Hypocrisy; it’s what’s for dinner.

We all know that hypocrisy is nothing new to politics; we come to expect it from the people who will be running our country. Sad, but true.

But after MaCain nominated Sarah Palin this campaign season turned from a relatively mind one to an absolute circus. One day everyone was gushing over Obama’s acceptance speech of the Democratic nomination the next everyone’s running around in circles with their hands in the air like an asteroid was going to kill everyone alive and there was nothing we could do about it. Democrats seemed shell shocked as they scratched their heads and wondered “who the heck is Sarah Palin” while the Republicans response was “who cares? She’s pro life!”

Now there is some major hypocrisy on both sides of the ail that I want to address here so lets get down to it. First off, the Republicans who, to me, have the biggest share of hypocrisy to take. After Palins nomination the attacks came raining it, as is expected for someone who is potently one beat away from the presidency (especially if that heartbeat we are to rely upon is MaCain’s which may or may not be reliable). But what stunned me was the lengths Republicans would go to defend her. Now I expected a strong defense for their VP, of course, but the levels to which Republicans will go to defend Palin is something I haven’t seen for a VP before. Any attack on Palin is deemed “sexist” and unacceptable by the GOP. Time and time again I hear neo-cons like Sean Hanity ask, how dare they attack her with such frivolous attacks that make should be kept personal and have nothing to do with politics, such as the issue over her daughter. I agree, such attacks are stupid and have nothing to do with anything with politics. But here’s the hypercritical part; how on earth can the Republicans claim the moral high ground in defending Palin from frivolous attacks when they’ve been responsible for their own share of stupid attacks. Claims that Obama is a secret Muslim who’s going to overrun the country, or that he hates America because he doesn’t wear a flag pin or hold his hand over his heart. Ohhh, scary. If frivolous attacks against Palin are sexist and show a lack of morals for Democrats, shouldn’t frivolous attacks on Obama be racist and show the lack of character in Republicans? Ah ha, a double standard I see.

Another bit of hypocrisy is when Republicans defend Palins “experience” and try to make the case that because she has executive experience, however little, that automatically makes her qualified to be president (and please, don’t say “well Obama doesn’t have any experience either” because I’ll address that later). The Colbert Report had a pretty good segment addressing this. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/180273/september-02-2008/the-word---that-s-the-ticket. The actual segment is about three minutes into this clip so you can skip the first part if you want. Look, lets step out of party lines for a moment and face the facts; Palin has NO experience to be President at all. Let’s stop trying to make her into something she’s not. Maybe in another, oh, let’s say ten years, but not now, not yet. MaCain chose her simply to rally his base behind him and nothing more. If Palin was the front runner, would you really vote for her? I somehow doubt it.

Okay, now after I’ve made just about every Republican in the area mad at me, its time to do the same with the Demarcates. Oh, what’s that? You thought I was on your side? Sorry to disappoint.

Yes you democrats are just as guilty of hypocrisy as the Republicans; you don’t have the moral high ground either. Upon hearing of Palins nomination, the first response of many democrats was to attack her experience. Are you kidding me? Now look, I can attack her experience, I’m a Libertarian, but for Democrats who are supporting Barrack Obama, someone who also has almost no experience, how on earth can they turn around and attack Sarah Palin for her lack of experience. Let’s remember now, that although Palin is MaCain’s VP which puts her a heartbeat away from the presidency, Obama is the democratic candidate, he IS the heartbeat! How could you possibly attack Palin for her lack of experience when you support a candidate with arguably LESS experience?

Now I have the best of both worlds, I say neither of them is truly ready to be president because they both lack any sort of experience, although I also believe that judgment is far more important then experience, although that is something they both lack as well. Sorry people, but with Palin having a pregnant unmarried daughter and Obama being a secret Muslim, how can I trust their judgment? ;)

A response to Our Fathers Really Do Know Best - A Declaration of Causes” by Maid of Iron

This is in response to a very good and well written blog by Main of Iron who stated her reasons for not believing in a non interventionist foreign policy. Although I respect her opinion I felt it deserved a reply. To do so I took quotes from her blog and responded to them individually. To save space I have skipped the part about Obama since I more or less agree with her on that issue.
Here is the link to her blog.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/share/profiles/?slid=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckUserId=e29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9c&plckPostId=Blog%3ae29258e5-b455-ccf4-95c6-804ffe421b9cPost%3a34eaef64-3836-4e7f-9447-d5b67b8919bd&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

