.  Just because a group of people can watch a single woman get raped and murdered doesn’t relieve you of the ethical call to be the one person who actually does something.  If the whole group does nothing, then the whole group deserves to be damned.  And if one person chooses to act unilaterally, then they are the only good person among the group and the fact that they went against the will of the crowd does not condemn that one, it condemns the group.  The same applies to nations.  Every free nation on Earth should be doing all they can to end tyranny (granted, a lot aren’t exactly in an economic position to do so right now, that doesn’t exactly excuse the last 70 years of being complacent about evil).

There is no policeman of the world.  There are merely free nations that have a choice.  And because, on occasion, we are a nation made up of decent people who act to end evil rather than condoning it we act in a way that cowards label us as unilateral.  (Again I would like to point out that other nations were with us in the Balkans, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan…so we are not alone in knowing right from wrong, the media just likes to paint it that way.)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”—attributed to Edmund Burke (he didn’t actually say it, but it is a nice summary of a large point he was making).

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Free Will, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Patriotism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

In an argument with a Ron Paul supporter? send them here…

If you’re sane and like me you’re probably getting tired of these RonPaulBots who like Objectivists defending Ayn Rand (I wonder if there is any cross over there?) think the man walks on water and is no more infallible than the Pope…yeah because that kind of blind devotion really proves to me you’ve thought this one through. I think Reagan is probably the best President in history, but I can probably rattle off 20 things he did wrong right off the top of my head, easily. Even great leaders are human, and anyone who wants to portray their candidate as perfection defined clearly hasn’t thought about the issues very well…and as we have seen with Barrack “The One” Obama, blind devotion is often attributed to the worst, not the best candidates.

So to save you some time I am presenting you with a wide variety of valid resources on why Ron Paul must never, ever be allowed near the White House for any reason whatsoever.

I’m going to be providing a lot of links, and just copying some of my previous statements, so that you have it all in one place at one time. Please feel free to share this with any mindless Ron Paul supporters.

He is a racist and Anti-Semite and just a bigot in general

This is, by far, my biggest problem. I had hoped that Jimmy Carter would be the last anti-Semite this country ever elected. 2008 ruined that hope. But that is no excuse to once again make that mistake.

In his book Liberty Defined (Liberty Defiled might be a better title for his understanding of liberty) he goes on about how in high school he heard a Palestinian student go on about how those mean evil Israeli’s forced them off their land. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He says it struck him as unfair. First, what conservative uses the word “fair”? Second, it strikes me as anti-Semitic propaganda and pretty much an outright lie, and history has shown me to be correct. But Paul would rather believe it than find the truth. For a high school student, or maybe some idiot hick that might be forgivable…for a person holding an advanced degree and who is in Congress and thus might have access to some legitimate records, it’s a complete denial of reality and unforgiveable. So there is point one for anti-Semitism, repeating anti-Semitic lies.

You might also notice, that any conversation would logically not start off with information from 60 years ago, but maybe deal in the here and now. But no he wouldn’t do that because that would show the Israeli’s to be people who target terrorists and military groups while on the other side you have thugs, tyrants and terrorists who target nightclubs, schools buses and other innocent civilians. Point two covering up legitimate evidence.

He uses the word Zionism as the title of that chapter as well. You know I know the word has historical meanings implications beyond a racial slur…but it’s pretty much a racial slur these days.

Then of course there is his newsletter which makes such statements as

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (I need to comment on this one, I could have sworn I saw white people involved in the in the LA riots in the early 90’s…and I believe order was restored, at least in part, because of the police).

“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”


An according to the Atlantic “Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.”

Oh and did you know that gays were, “far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” 

All of the articles have no byline but are written in the first person…so you believe that with a heading like the Ron Paul report, and written in the first person, Ron Paul has nothing to do with it’s content.  And if you believe that I have some lovely bridges to sell to you, please contact me. You know what I find interesting, if I found out someone was publishing racist material with my name attached suggesting I was the writer I would sue them for libel for every last cent they were worth, and if it cost me a job (like the Presidency) then that would be a solid case…yet I have seen no such lawsuit filed. And in 1996  “[h]e said they were being taken out of context.”  I would love to hear what context those statement were made in that doesn’t make them, at best, questionable.

A word on this. Let’s say Ron Paul’s latest excuse, that he owned the newsletter but didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the “very bad sentences” (there’s an understatement). Which means that he is 1. So incompetent a manager he has no clue what people under him are doing and 2. He has no ability to detect character in his employees as he apparently hired some really scummy people. So my option are he is a racist or the world’s worst manager. I can’t wait to see who he would pick as Attorney General…but I can tell you this, it would make Eric Holder look competent by comparison.

