For those who think that the Democrats are the anti-war option, please refer to page 33 of the Democrat Party platform.
"We believe we must also be willing to consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability–to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities."
When it comes to war and peace, the Republicans and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
She'd make a great VP, but...
McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate will certainly make the presidential race more interesting. From what I have heard and read about her she sounds like an actual conservative (as opposed to McCain). She is for drilling in ANWR (as opposed to McCain). And she is definitely not a Beltway insider or an elitist (as opposed to McCain). And she is pretty (as opposed to McCain). All of these are good things. Although, I would like to know more about where she stands on certain issues such as immigration and the Iraq War (since McCain is abysmal on both). But if she were running for Governor of Texas, she would likely have my vote.
Considering that the traditional role of the Vice President is largely symbolic, Palin would probably make a great VP. The only problem is that sometimes the Vice President becomes the President. Based on history, there is a 20% chance that she will become President prior to the 2012 election. Nine VPs have assumed the office of President; four as the result of natural death of the President, four by assassination, and one by resignation.
Three years removed from being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 6,715); there is no way that Palin is prepared to be one breath away from being the leader of free world. According to McCain, "we live in a very dangerous world." He says, "And there are situations which can arise which are not readily foreseen, ...that in my view require experience, knowledge, and judgment." Palin is definitely lacking in experience and her knowledge and judgment are still unproven. If McCain is serious about the world being a dangerous place, then his selection of a running mate is very unserious. If Palin were a man with the same resume, she/he would never have even been considered.
Considering that the traditional role of the Vice President is largely symbolic, Palin would probably make a great VP. The only problem is that sometimes the Vice President becomes the President. Based on history, there is a 20% chance that she will become President prior to the 2012 election. Nine VPs have assumed the office of President; four as the result of natural death of the President, four by assassination, and one by resignation.
Three years removed from being the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 6,715); there is no way that Palin is prepared to be one breath away from being the leader of free world. According to McCain, "we live in a very dangerous world." He says, "And there are situations which can arise which are not readily foreseen, ...that in my view require experience, knowledge, and judgment." Palin is definitely lacking in experience and her knowledge and judgment are still unproven. If McCain is serious about the world being a dangerous place, then his selection of a running mate is very unserious. If Palin were a man with the same resume, she/he would never have even been considered.
Monday, August 25, 2008
John McCain doesn't speak for this American
John McCain recounted to a town hall meeting audience last week the conversation that he had with Georgian President Saakashvili, when he told the president that "...I know I speak for every American when I say...today, we are all Georgians." I'm confident that 9 out of 10 Americans (at a minimum) can't locate Georgia on a map, don't know the names of the Georgian capital or president, and can't pronounce the names of either if they were to see them written on a page. And it is not that Americans are just ignorant (although we mostly are), but that Georgia is just inconsequential to the everyday life of the average American.
McCain's arrogant claim to speak for every American would be amusing if McCain wasn't ready to pledge American blood and money to defend this country that no one knows about. If McCain had his way, Georgia would be a member of NATO and the US would be obligated to defend her against attack. If McCain had his way, American soldiers and marines would be dying in Georgia. What exactly is the vital US interest in Georgia that would justify the loss of a single American life?
Personally, I prefer the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers to the interventionist foreign policy of McCain and his neocon advisers. As Washington said in his farewell address, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. ...Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. ...Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
If only today's politicians (both Republican and Democrat) would abide by Washington's "great rule of conduct."
McCain's arrogant claim to speak for every American would be amusing if McCain wasn't ready to pledge American blood and money to defend this country that no one knows about. If McCain had his way, Georgia would be a member of NATO and the US would be obligated to defend her against attack. If McCain had his way, American soldiers and marines would be dying in Georgia. What exactly is the vital US interest in Georgia that would justify the loss of a single American life?
Personally, I prefer the foreign policy of our Founding Fathers to the interventionist foreign policy of McCain and his neocon advisers. As Washington said in his farewell address, "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. ...Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. ...Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"
If only today's politicians (both Republican and Democrat) would abide by Washington's "great rule of conduct."
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
I'm Embarrassed for Big John
This video was Senator Cornyn's introduction at the TX State Republican Convention. As a Texan, I'm embarrassed. Apparently someone on Cornyn's staff thought that this was a good idea. But can he blame his staff for the fringed buckskin jacket that he is sporting at 2:13 in the video. Unless you are Davey Crockett, this is not a look that any straight man should try to pull off.
I voted for "Big John" in 2002, but I haven't been happy with Cornyn and no longer identify myself with the Republican party. I know how Ronald Reagan felt in 1962 when he switched parties and said, "I didn't leave the Democrat Party. The party left me." I'm still undecided so far in this year's election. I may opt to stay home on election day, or "waste" my vote on the Libertarian candidate. This video definitely does not bolster the likelihood of Cornyn getting my vote.
Friday, June 13, 2008
The Revolution, A Manifesto (Review, Part 1 of 2)
Manifesto, def. "A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature."
I pre-ordered my copy of the book on Amazon and eagerly awaited it's April 30 release date. Apparently I was not alone, because Ron Paul's The Revolution, A Manifesto is at No. 5 in it's 4th week on the New York Times bestseller list after holding the top spot two weeks ago (as of June 1). Although already familiar with Dr. Paul's philosophy from following his presidential campaign and reading his articles and speeches at the Ron Paul Library, I still read the book with interest. Paul outlines the principles that ignited the "Revolution" among many folks like myself who are sick and tired of politics as usual.