“I suppose because you don’t know me, and I am a Republican, you probably picture me as some pasty white, blue haired old lady, cloaking herself in tawdry red Republican Party attire.”
Naw, I have nothing against Republicans and I try my best not to lump everyone into a single Cleche. My problem is with the party, but the people who call themselves Republicans for the most part are very decent people. My parents are Republican, most of my friends are, so I have a very high opinion of most Republicans I know, even if I don’t agree with you on a lot of issues.
“I am with you in spirit, but I am a Republican because I cannot leave my country open and vulnerable, naked to the whims of our enemies, without a realistic plan for National Security, and foreign policy as a whole.”
Foreign policy is always what turns people off to Libertarianism, and I think its probably the biggest misconception about the party and system of beliefs. People get none interventionism and isolatism confused, but if you really believe in small government then none intervention is a logical conclusion, although albeit not the only one. The premise of small government is, to me at least, to keep governments too small to interfere in our daily lives. I don’t want the feds coming in and telling me, or my state, how to run my life. But if our government doesn’t have the right to tell the states and people within its boarders how to behave, what right does it have to tell OTHER nations and the people outside out boarders how to behave? The government that can impose its will upon other nations is one that can also impose its will upon its own people.
“It is not realistic in the time we live in, to expect to live in a Utopia, where what I hear you all calling ‘non-intervention’ is an option. “
No one’s calling for utopia. I have not heard anyone say that if we take a non interventionist policy that all of a sudden the world would be at peace and unicorns will frolic through the meadows. No one is saying that. What we ARE saying, however, is that non interventionism would make our nation much safer then it is as of right now. Where would we be right now if we hadn’t forced our will upon other nations? Look, you can talk about the soviets all you want, but Reagan didn’t bring them down, communism did, and regardless of Reagan they were going to fall sooner or later with or without our intervention. But because of our fear we started intervening in other nations affairs. The results were the Korean War (the first illegal war fought after WWII because congress never declared war), Vietnam, and today’s War on Terror.
Muslims are not inherently evil, they don’t grow up from the cradle thinking “let’s kill America.” We need to realize that people in the Middle East are just regular people who, like us, if provoked, will backlash. Answer this seriously, if China had a military base here in the States how would we respond? Now say that base is built on top of Arlington Cemetery? How would we respond? We’d be pissed, as we should be, but we never take the time to wonder how Muslims may react if we have troops in their countries on their holey sights. Like it or not Saudi Arabia is the holy land for Muslims and to have western troops there is considered an insult to their religion. It makes it that much easier for people like Osama (who we supplied with weapons during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, yet another reason for none interventionism) to recute people for his cause. He doesn’t simply say “westerners are evil and must be killed” no, to gain supporters all he has to do is point to western involvement in the Middle East.
Non intervention has always been an option. Let’s take a look at WWI and WWII to see where non intervention would have worked for the better. If the nations of Europe had practiced non intervention WWI as we know it would have been nothing more than a small irrelevant boarder war between Austria and Serbia, but thanks to alliances Russia intervened, which made France intervene, which made Germany intervene, on and on until millions are dead. The US really had no business being in that war but we got involved anyway. Germany lost because of our intervention and the extremely harsh treaty of Versailles was forced upon Germany. That treaty “planted the seeds of discontent” which would ultimately sprout in what we know as the Second World War Now had we not gotten involved the war might have ended in a truce, the Germans could have won (which really isn’t a bad thing at all, the Germans in WWI were not some evil empire trying to take over the world, and probably would have been more lenient on its defeated enemies then France was to them) or the end result could have been the same, but either way US intervention didn’t make anything any better for anyone.
“I wish this were not so, but the very real threats that face our nation today cannot be ignored or treated as isolated episodes that we have no business “intervening in”. To take this stance is to invite the utter destruction of our nation. Who will fight the war to subdue your enemies so that this modern day Utopia you hope for may be birthed? Our founding fathers laid the foundations for your hopes by fighting a war: It was called The American Revolution.”
Many of the threats we face today are results of our intervention in the world. For instance do you ever wonder why Iran hates us so much? It’s easy to see why when you learn that we overthrew a democratic government that was sweet with the soviets for a dictatorship that was more pro western. The result? The overthrow of our pro western government and the mess we have today. Why are they building nukes? Easy, its not because they wish to nuke New York, they are just scared silly that we might invade. We have troops on all sides of them, and have invaded nations for less (Iraq anyone?) so would it not be in their best interest to seek some better weapons? If MaCain wins we very well could end up in a war with Iran. Plus they see what we did with North Korea when they had nukes, we gave them fuel. So we help out nations because of weapons they do have, but when it comes to nations that might have some or might someday have them we simply attack. So, if you’re Iran, what would you do? If I were them, I’d try to build a nuke ASAP.
And let’s not confuse non intervention with pacifism. Its not the same thing, not by a long shot. For there to be a just war there are a set of guidelines that must be followed that almost every moral philosopher agrees on.
1) It has to be an act of self defense. No wars of aggression.
2) All means of diplomacy must have been exhausted and failed.
3) The proper authorities must declare the war.
This doesn’t mean you can’t fight a war, it simply lays out the guidelines for doing so in order to not end up fighting stupid and immoral wars. Now look at this closely and you’ll see that none of the wars we’ve fought since WWII live up to these standards. In the US only Congress may declare war, and that has not happened since WWII. The present war isn’t consistent with any of these, since it was not in self defense and diplomacy had not yet failed.

