If you don’t read anything else today, you need to check out Conor Friedersdorf’s explanation of why he refuses to vote for Barack Obama in November:
I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it’s hard to believe certain facts about him:
On Tuesday evening, Republicans paid tribute to the career of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who served in Congress for 22 years and ran for president twice under the GOP banner. The video features comments on Rep. Paul from Carol Paul, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and others.
It notes the impact that Rep. Paul has had inside the Republican Party, his commitment to individual liberty and limited government. It also notes that Rep. Paul never voted for a tax increase. Unfortunately, it leaves out some of Rep. Paul’s more well known ideas, such as his anti-war views and criticism of the Federal Reserve (though it does briefly touch on monetary policy).
The video is a nice touch, but counting the votes for Rep. Paul during the nominating process would have added to the tribute, even though it was clear that he wouldn’t win. It would have paid respect where it is due.
Here is the video, in case you haven’t seen it:
The anti-war movement has all but disappeared. You would think that with both major party conventions coming up, they would take the opportunity to demonstrate, especially with the media being concentrated at the conventions. However, there are no plans to demonstrate and in fact you don’t hear a whole lot about the war in Afghanistan anymore. Short of putting Cindy Sheehan’s face on a milk carton, we really need to find where the anti-war movement has gone because 2,000 American soldiers have now died in Afghanistan. If war was bad when George W. Bush was president, why isn’t it bad now that Barack Obama is in the Oval Office?
Not only has Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan and kept Bush’s Iraq withdrawal timeline; he even started a new war in Libya. Plus, the Obama administration appears to heading down the road to war with both Syria and Iran. Obviously, the wars have not stopped. American soldiers have not stopped dying overseas and drone strikes certainly haven’t stopped all over the world. Why has the press and so-called anti-war activists ignored the ongoing wars?
The only unfortunate conclusion to make is that the anti-war movement were either at best pawns of the Democratic Party or they really don’t have a problem with war in general, but only with wars launched by Republican presidents. This isn’t just a phenomenon confined to the left, because the right only generally believe in limited government when a Democrat is president. All this means is that when a Republican is elected president and decides to go to war, it will be easy to dismiss war opponents as partisan hacks. It will be just a way to silence debate and opposition by the War Party.
Coming off a few great days of media exposure, including an appearance on The Daily Show, Gov. Gary Johnson is making an appeal to all voters — regardless of their political persuasion — to get behind his candidacy for president.
Johnson, who served two terms as Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003, explains that Democrats and Republicans are ruining the country through excessive spending and endless war. Noting that the status quo will not fix these problems, Johnson explained that he wants to focus on fixing the issues facing our nation through through peace and prosperity.
Compared to some of the other ads from the campaign, Johnson’s team needs to put out more stuff like this:
Was D-Day the beginning of a heroic crusade to “Free Europe” or was it a pyrrhic victory for the United States? Did the collectivism that grew at home during World War II help save our liberty or destroy it?
Today marks the 68th anniversary of the invasion of fortress Europe by Allied forces, better known as “D-Day.” On that day 156,000 Allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy. Over 4,000 of them were killed and another 6,000 were wounded. On the German side it is estimated that 4,000-9,000 German soldiers were killed and wounded. Over 425,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or went missing during the fight. But that is just the beginning of the story of the Battle of Normandy.
Today, twenty-seven war cemeteries hold the remains of over 110,000 dead from both sides: 77,866 German, 9386 American, 17,769 British, 5002 Canadian and 650 Poles. Between 15,000 and 20,000 French civilians were killed, mainly as a result of Allied bombing. Thousands more fled their homes to escape the fighting.
The men who died on those beaches deserve to be commended. If you want an accurate picture of what happened on those bloody beaches you should definitely watch Saving Private Ryan. It is an incredible movie that shows in gruesome detail the horrors of war and how bodies, minds and lives are shattered by it. Today there will be plenty of pundits speaking of how “America saved Europe” and how D-Day demonstrates what a nation can accomplish when it pulls together for a common cause. But when we look at a single battle, like the Battle of Normandy, we fail to see the big picture of why the war was actually fought and what was accomplished by all the bloodshed.