Paul begins with the "false choices of American politics." He argues that there is little disagreement between the two political parties (or the R and D factions of the Government Party as I call them) on fundamental issues. The two parties may disagree on who to bomb, but neither party questions the American prerogative to wage preemptive war or play the role of world policeman. The issues that are discussed are mainly a distraction.
Dr. Paul explains the basis for his own political views; the beliefs (specifically the foreign policy) of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Paul expounds on his foreign policy of non-intervention. He is not an isolationist; to the contrary, Paul's foreign policy is that of Washington and Jefferson, and is summed up by this quote from Jefferson's first inaugural address, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Because of Paul's foreign policy views, his political adversaries have attempted (with success) to tie him to the 'blame America first' crowd. Paul, while believing that the 9/11 terrorists were solely responsible for their actions and that the sponsors of terrorism should be found and punished, does make the case that America's interventionist policies are bound to cause resentment. Resentment may then lead to the desire for revenge; and as Paul writes, "That revenge, in its various form, is what our CIA calls blowback - the unintended consequences of military intervention." We do not operate in a vacuum, and should not be surprised when our actions have repercussions.
Unfortunately, the government's policy of intervention around the world is accepted by both major political parties (again with the "false choices"). It not only makes us less secure, but also bears a huge cost; both in blood and dollars. The cost in terms of lives lost and shattered is enormous. 4,000+ dead American servicemen, tens of thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and 4 million Iraqi refugees. Estimates for the cost of the Iraq War are now between $2-3 trillion. This at a time when the dollar is in a downward spiral. The Iraq War vindicates Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
Dr. Paul takes his oath of office seriously. When he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he meant it. During his time in Congress, Paul's vow to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" has earned him the nickname Dr. No. Paul illustrates the assault on our Constitution; not by some foreign terrorist, but the government. All three branches of the government have been contemptuous of the Constitution over the last several years.
Paul describes how the power of the executive branch since 9/11 has expanded beyond anything intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution. And how Congressional silence on executive orders and signing statements has granted implicit approval to the President's abuse of power. The singing statement is especially egregious. A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued when the President signs a bill into law. The signing statement has been used extensively by President Bush to express how, or if, he intends to enforce the provisions of the law. Paul quotes Jonathon Turley, "By using signing statements to this extent, the president become a government unto himself."
Paul goes on to make the case that the Constitution is not a "living document." If the American feel the need to change the Constitution, then there is the amendment process - as opposed to the courts interpreting the Constitution to the further a social agenda, or politicians just ignoring the document. Paul believes in original intent; that we should always consider the original intentions of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.
Case in point. The Constitution gives the authority to declare war solely to Congress. Both parties have regularly ignored this clause of the Constitution and accepted the President's authority to commit the country to war since the Korean War began in 1950. Paul believes that the American people, through their elected representatives, should have some input on whether the US goes to war. After all, the American Revolution was fought to rid ourselves of a king. Dr. Paul quotes Robert Taft, Paul's 1950's kindred spirit, "If the President has unlimited power to involve us in war, war is more likely. History shows that...arbitrary rules are more inlined to favor war than are the people, at any time."
A President more likely to commit the country to war needs cannon fodder. A historic source of young bodies to fill the ranks is a military draft. Paul expresses his great disdain for the draft and presents his case in opposition on both moral and constitutional grounds. According to Paul, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as wishes." The draft is antithetic to the American ideals of freedom and liberty.
Part 2 coming soon. Covering abortion, economics and civil liberties.
I pre-ordered my copy of the book on Amazon and eagerly awaited it's April 30 release date. Apparently I was not alone, because Ron Paul's The Revolution, A Manifesto is at No. 5 in it's 4th week on the New York Times bestseller list after holding the top spot two weeks ago (as of June 1). Although already familiar with Dr. Paul's philosophy from following his presidential campaign and reading his articles and speeches at the Ron Paul Library, I still read the book with interest. Paul outlines the principles that ignited the "Revolution" among many folks like myself who are sick and tired of politics as usual.
Paul begins with the "false choices of American politics." He argues that there is little disagreement between the two political parties (or the R and D factions of the Government Party as I call them) on fundamental issues. The two parties may disagree on who to bomb, but neither party questions the American prerogative to wage preemptive war or play the role of world policeman. The issues that are discussed are mainly a distraction.
Dr. Paul explains the basis for his own political views; the beliefs (specifically the foreign policy) of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Paul expounds on his foreign policy of non-intervention. He is not an isolationist; to the contrary, Paul's foreign policy is that of Washington and Jefferson, and is summed up by this quote from Jefferson's first inaugural address, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Because of Paul's foreign policy views, his political adversaries have attempted (with success) to tie him to the 'blame America first' crowd. Paul, while believing that the 9/11 terrorists were solely responsible for their actions and that the sponsors of terrorism should be found and punished, does make the case that America's interventionist policies are bound to cause resentment. Resentment may then lead to the desire for revenge; and as Paul writes, "That revenge, in its various form, is what our CIA calls blowback - the unintended consequences of military intervention." We do not operate in a vacuum, and should not be surprised when our actions have repercussions.