Or listen to this:

“…I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, that are almost like in concentration camps, and saying yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way…”

That’s right let’s compare the Israeli’s defending themselves to the acts of a Concentration Camp…who else talks like that, oh yeah, anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter. Oh and you have to like the typical propaganda: let’s ignore the fact that these flotillas were a cover weapons and funding. And to deny that is again something either means he is an idiot or he is intentionally lying to distort the facts to hurt Israel.

And you have to love how he doesn’t see any problem with Hamas being voted in, in fact preposterously claiming them to be democratic government. Because why should you care if a terrorist organization whose charter is to “drive the Jews into the sea” takes charge of country? Notice his only definition of a democracy is that there is s public election. When most sane people talk about spreading democracy they mean spreading Classical Liberalistic democratic-republics which are designed to protect people’s right…not destroy them. But in Ron Paul’s mind anyone who receives the majority of votes is a valid leader. I remind you that Hitler, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and a whole host of other tyrants are “democratically” elected by Paul’s definition. And it it’s good enough for Paul, Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world’s anti-Semites I guess it should be goo enough for us.

I also find it fun how he talks about “Didn’t we talk to the Soviets?” Yes, most presidents did…until Reagan who while he held a few conference pretty much gave them nothing and didn’t back down. So let’s see Truman-Carter talked and how did that go. Reagan gave them at best lip service…and that led to what? Cleary a ringing endorsement to always “talk” to despots.

Oh, and in 2008 he endorsed rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney for President.

His ideas on foreign affairs are beyond insane


I love his argument. Islamofacists are terrorists because we’re occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains their genocidal beliefs and actions towards women, Jews, homosexuals and all non-Muslims. Because the U.S. is occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains why Hitler was making an alliance with Mufti of Jerusalem to exterminate the Jews in Palestine, because they were a bunch of peace loving people. I’m sure that’s why the Muslim Ottoman Empire committed the first acts to be called genocide against the Armenia population. This could go all the way back to the genocide of the Persian Empire and the vicious eradication of Zorasterism in the 7th century and back to Mohammed personally ordering the genocidal slaughter of the Jews of Medina. It’s all because the U.S. was occupying the Middle East. Islam has always been a religion of peace and does not have a history of encouraging the absolute worst aspect of human nature. It does not have a track record for acts that even in the 6th century would be called evil. It doesn’t have a “holy” book that glorifies violence and slaughtering those who are different. No. No. Not at all, it’s only because we’re in the Middle East and if we left (and probably took all the Jews with us) they would return to their pre-Israel state of near Edenic peace and utopian prosperity.

Why am I the only one who thinks this man saying “It’s because we’re occupying the Middle East” and implying that if we left they wouldn’t attack us has all the ring of Neville Chamberlain saying if we just give Hitler the Sudetenland we shall have “Peace in our time.” Might be because I have even a layman’s understanding of history and human psychology. They hate because, since birth, they have been fed a steady stream of hate…and it is a fire that cannot be quenched by appeasement, it can’t even be stopped by reason, it can only be opposed. I think most Muslims are probably like most Christians they care more about paying the bills and their family more than they do about the more abhorrent parts of the their holy book…but there is a virulent strain in Islam that seeks to oppress and destroy liberty, and it cannot just be ignored by leaving.

And while we shouldn’t get involved in every countries problem there are evils that always have a nature of expanding (tyranny) and are so abhorrent that to not act is an act of evil (genocide). To not oppose tyranny and genocide wherever we find it when we are able is to relinquish everything we believe is right (you know, the little things like the idea that “all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”…I failed to see the line where it says that equality and those rights end at the U.S. border). If tyranny is an evil because it is in opposition to a natural right, it is as great an evil in someone else’s country as when it is in your own. And to sit by while this evil goes on and you have the ability to stop it is not only morally reprehensible, it is also patently foolish. One of my favorite authors, P.J. O’Rourke, pointed out that “evil is an outreach program.” History shows that tyrants and those who commit genocide are never content with their own little patch of ground and like a cancer they always, always spread…and when you’re the biggest country around they will always become your problem eventually. So why not stop evil when it’s small and easily handled, when the bloodshed committed by the evil has not gotten out of hand, and when it will take less bloodshed to put it down.

Or you can go with the Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain theory of isolationism. Because it always works so well.

Yes, there are numerous legitimate objections to the way we handled Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of legitimate objections. Might be helpful to have a plan on how to build a government next time. Maybe not make deals with the devils in the country. Just a thought. But there is a difference between complaining about how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (which any sane person should have issues with) and with complaining about the idea of opposing tyranny wherever we find it with all the weapons we have at our disposal (which includes but should not be limited to diplomacy, embargos, espionage, assassination, and full military force). Paul seems to think that if you aren’t directly attacking us it doesn’t matter how evil you are.

