Monthly Archives: October 2012

Liberals America

***EDITORS NOTE: This article is to be read in conjunction with “Conservatives America”.

                People are inherently bad. The intent of the human mind and the passions of the human heart are selfish and self-centered. If we were to leave men unaccounted for they would spiral into chaos and anarchy. Every man would fend for himself and the strongest man would win. History has taught us this truth time and time again. We have learned that men must be controlled in order to be civilized.

The most effective means of controlling the selfish passions of mankind is strong central government. Government is the only thing that will keep a society from spiraling into chaos. Because mankind is, by nature, selfish, the stronger the government the better society will function. If left to themselves, mankind will care only for their own needs, and not for the needs of society or those around them. A strong government will ensure the needs of society are met, and that society will function in a peaceful continuous harmony. If government is effective enough, the forces of government can be used to restrain the passions of men so sufficiently that a communal utopian society can realistically be created.

Because of the selfishness of mankind, mankind cannot be trusted. Without regulations, a man, because of his natural selfish desires, will not have the foresight to act for the good of the community, which is in his own interests if he could control his passions. Men will kill each other to take material possessions from one another. You cannot trust anyone; because of the selfish desires of men, if you turn your back on a man, he will kill you and take your possessions. A man will always be dishonest in his dealings with fellow men. They do this because of their selfishness. Businesses and businessmen will always take advantage of customers. The bottom line is the only concern to companies and merchants alike; you cannot trust them anymore than you can trust your neighbor. You cannot trust banks; they will gamble with their money for the same reason, they only care about padding their own pockets. Doctors will charge every penny they can from every patient, whether they help the patient or not. Workers will be cheated and taken advantage of. If men are left to their own desires, society will fail.

The solution to this is simple: strong central government. Every society requires a strong central government to regulate the passions of society. It is the government that must set strict and narrow standards for business, for banking, for workers’ rights, and healthcare to keep each industry safe and practical. The stronger the regulations, the better society will function. In fact, making a national bank and healthcare system will be the most beneficial system one could make. If we take decisions out of the hands of the general public, they will not be able to make choices that hurt society, offend their neighbor, or infringe on the right of another to be happy.

Happiness is the ultimate right. Every living being, human and non-human has the right to be happy. If left to themselves, there will inevitably be winners and losers among men; some will have their right to happiness taken by others. A strong central government can prevent this. Everyone should be able to eat what they want, wear what they want, say what they want, marry whom they want, and do what they want. As long as a person’s decision does not interfere with the happiness of another, they have a right to do as they please.

Equality is essential to happiness. How can one be happy if those around them have much and they themselves have little? For the good of society, the government must insure this does not happen. Society functions best, and people are happiest when wealth is redistributed. The rich do not need to have all the money they have, and they would not have it without the rest of society anyway. Therefore; those who benefit the most from society owe the greatest debt to that society. Their wealth must be redistributed until there are no poor. If for any reason someone does not want to work, society must provide for that person. Those less fortunate deserve to have an unfair advantage in the workforce. The only exception to this is if the less fortunate is a white male.

Decisions that do not affect society can be made by society and individuals. For instance; because an embryo is part of a woman’s body the woman can choose what to do to and with her body. She may abort that embryo if she does not wish to give it birth. A person may use drugs, so long as their use does not infringe on another’s right to be happy. Prostitution, gay marriage, universal contraception, and free education are also rights that the government is obligated to provide and accommodate for.

Decisions that harm society must be prohibited. Among these are guns, religion–for it creates natural prejudice and infringes on another’s right to be happy–wage and salary decisions, carbon emissions and fuel economy, energy and resource decisions, and sugary drinks larger than 16 oz.

               With a strong central government a harmonious society can be created no matter who or what people are part of society. Every government should have open borders and allow immigration without reservation. Picking and choosing who can and cannot be part of society infringes on the right of others to be happy. To truly be a good government, government must not only care for their society, but all societies universally. Should a person feel they can be happier in another nation, that nation has no right to keep them out. A perfect society can be created no matter who is in it. The only requirement is a strong central government.

 

–Matt Young

28 October, 2012

Advertisements

Conservatives America

***EDITORS NOTE: This article is to be read in conjunction with “Liberals America”.

                People are naturally good. Mankind is the handiwork of a loving and benevolent God who instilled his qualities in our human nature. Of course some people make bad decisions, but this is because they ignore their inner light and do not follow their conscience. If every person would be true and faithful to their God, there would be no need for government. If you leave mankind to themselves, society will function properly. Because people are generally good, they will help their neighbor, they will give to the poor, they will put others first, and they will treat others the way they want to be treated. Unfortunately, history shows us that there are, though rare, men who desire power and become tyrants over other men. The purpose of the government is to protect the people from these tyrants. Because the world increasingly denies God and ignores his teachings, these tyrants that used to be so rare are now increasing in numbers.