The point is that non intervention doesn’t mean you can’t go to war, what it means is that if we DO go to war we do it the right way, not willy nilly like we’ve done for years. It’s supposed to be a big deal to send troops into battle, but these days it’s treated as simply a matter of fact. Don’t like this nation? No problem, just use your US army visa card and take it out. And as to your question on who will defend this nation, I believe I will as I plan on joining the Air Force early next year. So yeah, I take defense seriously, but our troops deserve better than being the answer to every problem we have around the world.
“For as surely as the fathers invoked “non-intervention” policies as a tenant of their foreign policy, they were equally prepared to defend the United States from threats abroad. “
Good, you see then that non intervention doesn’t mean you are a pacifist, only that we shouldn’t be telling other nations what to do all the time.
“Our policy, however, angered both sides. It nearly caused a war with France, and contributed to one with Britian - The War of 1812 - where the British, once more on American soil, burned Washington, DC.”

Sure, when we don’t do what other nations want we might get them angry at us, that doesn’t mean though that we should just give in and do what they say. Funny though how Britain and the US have switched sides over the last couple hindered years.
“The Monroe Doctrine advanced the right of the United States to take action of both defense and deterrence, in the face of European intervention in North America and the Caribbean Basin, and if memory serves me, the Western Hemisphere as a whole.”
The Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than a good sounding policy that meant almost nothing. If a European nation really wanted to create new colonies in America we would not have been able to stop it. But by this time Europe had pretty much been kicked out and given a bloody nose so the threat of them coming back was small.
“Had we not done so, Germany who was eyeing the prize, was fully prepared to step in. Had they succeeded, they would likely have risen in might and power to a level that might have changed the outcome of World War I.”
I have to ask, why would it have been so bad if Germany had won WWI? They weren’t the evil nation they were in WWII, they were just like all the other major powers of that time, so why does it even matter to us who won? If we never got involved we would have had no stake in it. Besides, where does this “right” to intervene in Latin America come from? Just because Roosevelt said we had it doesn’t make it so.
· Every nation, including the United States, has the right of "self-preservation". The principle of self-preservation underlies the Monroe Doctrine. The primary purpose of the Doctrine was to protect Latin American nations from intervention by European powers, not to victimize or oppress Latin American nations.
So, European intervention bad, US intervention on the other hand okay. See a problem here? Hey it’s great for us, but how has it worked out for Latin America? Yeah, and we wonder why people there hate us so much.
“On a side note: I feel no need to go in depth over what led us into either of the World Wars. In both we tried to exercise “non-intervention”. The sinking of the ocean liner “Lusitania” by Germany in 1916 began to draw us into World War I, and in the midst of a "non-intervention" policy the attack on Pearl Harbor thrust us front line into World War II.”
We should never have been involved in WWI at all. The Lusitania was BRITISH ocean liner and was carrying military weapons to England. Germany had every right to sink it because of this. Also, prior to the sinking the German government posted adds in American newspapers warning Americans that ships going near England would be sunk. Any person that went to England in a time of war was going at their own risk.
WWII may not have happened had we not intervened in WWI, but that’s for alternate history writers to figure out. When it comes to WWII though there are reasons why Japan attacked us.
1) They wanted the Philippians, which isn’t a very noble goal, but we wouldn’t have had the Philippians had it not been for the Spanish American War, which was an unjust war as well. It would have been Spain’s problem, not ours.
2) We cut off their oil. Once again, great intentions, but it did provoke an attack.
Now I’m not saying we were responsible for the attacks, Japan’s ambition and lust for power was the main responsibility, but there were reasons and many of those reasons rest in past interventionism. Plus, don’t forget we didn’t declare war on Germany after the attacks, we only declared war on them AFTER they declared war on us.