Unfortunately, the government's policy of intervention around the world is accepted by both major political parties (again with the "false choices"). It not only makes us less secure, but also bears a huge cost; both in blood and dollars. The cost in terms of lives lost and shattered is enormous. 4,000+ dead American servicemen, tens of thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and 4 million Iraqi refugees. Estimates for the cost of the Iraq War are now between $2-3 trillion. This at a time when the dollar is in a downward spiral. The Iraq War vindicates Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.
Dr. Paul takes his oath of office seriously. When he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he meant it. During his time in Congress, Paul's vow to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" has earned him the nickname Dr. No. Paul illustrates the assault on our Constitution; not by some foreign terrorist, but the government. All three branches of the government have been contemptuous of the Constitution over the last several years.
Paul describes how the power of the executive branch since 9/11 has expanded beyond anything intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution. And how Congressional silence on executive orders and signing statements has granted implicit approval to the President's abuse of power. The singing statement is especially egregious. A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued when the President signs a bill into law. The signing statement has been used extensively by President Bush to express how, or if, he intends to enforce the provisions of the law. Paul quotes Jonathon Turley, "By using signing statements to this extent, the president become a government unto himself."
Paul goes on to make the case that the Constitution is not a "living document." If the American feel the need to change the Constitution, then there is the amendment process - as opposed to the courts interpreting the Constitution to the further a social agenda, or politicians just ignoring the document. Paul believes in original intent; that we should always consider the original intentions of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.
Case in point. The Constitution gives the authority to declare war solely to Congress. Both parties have regularly ignored this clause of the Constitution and accepted the President's authority to commit the country to war since the Korean War began in 1950. Paul believes that the American people, through their elected representatives, should have some input on whether the US goes to war. After all, the American Revolution was fought to rid ourselves of a king. Dr. Paul quotes Robert Taft, Paul's 1950's kindred spirit, "If the President has unlimited power to involve us in war, war is more likely. History shows that...arbitrary rules are more inlined to favor war than are the people, at any time."
A President more likely to commit the country to war needs cannon fodder. A historic source of young bodies to fill the ranks is a military draft. Paul expresses his great disdain for the draft and presents his case in opposition on both moral and constitutional grounds. According to Paul, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as wishes." The draft is antithetic to the American ideals of freedom and liberty.
Part 2 coming soon. Covering abortion, economics and civil liberties.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
This is a bad idea
Vacation Bible School is a summer tradition at my house. Growing up Southern Baptist and now raising my own family in the Baptist faith tradition; one week every summer was and is set aside for VBS.
VBS includes Bible lessons, crafts, songs and activities such as puppet shows. It is an opportunity to reach out to the community and invite unchurched kids to attend a fun summertime event (giving kids something to do and their mothers a break from kids with nothing to do). VBS is staffed by church volunteers (i.e., moms).
I was made aware of this latest incarnation of VBS when my sister-in-law went to register her son for VBS at a local church.
"Children will enjoy...The coolest water recreations, delicious snacks, fantastic crafts, and incredible entertainment!
Cost is $30 per child. This is all-inclusive, children will not need additional money during the week."
All-inclusive!? Is there an open bar? The church advertises this on their website as if were some kind of a bargain. Hopefully the pay-to-play VBS scheme is not too commonplace. It seems to miss the whole point of what vacation bible school is all about.
VBS includes Bible lessons, crafts, songs and activities such as puppet shows. It is an opportunity to reach out to the community and invite unchurched kids to attend a fun summertime event (giving kids something to do and their mothers a break from kids with nothing to do). VBS is staffed by church volunteers (i.e., moms).
I was made aware of this latest incarnation of VBS when my sister-in-law went to register her son for VBS at a local church.
"Children will enjoy...The coolest water recreations, delicious snacks, fantastic crafts, and incredible entertainment!
Cost is $30 per child. This is all-inclusive, children will not need additional money during the week."
All-inclusive!? Is there an open bar? The church advertises this on their website as if were some kind of a bargain. Hopefully the pay-to-play VBS scheme is not too commonplace. It seems to miss the whole point of what vacation bible school is all about.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
There is still hope
In Texas today, the rule of law prevailed and a tiny bit of my faith in the system was restored. State-sponsored child abduction is not condoned by Texas courts. The Supreme Court of Texas ruled that the Child Protective Service illegally seized 468 children from their parents at the West Texas polygamist cult compound. The court stopped short of calling the CPS abduction of the polygamist's kids what it really was - collective punishment and an assault on the freedom of association.
The court ruling was based on common sense - if a case is to be made that abuse has occurred/is occurring, then present the evidence. And if there is no evidence, then send the kids home. I was happily surprised to hear that the state says that it will take immediate steps to comply with the ruling. However, I will believe it when the kids are actually returned to their parents. The state rarely relinquishes power so freely.
See various media coverage here, here, here and here.
Update: As I suspected, the state is dragging it's feet on returning the kids to their parents.
The court ruling was based on common sense - if a case is to be made that abuse has occurred/is occurring, then present the evidence. And if there is no evidence, then send the kids home. I was happily surprised to hear that the state says that it will take immediate steps to comply with the ruling. However, I will believe it when the kids are actually returned to their parents. The state rarely relinquishes power so freely.
See various media coverage here, here, here and here.
Update: As I suspected, the state is dragging it's feet on returning the kids to their parents.