In fact, the absolute litmus test of a just war is World War II, which in retrospect every sane human being sees that we should have invaded Germany the moment they took over Austria (probably sooner), not waited for the Sudetenland, not waited for Poland, not waited for France, not waited for the Blitz and certainly not have waited for Pearl Harbor but taken them all out before millions of innocents were needlessly slaughter …how did Ron Paul respond to this particular test of sanity? Why he said in response to being asked if we should have used military force to end the Holocaust:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Not only is that line pure evil, and another point in the Anti-Semite court (what is that five? but notice also his statement about going to fight for someone. Notice the moral ambiguity. It seems to suggest that if you wanted to go fight with Chinese or the British (which many honorable Americans did) that would be fine…but it also seems to suggest that if you would have rather fought with the Germans or the Japanese that would also be okay with him. Now I may be stretching a little, but the man seems to have no moral compass whatsoever so can you say there is anything he has ever said that would have stopped someone going to fight for Germany or Japan. A sane human being would say anyone who did that should be put up against a wall and shot, I’d bet you Paul wouldn’t be bothered by such an idea.

Need further proof he has no moral compass…

He doesn’t see a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. The fact that they’re a theocracy might be a problem. The fact that their president, Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denying lunatic who believes the end of the world is near, and that he might be able to hasten it by bringing about nuclear war…yeah can’t see how that guy having nukes could possibly end badly.  After all many will point out that Ahmadinejad answers to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is trying to get Ahmadinejad removed on charges of “sorcery”. Yes I feel much safer with the nukes being in the hands of a Holocaust-denying religious leader who finds “sorcery” to be a valid accusation against someone. Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? Because all the intelligent people were either killed, jailed, or are now too afraid to act after the U.S. didn’t support their uprising (maybe they should have demanded an even more Islamist government and Obama would have supported them…it worked in Libya and Egypt). And the fact that Ron Paul seems oblivious to this insanity is frightening. I guess since he feels that he, a lunatic, should have the nuke codes, why shouldn’t other mentally unstable dingbats.

Let me just ask this:  How do you expect a man to defend your rights, when he doesn’t apparently believe they are natural human rights in the first place?  I can see logical arguments for, we don’t have the manpower or money right not to take on the world’s tyrants…fine…but he isn’t making an argument from practicality, he’s saying that tyrants can burn the world to a cinder so long as they leave us for last.

The belief that his ideas on the economy are sound is a joke


Now in all fairness, Ron Paul claims to be a follower of Austrian economics, whereas usually I am more of Milton Freidman Monetarist, so while we agree on probably 99% of this economically, we would never agree on everything. But as I did research I found he doesn’t exactly live up to even his supposed Austrian economics ideals…

But watch him be a total hypocrite

So what he does is he gets pork put into the bill but then votes against it so he can say he has never voted for an earmark. The lack of a principle there is beyond astounding. I haven’t seen ethical summersaults like that since Kant tried to argue you should help murders find their victims. How much Pork has Ron Paul brought to his district?

·$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers.
·$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
·$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
·$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
·$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
·$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
·$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
·$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
·$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
·$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
·$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
·$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

Don’t believe me, think I just made this up, or got it off another website (I got the wording because this is getting long as it is and I’m trying to save time) …well then you can go to this website. It’s Ron Paul’s Congressional webpage, maintained by Paul and his staff and you can see pdf copies of all the requests WITH PAUL’S SIGNATURE on them. Oh yeah he really believes in small government. Not one of those pork projects has even the slightest thing to do with what federal spending should be. It takes balls to complain about the size of government spending with one hand and contribute to the tune of $82.4 million dollars in 2010 alone…let’s see, assuming this is an average year for him, he’s been in the House for over 2 decades at $82.4 million a year…last time a I checked that number comes out to just over a Billion dollars in pork. Truly this man is a champion of conservative economics and not a hypocrite like the rest of the Republican party.

And then does anyone remember his response to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, that is was too ”regressive” that it was utterly unfair to think that maybe, just maybe, the poor should pay some part of the tax burden of the economy. That’s right he only believes the middle class and the rich should shoulder the burden. Does that sound like a capitalist to you? Now if you want to complain that the numbers were too high, that it should have been 5-5-5 would be more economically logical, that would be fine, it was not a perfect plan…but to complain that it has an actual capitalist tenant that everyone has their money in the game…utterly astounds me that any supposed economic conservative can possibly support this man.