MSNBC weekend show host Chris Hayes made some comments about heroism and the military on Sunday. He said:
I feel… uncomfortable, about the word [hero] because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don’t want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that’s fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism, you know, hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers, and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I’m wrong about that.
Hayes has since apologized. Personally, I take Hayes at his word that he did not intend to insult American soldiers and veterans. I think he was trying to make a point about militarism and war in general, but said it poorly. I think it’s certainly a legitimate discussion to have and Memorial Day
Gov. Gary Johnson’s team has released a new web video promoting a message of peace as polls show a war weary nation. In the video, Johnson’s team labels Republicans as “Thelma” and Democrats as “Louise,” noting that both parties “have a death wish” because they seem to want perpetual war:
This isn’t new ground for libertarian blogs, but apparently there is still a large disconnect between reality and perception. I don’t happen to have any illusions about this post actually changing that either, but I figured I needed to do something that didn’t involve a bell tower in an effort to curb the insanity.
Ron Paul, and most who describe themselves as libertarian, are non-interventionist. The perception by many is that we are isolationist. We are not, and there are very key differences.
First, isolationists are also the kind of people who want to block importation of goods. Most libertarians oppose efforts to limit imports. We believe in a free market, and part of that means we must compete with goods from outside of our shores. The truth is, Japanese cars made American cars better. Ford, GM, and Chrysler had to compete with the high quality and low cost, and American manufacturers produced better cars than they had in years. This is a good thing, and an example of why libertarians want goods imported.
Next, let’s look at the dreaded “outsourcing” of American jobs. Now, I hate calling up a tech support line and hearing a thick foreign accent saying, “Thank you for calling technical support. My name is ‘Bob’. How may I help you?” We all know his name probably isn’t Bob, but they somehow think they’re fooling us or something. So be it. However, American companies get better rates from call centers located outside of the United States, which lets them grow in other areas. That growth can lead to new jobs that pay better than the outsourced jobs that are now gone.
Are you pro-peace or pro-war? This is a question not only every politician should have to answer but also every American should ask themselves.
Most Americans would answer that question by saying that in their daily lives they are Pro-Peace and as a corollary they would agree that Force should only be used to defend a person’s life or Property. Why is it then when these same Americans, whose daily lives are built upon Peaceful interactions with their fellow human beings vote for politicians who are decidedly Pro-War?
Everyone around the world is just trying to live the best they can. That includes those folks in this country who not only advocate for Collectivism but also advocate for war. In this country the citizens who advocate for war overseas and “Obamacare” at home really believe that this is the best way to better their own lives and the lives of their families.
“To subsist to better one’s condition to bring up a family are not affairs of time, or place, or taste, or opinion, or choice, they are the daily constant and unavoidable concerns of all men at all times and in all countries” Frederic Bastiat
There are only two ways to gain what you desire in this world, that is from free and voluntary exchange or by appropriating it from others by force. Those who are Pro-Peace believe hat the best way for them and everyone else in the world is to improve their lot in life is through peaceful Free Trade. Those who are Pro-War believe in forcibly taking what another has produced by force or as Bastiat called it “spoliation” or “plunder”.
Just because you live in a country does that mean you’ve consented to everything the government of that country has done or is doing? When you say the pledge of allegiance are you pledging to uphold the ideals of liberty, peace and free trade or are you pledging your loyalty to an entity that lies, steals and kills on a regular basis?
Consent.(Synonym: Acquiesce): To give assent or approval
I’m sure you’ve hear of government resting on the “constent of the governed”. I think that is a theory created to justify the existence of tyrannts and our current over bloated, over regulating, war machine of a federal government. I like the phrase “acquiesence of the governneed” to more accurately describe what is happneing in this country. Most individuals including myuself acquiese to the power of the state and more accurately the power of the shifting majority whose only purpose is to extract wealth from some individuals and give it to others. If there was no government force or just extermely limited government force which stuck to the constitutional limits than ”consent of the governed” maybe applicable in that situation, because what man will consent to a government that lies to him, steals from him and can execute him if it deems appropriate at the drop of a hat?