Friday, May 23, 2008
McCain shoots Republican base the bird, again
John McCain told business leaders today that immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president. Quoting the New York Times, in regard to the failed McCain-Kennedy immigration bill that would have granted amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens, "Mr. McCain expressed regret the measure did not pass, calling it a personal “failure,” as well as one by the federal government.
“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”
Saving the best for last, McCain said, “They are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion.” After all, they are honest, hardworking people - except for these POS (pardon my abbreviated French) and thousands more like them (see here, here, here and here) .
Lipstick on a pig
"You can put lipstick and earrings on a pig, and call her Peggy Sue, but it’s still a pig." Patrick J. Buchanan
See here Pat Buchanan's commentary on the California court's gay marriage ruling. Buchanan is right on the money, as usual.
See here Jesus on marriage: "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” " Matthew 19:4-6
See here Pat Buchanan's commentary on the California court's gay marriage ruling. Buchanan is right on the money, as usual.
See here Jesus on marriage: "And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” " Matthew 19:4-6
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
McCain's supposed principles
From a McCain press release today regarding Obama and national security:
"With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros -- a 'gesture of good faith' as Senator Obama said yesterday -- it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles."
I, for one, believe that the US government should stop punishing the Cuban people, end the trade embargo and establish diplomatic relations with Cuba - but that is not the point. The point is McCain's hypocrisy regarding his supposed principles. He has no qualms about dealing with China.
Even though he acknowledges the "suppression of rights in China," McCain says, "Our relationship with China is important, and we value our ability to cooperate with the Chinese government on a wide variety of strategic, economic, and diplomatic fronts." So what McCain is actually saying is that we cannot compromise our principles unless you sell us a bunch of cheap crap.
Update: Cuba is listed alongside US trading partners China, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia in a report on the world's most oppressive societies prepared by Freedom House.
So why should the US establish relations with Cuba? To quote Ron Paul, "History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies." This is the approach that we have taken towards China. Why does it not apply to Cuba?
"With respect to Cuba, it is not America that needs to make unilateral concessions to the Castros -- a 'gesture of good faith' as Senator Obama said yesterday -- it is the Castro brothers who must allow the freedom they have so long denied to the Cuban people. Free the political prisoners, open the media, allow people to worship, schedule free and fair elections, and the United States will be happy to meet and talk. Until then, we cannot compromise our principles."
I, for one, believe that the US government should stop punishing the Cuban people, end the trade embargo and establish diplomatic relations with Cuba - but that is not the point. The point is McCain's hypocrisy regarding his supposed principles. He has no qualms about dealing with China.
Even though he acknowledges the "suppression of rights in China," McCain says, "Our relationship with China is important, and we value our ability to cooperate with the Chinese government on a wide variety of strategic, economic, and diplomatic fronts." So what McCain is actually saying is that we cannot compromise our principles unless you sell us a bunch of cheap crap.
Update: Cuba is listed alongside US trading partners China, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia in a report on the world's most oppressive societies prepared by Freedom House.
So why should the US establish relations with Cuba? To quote Ron Paul, "History clearly shows that free and open trade does far more to liberalize oppressive governments than trade wars. Economic freedom and political freedom are inextricably linked--when people get a taste of goods and information from abroad, they are less likely to tolerate a closed society at home. So while sanctions may serve our patriotic fervor, they mostly harm innocent citizens and do nothing to displace the governments we claim as enemies." This is the approach that we have taken towards China. Why does it not apply to Cuba?
Friday, May 16, 2008
McCain's Pipe Dream
I've read the text of John McCain's speech from May 15 (see text here) about what he hopes to achieve during his first term as president. It was one of the most idealistic, utopian pieces of fantasy that I've ever read, with no basis whatsoever in reality. The intended audience was apparently a class of grade school kids. In the first paragraph of the speech, McCain states, "We [candidates] spend too little time and offer too few specifics on that most important of questions". McCain then goes on to deliver a 3,000+ word speech with no specifics. Here are a few examples:
- "The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy..."
- "The Government of Pakistan has cooperated with the U.S. in successfully adapting the counterinsurgency tactics that worked so well in Iraq and Afghanistan to its lawless tribal areas where al Qaeda fighters are based."
- "The size of the Army and Marine Corps has been significantly increased, and are now better equipped and trained to defend us."
- "Encouraged by the success (in Sudan), the League is now occupied with using the economic power and prestige of its member states to end other gross abuses of human rights such as the despicable crime of human trafficking."
McCain promises to expand our role as self-appointed policeman of the world.
- "Community colleges and technical schools all over the country have developed worker retraining programs suited to the specific economic opportunities available in their communities and are helping millions of workers who have lost a job that won't come back find a new one that won't go away."
What are these new jobs that won't go away? I may want to steer my kids in that direction.
- "Public education in the United States is much improved thanks to the competition provided by charter and private schools...Test scores and graduation rates are rising everywhere in the country."
Charter and private schools. Don't we have those now?
- "The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil; progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well."
How does McCain intend to do this? Ethanol? Invading and annexing Iran?
- "Construction has begun on twenty new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process."
- "Voluntary national service has grown in popularity in part because of the educational benefits used as incentives, as well as frequent appeals from the bully pulpit of the White House, but mostly because the young Americans, no less than earlier generations, understand that true happiness is much greater than the pursuit of pleasure, and can only be found by serving causes greater than self-interest."