The point is that non intervention is not to be blamed for WWI and WWII.
“So there is a bit of historical backdrop on how we evolved from pioneers who founded a country, to protectors of our great nation. Our founding fathers never advocated the role of "non-intervention" in the face of threats to our national security. They advocated non-intervention when appropriate, and a firm stance of national defense and self preservation when circumstances dictated. “
Great, but that’s not what the Republicans want. Republicans LOVE to fight wars these days, even when there is no real reason to. Iraq is simply the best example. You can’t honestly say the Republicans follow these beliefs because of what they’ve done when it comes to war. On the other hand, this is EXACTLY what Ron Paul and the Libertarian party represent. Neither would hesitate when it comes to defending this nation, Ron Paul voted for the war in Afghanistan just like everyone else, so he’s not completely anti war, but he voted against the Iraq war. Why? It didn’t have anything to do with national security and was simply getting us into another useless war. Seems like we was right. So let me say again, Libertarians are NOT pacifists, but we don’t believe war to be the first solution to every problem. War makes more problems than it solves.
“They have brought us through two world wars and a cold war that would have destroyed a lesser nation. In so doing, they delivered not only our nation, but millions worldwide, from death and tyranny at the hands of evil men such as Stalin and Hitler. “
We defeated Hitler because he declared war on us, not because of some sense of duty to our fellow man. Remember that our mission in Germany was to defeat the Nazis, not save the Jews. And we never freed anyone from Stalin, we were ALLIES with him if you remember, and he died of old age still killing millions of his people. Communism destroyed the USSR, not us. We may have lit the spark, but they were already soaked in gasoline.
“And they have enabled us to promote worldwide, the freedom and liberty we so cherish. That very significantly lessens the threat to our own nation, and free societies everywhere, from those who advance tyranny as a way of life. To do less, would be to watch tyranny lay claim to the worldwide neighborhood and still expect to remain independant and free. Mr. Rogers is no match for "Dear Leader" Kim Jong and Mayberry will not survive unmolested and at peace beside the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.”
Tell me how teaching people to hate the freest nation in the world in any way promotes freedom. We fought a war for liberty, France did as well with no outside help, how is it then a foregone conclusion that without our help freedom around the world would die? We must stand as an example to the world of what a great society is, not get bogged down in stupid wars. And let’s not make the mistake of thinking that the Iraq war was in any way fought to promote freedom. Plus we never ousted Kim Jong Ill and didn’t stop the killing of the Khmer Rouge, so how can you use those as examples? We’re still here despite that.
So, in closing, if you REALLY do love peace, I can see no way you can support the present Republican party who fights undeclared wars for faulty reasoning without satisfying the conditions of a just war. Are you a supporter of the Iraq war? If so do you think our founding fathers would have invaded a small third world country because they suspected they might possibly have WMD’s? Somehow I doubt it. I see the need for defense, which is why I plan on joining the military, but I think we should only fight wars in, ahh, defense. What a concept.

Live free or let me die.

“Those who would give up a few essential freedoms for the sake of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

-Ben Franklin.

“Give me liberty or give me death.”

-Patrick Henry.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty then those attending too small a degree of it.”

-Thomas Jefferson.

What is the standard by which a country is to be judged? What measuring stick do you hold up to a nation to determine whether or not that nation is successful? Is it the wealth of a nation? Its influence? Its military might? Do you judge it by its culture, its diversity, its contributions to the world, or by its history and traditions? What is the measure of a successful government?

The United States of America was founded on the ideals of our founding fathers, the ideals first theorized by French and English philosophers, namely John Lock who wrote that the role of government is to protect the individual rights of its people, amongst which are life, liberty, and property. Our founders, Gorge Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Nathan Hale, Paul Revere, to name a few, read this and decided to fight a war to promote, protect, and establish a government which would exist for the purpose of protecting these rights.

In a show of extreme dedication to their cause they stood against the most powerful nation to ever exist, an empire the sun never set upon. Many, including Nathan Hale and Patrick Henry, didn’t live to see the day when the American flag would fly over the capitol of our new nation proudly proclaiming to the world that we are free.

It has become a disturbing, frightening, and heartbreaking trend in this modern day nation when Americans, cowed into submission by war propaganda and the fear of terrorism, reject the ideals our founders, and many who’ve followed in their footsteps, fought and died to protect and become willing to sacrifice basic civil liberties in exchange for the façade of safety and protection. Under the present administration violations of civil liberties have not only become common place but acceptable to a large portion of the population as a necessary tool to combat terrorism and prevent another attack. The most disturbing part of this, however, is that so many people are willing to believe it. It saddens me every time I see someone on the news talk about how we need warrentless wiretapping to keep us safe or how holding foreign prisoners, who may or may not have anything to do with terrorism, in confinement in Cuba without given them a day in court to challenge their imprisonment.

Do we really devalue our liberties and the liberties of others so much? When did it become acceptable to trade our freedoms for safety? When did the saying “give me liberty or give me death” be replaced by “just keep me safe”? Do we believe in what it means to be American anymore? And if not, can we really call ourselves Americans?

The standard for whether a nation is a good one or not is not by its wealth or power, but by its freedom. No nation can ever be great unless it is free, no matter how rich or how big a military it may possess. Our nation for years was a beacon of light in a sea of darkness, calling out to the world, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Our culture is steeped in the tradition of personal liberty. To me it is what sets America apart from every other nation in the world, that we “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I for one am not willing to sacrifice my American identity to gain the illusion of safety.