Or there is this little gem from his own website “ Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.” Sound nice doesn’t it. Do you know what it means? It means he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. You know ignore whether there was a rational argument for staying off the gold standard or going off it back in the day…the fact is that we have been off it for so long that there is no going back. Yeah, academics may like to banter around whether it would be a good thing or not…but show me one crazy enough to advocate to have it put back in place immediately. Even if you were going to do it you would have to lower the amount of money in the system (which the Fed has put far too much in) but continue lowering it beyond what any Monetarist would think healthy even over a 20 year period of time…but in Paul’s case, since you wouldn’t have 20 years to do it you would have to do it in 4 years or less! Even if returning to the gold standard was a good idea, trying to adjust an economy that fast is suicide. There is no going back and trying to force it back into place and it would possibly be the most economically destructive idea possible. It’s an arcane debate that whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is a pointless argument now. And a man who doesn’t get that is not qualified to be in the Oval Office.

This is a man who thinks that all countries are created equally and should be left alone to do whatever they want, because none of it is America’s business. First off it’s frightening to think that someone who claims to understand economics has not a single clue that the economy has reached a point where every country in the world is connected into one giant economy. No country is an island; every country is a piece of the whole global economy… any country’s economic problems diminishes America, because we are involved in the global economy, and therefore never seem to know for whom the closing bells on Wall Street tolls; it tolls for thee.

I have few problems with true Austrian economists like Hayek or Von Missus. But Paul, while he may at times parrot the words well. The man’s words may say economic capitalist…his actions show he knows nothing or is just a hypocrite. Either way he ruins the valid arguments of libertarian philosophy.

And that he is the only answer

Three times already I have been asked by a Ron Paul supporter in the last week “What do you support NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2011) or SOPA (the poorly named Stop Online Piracy bill)?” when I said it would be a cold day in hell before I supported Paul. Those would be the defense bill that allows Obama to imprison any American without trial and the bill that allows Obama to shut down any website he wants. Both bills were moves by the Obama administration to have near tyrannical power and to completely shred the Constitution. Both are entirely unconstitutional and I see a 9-0 thumbs down coming from the Supreme if they survive the first days of a new presidency. However, why if I oppose Obama’s power grabs would it follow I must support Paul or that if I don’t support Paul I must approve of shredding the Constitution. Huh? Is that the best they have, that a man who has been able to get exactly one bill through Congress in a very long political career is the only hope we have for getting this legislation overturned? That is beyond any form or reason as I understand. But RonPaulbot reason is very different than our Earth logic, they believe it to be superior form.

He appears to be very, very popular with liberals (which in this case I think is a valid case of guilt by association)

And then there is this. And I’m saving this for last, because I do know how laws are written and how there can often be extra materials that has nothing to do with the law that should be opposed (like I support funding for the military included in NDAA, I oppose the Constitutional violations, thus I oppose the whole law)…so I’m kind of willing to hear that there was something else that was terrible in this bill that was tacked on because no one would vote against it…but he voted against a bill that would have required wi-fi carriers to report child porn downloads to the police. I don’t care how libertarian you are, it’s child porn, if you’re caught with it you need to go away for a very, very long time. (Again I would be willing to hear an argument that there was some terrible part to this bill that did need it to be opposed until that part was removed…but otherwise this is kind of sick.) I’m sorry you vote against this there is either a legitimate legal reason, and in which case you scream from every mountain exactly why you’re doing it to make sure there is nothing unclear about your motives and you offer a bill or amendments that corrects those problem (which I can’t find any record of him attempting amendment or a different bill), which last time I checked is why we elect people to Congress, to work together to craft the best bills (yes I know they all fail miserably, that doesn’t forgive Paul’s sins)…or, besides getting money from Odessa, is NAMBLA funding this psycho as well?

You know what, you don’t like Obama or Romney, fine. But don’t vote for an even bigger idiot just because you don’t like your choices. Stay home, or vote for Mickey Mouse…anything, but do not support this vicious, hypocritical demagogue.

***

One last thing I have to say. I get very animated and passionate about my arguments with liberals or isolationist libertarians.  But unlike RonPaulBots I do understand where they are coming from.  I understand that much of what I say comes off as heartless to liberals (even though I would argue that it helps more people in the long run by being purely rational in terms of government) and I understand the desire of libertarians to just want to be left alone (even though I argue that attitude is never pragmatic).  My point is that while I cannot always agree with my opponents I can at an intellectual level understand where they are coming from.  Ron Paul supporters do not seem capable of this.  If you tell them you can’t support him because you think he’s an anti-Semite they act like you just said the sky is green with yellow polkadots or suddenly just started speaking Summerian in front of them.  I know this won’t actually shut them up, because they believe with a religious fervor that cannot be challenged with fact and data.  It is faith that Ron Paul is the only solution and there can be no challenging the faith, they cannot even conceive of there being an objection to their god-king–there can only be burning the heretics.

Vote for Ron Paul…prove the Mayans were right about 2012

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny