Sarah Palin and Victory

I was somewhat encouraged by the selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate for John McCain. I even went so far as to say that the best likely outcome -- that is, the best outcome which does not involve breaking the stranglehold of the Republican and Democratic wings of the Big Government Party on the American government -- for America might be if McCain was elected and immediately dropped dead.

I still believe that, but Palin stands out because she is a Queen in a deck of Jokers. She stands out not because she understands what is best for America, but because she misunderstands our plight a little bit less than McSame and Biden.

On the subject of foreign policy, I am sad to say, she seems to be as dazed and confused as they. She opened her acceptance of the nomination with error. She accepts, in her words, "the call to help our nominee for president to protect and defend America". That is a fine job, but it is not the one for which she has applied. The job for which she has applied is commenced with an oath. Her oath, should she be elected, is not to protect and defend America, the American people, the American economy, American prestige, American power abroad, or American influence in foreign lands. Her oath, should she be elected, will be to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is the first and most important responsibility of any American elected official.

She goes on to say that McCain was criticized for his unwillingness to "lose an election than to see his country lose a war". This statement is in error in many ways. Firstly, the war, had Congress declared war as the Constitution requires, would have been declared against the Government of Iraq. The Government of Iraq against which our Congress failed to declare war no longer exists, and therefore seems to be rather poorly positioned to win a war. The head of the state against which we did not declare war was a man named Saddam Hussein. An evil bastard, to be sure. He is, however, no better positioned to win a war than the Iraqi government. He has, you see, been hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead. This seems an inauspicious position from which to declare victory.

If the question in Iraq is not winning a war against a defunct enemy, or losing to the dead leader of a non-existent government, what is the question, today, in Iraq?

The question is "Is it worth spending more American treasure, atop the trillion dollars we have already spent, in order to defend a foreign nation against the ethnic and cultural divisions which have existed in it since the British decided that three disparate peoples should be forced to live as a single nation".

The answer is no.

The question is "Will America benefit by providing potential terrorists with the corpses of friends and relatives, dead at our hands, to avenge."

The answer is no.

The question is "Is it worth the life of one more American soldier to provide security and prosperity to a foreign people who have never posed a credible threat to America, but have never paid a single dollar in taxes to America, nor sworn to protect and defend her Constitution, nor thanked her for removing the Odious Hussein, nor supported her which she was in need, nor defended her values, nor offered her anything except animosity.

The answer is HELL NO.

As far as I am concerned, America entered a broken country, removed the worst of the impediments to it's reform, and spent far too much blood and treasure attempting to offer her security and prosperity. The results have been imperfect, but Iraqis are no worse off then they were when we came. It is within the power of the Iraqi people to reform their nation, or to descend into chaos. The time has come for them to choose, and to live with the consequences of their decision.

---

But let us, for a moment, return to Sarah Palin. There is another glaring error in her speech which must be addressed. It illustrates either her failure to understand the American system of justice, or her willingness to sacrifice American values for expediency. That error is her statement that "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights".

Ms. Palin, it is after, not before, the investigation that Americans determine the guilt or innocence of those accused of crimes. We do not base the tactics of the investigation on the guilt of the targets, nor on the severity of their crime, but on the bedrock of our immutable, written, Constitution. Americans -- true Americans -- choose to accept risk rather than to risk tyranny. They choose not to sacrifice their Liberty for temporary Security, knowing that a people who does so deserves -- and will receive -- neither Liberty nor Security. True Americans choose to risk their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honors, not for absolute protection against every possible risk, but for protection of their Liberty against the ever looming danger of a government run amok. They know that a criminal freed due to a violation of his rights may kill them. They accept that danger because they heed the words of John Stark, the most famous New Hampshire soldier to serve in the Revolution:

Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils.

I do not agree with Palin that Liberty must be sacrificed in order to achieve reasonable Security. But even were she to convince me that I must choose between them, I would choose dangerous Freedom over the illusory Security of Servitude.

In the final analysys, Palin is an unacceptable candididate because she, by her own words, is willing to sacrifice Liberty for Security, because she is willing to trade American blood for an illusary "victory" against the dead leader of a defunct government, and because she does not understand that no nation, no matter how powerful, and no matter how well intentioned, can impose it's will on other nations with impunity. For all these reasons, the selection of Palin does not change my choice. I'll be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for President, and the best hope to restore Liberty to America.

Reagan Government too big for Ron Paul

Here is a hit piece on Ron at Capital Cloak, which is so ripe and full of misinformation that it begs to be Fisked. So here it is:

Reagan Mantle Too Big for Ron Paul

Actually, it was not his mantle, but his government that was too big. We libertarians believe that government should not interfere with your fireplace.

Libertarian conservatives have been busy artificially bolstering the myth that their presidential candidate of choice, Ron Paul, has a strong grass-roots base and wide appeal. During Fox News’ sophomoric cell phone text message voting during the second GOP presidential candidates’ debate, Ron Paul’s boosters voted early and often, causing the post-debate results to appear skewed toward the opinion that Paul was the winner of the debate, despite his trip to the proverbial woodshed courtesy of Rudy Giuliani for his argument that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Initially I thought that perhaps some of Paul’s poll votes were coming from Democrats hoping to dilute strong performances by Giuliani or Romney by voting for the least likely and most provocative of the candidates. However, comments posted by Paul supporters on conservative Internet sites or in blogs indicate that Paul is viewed by some as the only true conservative in the race and a champion of the constitution. Of course, Paul himself declares that he stands for the constitution, and on the surface that sounds like an honorable position to hold.

I am glad that on the surface you support the constitution. I hope that your support will broaden and deepen as time goes one. I suppose I should point out for those who did not see the debate that this is a misrepresentation of what Paul said. Don't take my word for it, watch the footage on youtube. Then consider the difference between causation and justification.

When it comes to government spending and government involvement in social matters, Paul’s urgings to limit government only to the duties expressly permitted by the constitution have appeal and resonate well in conservative circles. What conservative doesn’t want to see certain federal governmental departments disbanded and their duties reverted back to local and state authorities?

Well, if you define the Neo-Conmen as conservatives, they don't. They have expanded government in every area, foreign and domestic.

What conservative doesn’t want to see the dreaded income tax disappear?

Perhaps those who in 12 years in control of congress and 8 years in control of the entire government never bothered to try to get rid of it? But again, I'm assuming that you define neocons as conservatives.

To some conservatives, the economic/social aspects of Paul’s libertarian-leaning principles are a siren song by which they wish to be led, if only someone holding those views could actually secure the GOP nomination. Paul clearly is not a candidate that can win a national election, and for clear-thinking conservatives who can look past their own personal benefits from no income tax and smaller government, the reason for Paul’s lack of appeal is easy to identify.

So the logic is: if you vote for what you want, you might not get what you vote for. If you vote for what you do not want, however, you are sure to get it. Therefore you should vote for what you do not want. That's neocon logic.

Ron Paul is no Ronald Reagan. Paul’s supporters may claim he is the true representative of conservatism in the current candidate field, but Paul has an Achilles heel that keeps Reagan conservatives and Regan Democrats alike from ever considering him as anything more than a campaign footnote: He is selective about which portions of the constitution he would adhere to strictly, and “provide for the common defense” is not among them.

Actually, the reason Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq is because it is an offensive, not a defensive war. Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan, because it was, indeed, part of the common defense. He would have liked for Congress to live up to their constitutional duty and declare war even there, however.

In the second GOP candidates’ debate, Paul stated the following: They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald Reagan] was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting… …They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there. Reagan directly repudiated Paul’s isolationist foreign policies 23 years ago on the beach at Normandy, France, a site where American intervention in foreign affairs proved most decisive in freeing Europe from Nazi enslavement: The Boys of Pointe Du Hoc June 6, 1984, Normandy We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent. But we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.

Uhhh ... perhaps Mr. Reagan should have referred to governments with expansionist intent and some way to do something about it. It is amazing to me that people can turn Hussein, whose military we defeated in a few weeks, into Hitler, who actually had a larger military then we when WWII stared.

Reagan conservatives and Reagan Democrats need look no further than Reagan’s statement to find sufficient reason to shun Ron Paul’s isolationist ideas. Paul claimed during the second GOP candidates’ debate that the U.S. has been bombing Iraq for 10 years, as if it were unjustified and indiscriminate bombing of cities. That is patently false. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. had occasionally bombed Iraq’s air defense stations or shot down Iraqi aircraft because Iraq regularly violated the no-fly zone enacted by the cease-fire that halted the first Gulf War. Paul chooses to ignore the fact that the Gulf War was, as Reagan prescribed, a “response to a tyrannical government with an expansionist intent.” Saddam invaded neighboring Kuwait solely for expansionist and economic motives. He wanted Kuwait’s oil and Kuwait’s ports, and Kuwait’s accumulated wealth, and so decided to take it by force. World leaders in 1991 had the fortitude to band together and, led by the U.S. military, pushed Saddam back behind his original borders. Had Saddam not violated the terms of the cease-fire by targeting our aircraft, there would have been no need for any further bombing. The defense of the no-fly zone lasted from 1991 until Operation Iraqi Freedom made it a moot point by removing Saddam from the equation because of his failure to abide by any of the UN conditions for the cease-fire enacted in 1991. Thus the current Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely a resumption of hostilities and is a continuation of the Gulf War.

So the United States should remove any government that violates UN resolutions? Does this include Israel, which refuses to abide by UN resolution 242 (among dozens of other resolutions)? Personally, I am opposed to your proposed invasion of Israel. The United States should simply withdraw from the UN, which has no business commanding US troops who enlisted in the US military to defend the United States. If the UN wants it's resolutions enforced, they should raise an army, and they should pay for it. Of course the UN resolution thing is a thin justification for our attack on Iraq, since they didn't want us to go. But if it had been a good idea to go, I would have said "Go, and the UN be damned". I also would have opposed any suggestion that we invade ourselves for ignoring the resolution.

Saddam, like Hitler, was removed, and rebuilding a nation and protecting it from foreign interference by those with designs on fomenting chaos, much like post WWII, is why our troops remain in Iraq. Had Ron Paul been president instead of Truman or Eisenhower, all of Germany would have fallen under Soviet occupation and Japan would have been overrun by Soviet or Chinese forces seeking retribution because Paul would have pulled American troops out of both places and brought them home immediately upon conclusion of the war. There would have been no Marshall Plan, no rebuilding and friendship alliance with Japan. No BMWs; no VWs; no Hondas; no Toyotas. Likewise, in Paul’s isolationist world, there would be no democratic South Korea. There would only be communist Korea, since Paul would not have committed U.S. troops to defend the free people of South Korea.

Wow ... that is one commonality between Saddam and Hitler. They're dead. They also had really funky mustaches. Maybe these comparisons of Hitler, who commanded a huge military and could actually threaten the world, and Hussein, who commanded a tiny military and could actually threaten a country the size of Rhode Island, are not as absurd as I thought.

Ron Paul wants America to approach foreign policy with a pre-WWI mentality, when the mindset centered on the idea that America should not involve itself in any foreign war, and we nearly allowed all of Europe to be defeated by Germany. That war was so destructive that the isolationists redoubled their efforts between 1919 and 1941 to keep America from ever entangling itself in a foreign war. That isolationism resulted in Nazi occupation of continental Europe and Scandinavia, and horrific bombings of England. It also cost 6 million Jews their lives while Americans, who thought then as Ron Paul now does about intervention, stood silently on the sidelines of history, much to their condemnation.

Well, it would have been interesting to watch Hussein try to take over Europe. Turkey might have cooperated with him, allowing him to get as far as ... Greece. And then he would have been a grease spot, because Greece is part of the EU. Please don't think that I"m implying that the EU is not militarily pathetic. Just that they were not as pathetic as Hussein. Of course if we announce that the EU is responsible for defending themselves, they have economies that would allow them to defend themselves. This is in stark contrast to Iraq.

Paul’s supporters should consider another sentence from Reagan’s powerful speech at Normandy. His explanation for why America’s military remained in Europe to confront potential Soviet aggression long after WWII, was simple, profound, and prophetic of our continued presence in Iraq: Today, as forty years ago, our armies are here for only one purpose: to protect and defend democracy.

Actually, Reagan was paraphrasing Wilson, who entered into WWI, to "make the world safe for democracy", and thereby turned what would have been a defeat of the Kaiser into a rout of the Kaiser, and thereby ensured the rise of Hitler. I guess blowback is not a new concept after all?