And who can say no to:
- "The United States has experienced several years of robust economic growth, and Americans again have confidence in their economic future."
- "The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved."
- "Health care has become more accessible to more Americans than at any other time in history."
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Definition of Marriage
According to my version of Webster's (touted on the cover jacket as "Today's Most Up-To-Date Dictionary" when published in 1984), marriage is defined as: Legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
According to the California Supreme Court (comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges) , CA law limiting marriage to a man and woman violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.
Apparently a dictionary was not available during deliberations of the court.
According to the California Supreme Court (comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges) , CA law limiting marriage to a man and woman violates the constitutional rights of same-sex couples.
Apparently a dictionary was not available during deliberations of the court.
C.S. Lewis Quote of the Day
“If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilisation, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilisation, compared with his, is only a moment.”C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I've been pondering on this quote for the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure it means what I think it means.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
McCain Won't Jaw-Jaw
John McCain was on the Hugh Hewitt show today and talked about Barack Obama's willingness to meet with and talk to the leaders of Iran and Cuba. (see transcript) McCain said, "...but I do now that he does not, has not displayed the judgment which comes from experience and knowledge and background, whether it be saying that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad and talk face to face with him, or Raul Castro and talk directly to him..." I personally don't see Obama's suggested attempt to settle disputes with our enemies peacefully as some outrageous betrayal of God, mom and apple pie. As Winston Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." And Churchill was quite the war-monger himself.
It is not as if sit-down talks with our nation's enemies are unprecedented. As Obama has said, "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.” Numerous US-Soviet summits were held during the Cold War. Eisenhower and Kennedy both met with Khrushchev. Johnson met with Soviet Premier Kosygin in 1967, while the Soviets were supplying and training our enemy in Vietnam (the same thing that we have accused the Iranians of doing). Nixon, Ford and Carter each met with Brezhnev. Reagan met with Gorbachev, leading up to the peaceful end of the Soviet Union.
Instead of showing leadership, McCain sounds more like a child whose feelings have been hurt. He is going to take his ball and go home (or bomb Iran).
And by the way, I'm no fan of Obama. I believe that he is a far-left liberal and there is not a snowballs chance in h&!! that I would ever vote for him (I also think that Hugh Hewitt is a wanker).
It is not as if sit-down talks with our nation's enemies are unprecedented. As Obama has said, "Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.” Numerous US-Soviet summits were held during the Cold War. Eisenhower and Kennedy both met with Khrushchev. Johnson met with Soviet Premier Kosygin in 1967, while the Soviets were supplying and training our enemy in Vietnam (the same thing that we have accused the Iranians of doing). Nixon, Ford and Carter each met with Brezhnev. Reagan met with Gorbachev, leading up to the peaceful end of the Soviet Union.
Instead of showing leadership, McCain sounds more like a child whose feelings have been hurt. He is going to take his ball and go home (or bomb Iran).
And by the way, I'm no fan of Obama. I believe that he is a far-left liberal and there is not a snowballs chance in h&!! that I would ever vote for him (I also think that Hugh Hewitt is a wanker).
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
McCain shoots Republican base the bird
McCain proves yet again that his views on immigration are more aligned with Ted Kennedy than with the Republican base. McCain used Cinco de Mayo to launch a Spanish language website and reach out to Hispanic voters. Why the Spanish language website? The ability to speak English is supposedly a prerequisite for American citizenship (and the right to vote that comes with citizenship).
McCain said that "everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message." Well, not quite everything. In fact, Hispanics don't share traditional conservative social values with the typical Republican voter. The illegitimacy rate for Hispanics is double that of whites (roughly 50% to 25%). The high school dropout rate is 3.5 times that of whites and double that of blacks (22%, 6% and 10% respectively). [Note that these numbers are from the US Dept. of Education, so I'm guessing that the numbers for all three groups are probably twice as high in actuality.] I could go on... So much for the strong Hispanic family values touted by the open borders crowd (McCain included).
McCain also said, "A lot of times it saddens me to see these conflicting approaches toward the issue of illegal immigration because we would not have this problem if the federal government had carried out its responsibilities." Wait, does he mean that the government should have carried out its responsibilities and enforced the law, secured the border and deported illegal aliens. No. McCain means that the government should have granted amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens that reside in our country.
Republicans that turned a blind eye to the real John McCain will get what they deserve if he is elected president.
McCain said that "everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message." Well, not quite everything. In fact, Hispanics don't share traditional conservative social values with the typical Republican voter. The illegitimacy rate for Hispanics is double that of whites (roughly 50% to 25%). The high school dropout rate is 3.5 times that of whites and double that of blacks (22%, 6% and 10% respectively). [Note that these numbers are from the US Dept. of Education, so I'm guessing that the numbers for all three groups are probably twice as high in actuality.] I could go on... So much for the strong Hispanic family values touted by the open borders crowd (McCain included).
McCain also said, "A lot of times it saddens me to see these conflicting approaches toward the issue of illegal immigration because we would not have this problem if the federal government had carried out its responsibilities." Wait, does he mean that the government should have carried out its responsibilities and enforced the law, secured the border and deported illegal aliens. No. McCain means that the government should have granted amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens that reside in our country.
Republicans that turned a blind eye to the real John McCain will get what they deserve if he is elected president.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Federal Gas Tax Holiday Just a Gimmick
Candidates Clinton and McCain are both doing what politicians do best - pandering for votes and making empty promises. They have both tried to take advantage of voter's concerns over high gasoline prices by talking about a federal gas tax holiday (pandering for votes). I calculated that a suspension of the 18¢ a gallon gas tax for the summer months would save my family around $60-75. That assumes that I would actually see any savings. I'm guessing that the 18¢ a gallon would actually end up in the pockets of the oil companies and that I would pay roughly the same for gas. The gasoline tax is actually one tax that I don't mind paying. The gas tax finances road building projects nationwide, which is actually a legitimate function of the federal government. Of course, neither Clinton or McCain has yet to introduce any legislation to enact their plans (empty promises). Hopefully the voters are not gullible enough to fall for this ruse.
It would be refreshing if one of the candidates actually presented a long-term energy plan instead of feel good platitudes. Maybe something like leadership on promoting nuclear technology as an alternative power source. Or how about a $70 billion prize to makers of the first alternative fuel vehicle that people would actually want to drive (I just threw $70 billion out there because that is the amount Bush just requested to fund the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for another year). Instead we get farm subsidy-driven ethanol (more pandering for votes) leading to food riots in the third world.
It would be refreshing if one of the candidates actually presented a long-term energy plan instead of feel good platitudes. Maybe something like leadership on promoting nuclear technology as an alternative power source. Or how about a $70 billion prize to makers of the first alternative fuel vehicle that people would actually want to drive (I just threw $70 billion out there because that is the amount Bush just requested to fund the continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for another year). Instead we get farm subsidy-driven ethanol (more pandering for votes) leading to food riots in the third world.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Big Law Day Blowout
Yesterday the country celebrated the 50th anniversary of Law Day. I had never even heard of Law Day, but here is the President's proclamation regarding Law Day. Pretty ironic from a president who has done little to halt an invasion of our country by 20 million illegal aliens (immigration laws apparently were not being celebrated). And of course the rule of law does not apply to the Bush/Cheney administration. Bush has shown little regard for the Fourth Amendment ''right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Of course, the end justifies the means when waging the "war on terror".
The President called upon all the people of the United States to observe Law Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I complied with the President's request by obeying all traffic laws during my commute home from work.
The President called upon all the people of the United States to observe Law Day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I complied with the President's request by obeying all traffic laws during my commute home from work.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
A candidate that I can support
The Constitution Party has nominated a candidate that I can support at their convention this weekend in Kansas City. The party selected pastor, radio host and columnist Chuck Baldwin over party newcomer Alan Keyes. Baldwin ran on the party ticket in 2004 as Michael Peroutka's vice presidential candidate. Keyes, on the other hand, left the GOP and joined the Constitution Party 10 days prior to the convention. Judging from comments by Keyes' national political director, Keyes affiliation with the Constitution Party ended with his defeat.
I have become familiar with Baldwin through his columns on VDare.com. Chuck Baldwin embodies the 7 principals of the Constitution Party, which are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Here is an archive of Chuck Baldwin columns dating back to 2001.
Unfortunately for voters in Texas who would support Baldwin, ballot access for third parties in Texas is difficult (if not impossible) to obtain. Texas requires petition signatures numbering 1% of the votes cast in the 2004 presidential election submitted by May 12. That is 74,000 signatures of persons who did not vote in either the Democrat or Republican party primaries. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary so I am not even eligible to sign a petition. I am sure that when the Republican party was established in 1856, they were held to equally rigorous standard to achieve ballot access (jn).
So although Chuck Baldwin is a candidate whose beliefs mirror my own, Texas ballot access law (written by Democrats and Republicans for the benefit of Democrats and Republicans) will likely not allow me to cast my vote for him come November.
Update: As I suspected, Alan Keyes brief flirtation with the Constitution Party was all about Alan Keyes' vanity. He announced that would not support party nominee Chuck Baldwin, saying, "His policies of appeasement and non-involvement (in foreign affairs) are irresponsible and unsustainable." Keyes apparently couldn't be bothered to even read the party platform before running for the party nomination. The party's stance on foreign policy is pretty clear.
Keyes' high opinion of himself was evident when he suggested that the party merely used him to attract new supporters. I personally don't see the appeal of a candidate that has run three failed senate campaigns and failed to register 1% support in any 2008 Republican state primary. I liked Alan Keyes when he was a fresh face in the conservative movement, but the perennial candidate shtick has become somewhat embarrassing.
I have become familiar with Baldwin through his columns on VDare.com. Chuck Baldwin embodies the 7 principals of the Constitution Party, which are:
1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
4. Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
6. States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government is reserved for the state and local jurisdictions;
7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.
Here is an archive of Chuck Baldwin columns dating back to 2001.
Unfortunately for voters in Texas who would support Baldwin, ballot access for third parties in Texas is difficult (if not impossible) to obtain. Texas requires petition signatures numbering 1% of the votes cast in the 2004 presidential election submitted by May 12. That is 74,000 signatures of persons who did not vote in either the Democrat or Republican party primaries. I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary so I am not even eligible to sign a petition. I am sure that when the Republican party was established in 1856, they were held to equally rigorous standard to achieve ballot access (jn).
So although Chuck Baldwin is a candidate whose beliefs mirror my own, Texas ballot access law (written by Democrats and Republicans for the benefit of Democrats and Republicans) will likely not allow me to cast my vote for him come November.