Regardless of how Iraq’s democracy came into existence, it is there now. Iraq has a constitution. Iraq has a democratically elected parliament that represents the wide variety of religious and tribal divisions of its population. It is imperfect, and it is often contentious, but so was America’s in its early years. The question Paul should be forced to address is, “Does America have a duty or role in history to protect and defend democracy in the world?” As an isolationist he will argue that such is not America’s role as it is not defined in the constitution. Reagan understood history far better than Paul, who would like to believe that the world begins and ends at America’s shores and nothing that occurs in foreign lands is worthy of intervention unless American interests are directly threatened. Technically speaking, from an economic/trade point of view, would it have made any difference to isolationists like Paul if Europe had been enslaved by Hitler as long as Hitler let America alone? America could have conducted normal trade in goods with Nazi Europe, including lucrative arms sales. Rescuing Britain, France, and Italy from Nazi control certainly involved an enormously “entangling alliance,” something George Washington warned of and Paul concurs with wholeheartedly. Why then did America free Europe and remain there in defensive posture for decades? The answer, as Reagan stated so perfectly, is that isolationism has never been and never will be an appropriate response to tyranny. Tyranny must be confronted wherever it exists, defeated, and replaced by freedom. Ron Paul would rather put his head in the sand and selfishly keep democracy and liberty all to himself.

Actually, I get the idea that Ron Paul believes we should avoid sand. Of course he does not want to keep democracy to himself. He just recognizes that if you impose democracy on people who do not want it, they will vote it away, and that when you force liberty on people at gunpoint, you have not freed them. The mindset in the Middle East is not quite what prevailed in America during and after the Revolution. If you want liberty and democracy, you have to be willing to die for it. We were. They are not.

Reagan understood something that Paul does not: America does not hold an exclusive right to freedom. America does not possess liberty out of luck or superior intellect. America is free and powerful because it is destined to use that power to spread and preserve freedom throughout the world. Paul’s strict but selective constitutional adherence seems to ignore that the right to liberty is identified in the Declaration of Independence, not as an American, English, or French right, but a right that belongs to all men, presumably even those in the Middle East whom Paul would abandon as apparently unworthy of these Jeffersonian words: 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.

I don't think that Paul ever said we should prevent Iraq from gaining freedom, if and when they want it. Just that we should not try to impose it on them, when they do not.

This is the great issue of our time, and Paul falls woefully short in his willingness to engage in the defense of freedom. His GOP opponents more closely resemble the Reagan tradition. For example, when asked in the third GOP candidates’ debate what was the most important moral issue facing America, Giuliani replied that the greatest moral issue is whether America will share its blessings of freedom and liberty with the rest of the world. Conservatives should not allow themselves to be fooled by the Ron Paul Internet “phenomenon.” Paul was declared the winner of two GOP candidates’ debates by MSNBC, CNN, Politico, Slate, ABC News, and myriad other left-leaning media sources. A review of Wikipedia’s Ron Paul page certainly could leave an undiscerning reader with the idea that Paul has widespread support and is whipping all comers in the GOP debates. The liberal slant is obvious. Clearly from an ideological perspective liberals do not embrace Ron Paul’s libertarian views, so why is he the darling of the media and many Internet blogs? Quite simply, it is because Paul is 2008’s Ross Perot. If even 3 percent of conservative voters are swayed by Paul, it could spell the difference in a tight race and throw victory to the left, just as Perot’s theatrics did in 1992 and 1996. The left knows this and is in fact counting on it for victory.

The problem with defending freedom abroad is that in order to do so, you have to destroy it at home. Have a look at the Patriot Act, or the draft for Vietnam and Korea, or an income tax form if you do not understand this concept

Libertarian conservatives should not worship Paul as the constitutional savior they hold him out to be, and Reagan Conservatives and Reagan Democrats should remember that Paul is an isolationist hoarder of liberty, unwilling to preserve it among nations who possess it or share it with oppressed peoples who long for it and implore America to help them obtain it.

I suppose that Washington and Jefferson, by your definition, were "hoarders" of liberty, when they suggested "free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none". But they never suggested that we should prevent people who so desired from achieving liberty. It is not like, were they to achieve liberty on their own, we would somehow have less. You cannot hoard liberty. If the Iraqis truly wanted it, they could have removed Hussein themselves. I think that you fail to understand what Reagan did understand (at least after Lebanon): the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. If you need help in this respect, have a look at the irrationality of your own.