Update: As I suspected, Alan Keyes brief flirtation with the Constitution Party was all about Alan Keyes' vanity. He announced that would not support party nominee Chuck Baldwin, saying, "His policies of appeasement and non-involvement (in foreign affairs) are irresponsible and unsustainable." Keyes apparently couldn't be bothered to even read the party platform before running for the party nomination. The party's stance on foreign policy is pretty clear.
Keyes' high opinion of himself was evident when he suggested that the party merely used him to attract new supporters. I personally don't see the appeal of a candidate that has run three failed senate campaigns and failed to register 1% support in any 2008 Republican state primary. I liked Alan Keyes when he was a fresh face in the conservative movement, but the perennial candidate shtick has become somewhat embarrassing.
Friday, April 18, 2008
15 years ago...
Tomorrow is the 15th anniversary of the government massacre of the Branch Davidians. The government gassed and burned to death 76 people, including 21 innocent children under the age of 16, at the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, TX.
A government investigation exonerated the government of any wrongdoing.
As Anthony Gregory wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Waco is still important, because it illustrates the violent nature of the state, the fact that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and the scary truth that the U.S. government is ultimately no different from all others in this respect."
A government investigation exonerated the government of any wrongdoing.
As Anthony Gregory wrote on LewRockwell.com, "Waco is still important, because it illustrates the violent nature of the state, the fact that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and the scary truth that the U.S. government is ultimately no different from all others in this respect."
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Out of the frying pan, into the fire
The 416 children taken from their parents at the polygamist cult compound will likely be placed into the Texas foster care system. Judging from a 2006 statement from former Texas Comptroller Strayhorn on the foster care system, these kids are out of the frying pan and into the fire. The following quotes are from Strayhorn's statement:
"I found, from information provided by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, in Fiscal 2003, 30 foster children died in our state's care; in Fiscal 2004, 38 foster children died; and in Fiscal 2005, 48 foster children died...If you compare the number of deaths of children in our state's population to the number of deaths in our state's foster care system, a child is four times more likely to die in our state's foster care system."
"Based on Fiscal 2004 data provided by the Health and Human Services Commission, about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system."
Strayhorn's office produced a 2004 report titled, "Forgotten Children," that detailed the abysmal performance of the Texas foster care system. Apparently, child abduction and abuse is OK as long as it is state sanctioned.
"I found, from information provided by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, in Fiscal 2003, 30 foster children died in our state's care; in Fiscal 2004, 38 foster children died; and in Fiscal 2005, 48 foster children died...If you compare the number of deaths of children in our state's population to the number of deaths in our state's foster care system, a child is four times more likely to die in our state's foster care system."
"Based on Fiscal 2004 data provided by the Health and Human Services Commission, about 100 children received treatment for poisoning from medications; 63 foster children received medical treatment for rape that occurred while in the foster care system; and 142 children gave birth while in the state foster care system."
Strayhorn's office produced a 2004 report titled, "Forgotten Children," that detailed the abysmal performance of the Texas foster care system. Apparently, child abduction and abuse is OK as long as it is state sanctioned.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
"First they came..."
What stops the government from taking my kids away like they took away the kids at the polygamist cult compound? Nothing. The whole episode reminds me of the poem "First they came...", written about events in Nazi Germany and attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller.
"First they came for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
There is no doubt that this polygamist cult is weird, but that is not a crime. If the government wants to prosecute these people for breaking polygamy laws, then so be it. But it seems downright un-American that the government can take 416 kids away from their families without any evidence of wrongdoing by the parents of those kids. There is alleged abuse in the case of one child. If the supposed 16 year old informant was abused, then arrest her "husband" or her parents. I say 'supposed' because I don't believe that there ever was any 16 year old caller; they can't find her because she does not exist.
Child Protective Services workers are judge and jury in this case. And CPS spokesman Darrell Azar's statement to the Houston Chronicle reveals that the parents have already been found guilty, ' "Every step taken by CPS in the court has been done with one goal in mind: what is best for the children, to get at the truth and stop the abuse," Azar said. "Every time we remove children from an abusive situation, people will become upset. Unfortunately, the women who have returned to the compound have been unwilling or unable to protect these children from a pattern of sexual abuse." ' Be assured that you or I would receive the same treatment if allegations were made against us; the truth be damned.
The only good thing about this whole situation is that at least the government didn't go in and kill everyone like they did in Waco.
"First they came for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
There is no doubt that this polygamist cult is weird, but that is not a crime. If the government wants to prosecute these people for breaking polygamy laws, then so be it. But it seems downright un-American that the government can take 416 kids away from their families without any evidence of wrongdoing by the parents of those kids. There is alleged abuse in the case of one child. If the supposed 16 year old informant was abused, then arrest her "husband" or her parents. I say 'supposed' because I don't believe that there ever was any 16 year old caller; they can't find her because she does not exist.
Child Protective Services workers are judge and jury in this case. And CPS spokesman Darrell Azar's statement to the Houston Chronicle reveals that the parents have already been found guilty, ' "Every step taken by CPS in the court has been done with one goal in mind: what is best for the children, to get at the truth and stop the abuse," Azar said. "Every time we remove children from an abusive situation, people will become upset. Unfortunately, the women who have returned to the compound have been unwilling or unable to protect these children from a pattern of sexual abuse." ' Be assured that you or I would receive the same treatment if allegations were made against us; the truth be damned.
The only good thing about this whole situation is that at least the government didn't go in and kill everyone like they did in Waco.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
McCain finally speaks out on faith
Does anyone else find it pathetic that John McCain walks around with a pocket full of good luck charms? He carries a lucky feather, a lucky compass, a lucky penny, a lucky nickel and a lucky quarter. He found a dime, but it was heads down - no luck there - so he did not add it to his collection. And he observes other superstitions, like throwing spilled salt over one's shoulder, that went out of vogue with witch burnings. This story reads like something out the Onion.
I find it troublesome that the potential President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, could hold sincere beliefs in something with no basis of reason or truth. I would discourage belief in such stuff by my 5 year old son, of course he is not foolish enough to believe such hokum.
I find it troublesome that the potential President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world, could hold sincere beliefs in something with no basis of reason or truth. I would discourage belief in such stuff by my 5 year old son, of course he is not foolish enough to believe such hokum.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Support the Troops, Vote Republican
I saw a 'Support the Troops, Vote Republican' bumper sticker today and thought it somewhat ironic.
The Bush administration deceived the American public (or if you give Bush/Cheney the benefit of the doubt; they are not liars, merely incompetent) and waged a pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to our security. The war has done nothing to increase our future security. If anything, our occupation of Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world and created more potential jihadists.
This needless war has cost the lives of 4,032 soldiers and marines to date. At least 30,000 more servicemen have been wounded; many returning home without limbs lost in IED attacks. Tours of duty have been extended from 12 to 15 months. According to statistics provided by the Army in this New York Times article, "Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times." Multiple deployments, with only 12 months between deployments, are causing growing mental health problems (see here and here). That is an odd concept of supporting the troops.
In Bush's warped sense of reality he probably thinks that he is doing the troops a favor, sending them off on some grand adventure. As he recently related to military personnel in Afghanistan, " 'I must say, I'm a little envious,' Bush said. 'If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.' 'It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.' "
If you really want to support the troops, then bring them home.
The Bush administration deceived the American public (or if you give Bush/Cheney the benefit of the doubt; they are not liars, merely incompetent) and waged a pre-emptive war against a country that posed no threat to our security. The war has done nothing to increase our future security. If anything, our occupation of Iraq has inflamed anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world and created more potential jihadists.
This needless war has cost the lives of 4,032 soldiers and marines to date. At least 30,000 more servicemen have been wounded; many returning home without limbs lost in IED attacks. Tours of duty have been extended from 12 to 15 months. According to statistics provided by the Army in this New York Times article, "Among the 513,000 active-duty soldiers who have served in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, more than 197,000 have deployed more than once, and more than 53,000 have deployed three or more times." Multiple deployments, with only 12 months between deployments, are causing growing mental health problems (see here and here). That is an odd concept of supporting the troops.
In Bush's warped sense of reality he probably thinks that he is doing the troops a favor, sending them off on some grand adventure. As he recently related to military personnel in Afghanistan, " 'I must say, I'm a little envious,' Bush said. 'If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.' 'It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.' "
If you really want to support the troops, then bring them home.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Is McCain a warmonger?
The Obama camp apologized last week when radio host Ed Shultz called John McCain a warmonger at an Obama fundraising event. My copy of Webster's dictionary defines warmonger as, "One who stirs up or advocates war."
I wrote here about McCain's apparent confusion regarding Sunni versus Shiite Muslims. He has repeated the "gaffe" at least twice more in the following days; once in a written statement on his own website and again yesterday while questioning Gen. Petraeus in the senate hearing. I now believe that he is deliberately trying to confuse the issue and link Al Qaeda and Iran. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." This is right out of the Bush-Cheney playbook. After all, over 30% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.
And here is McCain jokingly singing 'Bomb Iran' to the tune of the Beach Boys song 'Barbara Ann' at a town hall meeting. (Full disclosure: I sang the same song during the Iran hostage crisis; of course I was in the sixth grade and was not running for president of the U.S.)
Is McCain a warmonger? Yep, I have to agree with Ed Shultz.
Update: Foreign policy advisers include neocons Max Boot, Randy Scheunemann and Robert Kagan. All of them support the use of the American military to spread American democratic ideals around the world. It calls McCain's judgment into question when he surrounds himself with advisers who were all exceedingly wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue of the age, the war in Iraq.
I wrote here about McCain's apparent confusion regarding Sunni versus Shiite Muslims. He has repeated the "gaffe" at least twice more in the following days; once in a written statement on his own website and again yesterday while questioning Gen. Petraeus in the senate hearing. I now believe that he is deliberately trying to confuse the issue and link Al Qaeda and Iran. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." This is right out of the Bush-Cheney playbook. After all, over 30% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11 attacks.
And here is McCain jokingly singing 'Bomb Iran' to the tune of the Beach Boys song 'Barbara Ann' at a town hall meeting. (Full disclosure: I sang the same song during the Iran hostage crisis; of course I was in the sixth grade and was not running for president of the U.S.)
Is McCain a warmonger? Yep, I have to agree with Ed Shultz.
Update: Foreign policy advisers include neocons Max Boot, Randy Scheunemann and Robert Kagan. All of them support the use of the American military to spread American democratic ideals around the world. It calls McCain's judgment into question when he surrounds himself with advisers who were all exceedingly wrong on the biggest foreign policy issue of the age, the war in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)