Bush: Imperial President?

Analysis of Bush Presidency. Has he misunderedtimated the Constitution?

Why do they hate us? Let me count the whys! (Part 1)

The Insomniac Giant

Teacher

...so why would [the independents] fight so hard against us?

River

We meddle.

Teacher

River?

River

People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run don't walk we're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

Teacher

River, we're not telling people what to think. We're just trying to show them how.

From Joss Wheden's Serenity

After the surprise attack on Perl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Isoruku Yamamoto is quoted (possibly apocryphally) as saying "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.". Not only did the Japanese wake a sleeping giant, but apparently they also induced insomnia, as the giant has never slept again.

Since that fateful day, the United States has been involved in innumerable wars, all unjustifiable, with the exception of World War II itself, and possibly Afghanistan. The exceptions should illustrate my criterion for a justifiable war: a justifiable war is one which is a purely defensive war. World War II clearly began with an attack on the United States. Afghanistan may have been justified by the attack on the World Trade Center. All of the others were offensive wars. This includes those which have been called "police actions", "peacekeeping missions" and the like. They were attacks on countries which had not attacked us first. And that cannot be justified.

Remember those who Starve! A poster from one of the many Soviet famines.

The Cold War served as a container for many of these wars. They were merely battles in that larger undeclared conflict. But the Cold War itself was unjustifiable as it did not follow an attack or attempted attack on America. It followed rhetorical attacks on America. That's not nearly good enough. Some will way "what, are you a socialist?". Hardly. It is precisely because I have so little respect for socialism that I oppose the Cold War. Socialism is not a viable way to organize an economy.. It's not just unjust. It's not just unAmerican. It's also unworkable. And therefore we were fighting a paper tiger. Socialism collapsed under the weight of it's own stupidity. And by providing Stalin and his ilk with an enemy to scapegoat, we probably prolonged it's existence. Note the famines that were recurrent in the Soviet Union. You cannot fight effectively in the long run if you cannot even manage a working economy.

 

But our government felt the need to fight the Soviet Union. And to fight Korea. And to fight Vietnam. And to fund Israel as a foil to the Soviet Union. And to fund the Shah of Iran as a foil to the Soviet Union. And to fund just about every dictator to take over any country, as a foil to the Soviet Union. They, of course, took offense and funded every dictator that we weren't funding (and some that we were) as a foil against us. And so it went. The Cold War was a wet dream for any dictator, be he right wing, left wing, or pure authoritarian. One doesn't find many Libertarian dictators.

The problem is, the dictator business is hard work. Dictators have to relax. And the favorite way for dictators to relax is to kill people. Sometimes he kills his serfs. Sometimes he kills people in a neighboring country. There are lots of people in the world, and any dictator who looks around can find somebody he wants to kill. And with his shiny new American F-16 (dictators generally like shiny things, that's why they wear so many medals), available at deep discount prices and easy credit terms from Crazy Georgie's Discount Dictator Supply House, you can kill 'em in style.

Of course every nation, like every individual, has the right to keep and bear arms. And like the companies that sell weapons to individuals, the companies that sell weapons to governments should not be held accountable for how those weapons are used. But when a nation gives weapons away, that's a bit different. That is an endorsement of the policies of that country/dictator to whom you give the weapons. And we picked some real winners.

Of course the people upon whom the weapons are fired and the bombs dropped feel rather put out by the whole affair. And they blame America. Sometimes they make up conspiracy theories to explain why we do the things we do. They say we fund Israel because of the Zionist Lobby. They say we funded Noriega so that he would give cocaine to the CIA to import into America. They say we hate blacks, and Jews, and Arabs, and Spanish speakers, and the French (most of use really aren't crazy about the French), and pretty much everybody else. And if you look at the people our weapons have been used on, you might even think it true. But here is the deep dark secret to which nobody wants to admit. Giants aren't that bright. They bumble and they bluster and they step on people and they cause floods whenever they take a piss. But giants aren't evil. They've just got a dangerous combination of big and dumb. There is only one way to make a Giant safe: put him back to sleep. When they're sleeping, they look soooo peaceful!