It follows logical deduction that if the purpose of government is to protect the people from tyrants so that they can live their own lives, then the most important human right is freedom. Only through the dignity of freedom can mankind enjoy the life their Divine Creator intended them to have. Freedom includes religious liberty. This is vital to the soul of mankind. Without religious liberty there can be no religious worship; without religious worship mankind will not help their neighbor, give to the poor, put others first, or treat others the way they want to be treated. Because this is essential to a successful society, what government a society does have–which must be limited in order to insure mankind’s divine right to freedom–must be based on core religious principles.

Central government should only serve to protect the people, and have no other function; all other governing functions should be at the local level only, where the officials are closest to the people and understand the needs and direction of the community. Regulations on commerce should be minimum (if they exist at all) and should only occur when absolutely necessary. Commerce is the livelihood of society, and will produce the growth required to sustain a successful life for each citizen. Successfulness in commerce is achieved through hard work and innovation.

God has distilled in some of his children a greater capacity for certain functions; among these include love, care, work, intelligence, philosophy and so on. This is called natural selection. Those most gifted in commerce will gain the most because every person will be rewarded by their own industry. Taxes infringe upon the freedom of each individual to create their own livelihood and should be kept to a minimum in order to pay only for necessary government functions. Because each person will have an equal opportunity to become successful, every person should pay an equal percentage of their income in taxes (flat tax), no matter what a person earns.

Each citizen will be expected to work to earn their living; it is not fair for some to work in order to provide for others. Because mankind is naturally altruistic, having the divine qualities God instilled in them, those who, for whatever reason, are not physically able to work can and will be provided for by their neighbors, their churches, and local charities. The government has no place to provide for them because the government has no right to determine winners and losers; their only duty is to protect citizens so they have the freedom to seek their own success. It is morally wrong for the government to take from one and give to another; this is the beginnings of tyranny, and is a slippery slope that will lead to someone forcibly taking away the freedom that God has granted as a divine right.

                Because each person is a child of God there must be laws that morally govern people based on divine principals. Among these is a severe punishment for abortion. Every life is sacred and divinely intended; to abort a child is to kill a child, this infringes upon the God-given freedom of that child. Religious principals are clear: if a man takes a life, their life must be paid to meet out justice; this should include abortions. The scientific opinion of the day is irrelevant because all truth revolves around God, and science is a developing concept. If mankind were truly to understand the truths of the universe in their entirety they would line up exactly with the divine truths of God, for they are one in the same. Therefore, the scientific opinion of the day, because it is subject to change, should only be considered when it does not contradict moral standards.

There will be no exceptions to this law regarding abortion because this is the morally correct policy. Pregnancies that result from rape, incest, or result in a danger to the life of the mother will not be given exception because every life and pregnancy is God’s will. Life begins at conception, and humans do not have the right to take away the life God intended to create with each conception. If the life of the mother is in danger, this is in the hands of God. All medical treatment must obviously be exhausted, but if God should so choose that the baby live and the mother die, it is the will of God, and man cannot intervene.

Because guns can protect freedom and property there should be no restriction on the sale and trade of firearms and ammunition. Guns are essential in protecting against a tyrannical authority attempting to take away the divine right of freedom. Healthcare, as part of the economy should be offered by private markets only. The central government has no place in the healthcare industry. Because people are generally good, being instilled with divine qualities, each doctor, hospital and patient will be honest in their dealings as long as the government maintains a strong moral based society.

Gay marriage, being unnatural and sinful, should never be permitted. Marriage is to be only a relationship with one man and one woman. The purpose of marriage is to raise a family in order to have citizens live morally and contribute to society. Because homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive a child they should not be allowed to marry. Because this is sinful it will lead to degradation in the moral standards of society. If this happens the divine nature of altruism will be affected because people will not be able to live in harmony. When this is the case the God-given right of freedom is diminished. Homosexuals will not be allowed to marry.

               Drugs will be at the discretion of the doctor only. Narcotics have the same effect on society as gay marriage. After the moral integrity of society is compromised, the freedom diminishes. No man has the right to take away the most basic human right of freedom. Therefore, drugs will not be authorized, and alcohol and tobacco must be heavily restricted.

Immigration must also be heavily restricted. Different people bring different values and culture into this nation. If we allow immigrants to come who do not wish to work, or who bring immoral practices or false religions into our nation the structure of society will fail. Because their values may not be in line with ours, they will contribute to crime as well. These problems are at no fault of their own, but stem from a difference of culture. Immigrants who do qualify to enter will need to be thoroughly cultured so as to contribute to and ensure the continuation of a harmonic, divinely guided, society based on liberty. Because above all else, freedom must never be taken away.

 

–Matt Young

28 October, 2012

Say it Aint so, Lance

                The very first time was as a young man seeing my University of Kentucky Wildcats blow the 1997 national championship to Arizona. Most recently was in February, when I watched my beloved New England Patriots defense allow Eli Manning and the New York Giants to drive down the field and let the Super Bowl slip through their fingers. How about the 2010 NBA finals when my Boston Celtics lost Center Kendrick Perkins just before Game 7, then let the Lakers come back and win the game and the NBA championship. Of course, there was Aaron “bleepin” Boone (as he has come to be known in Boston) hitting a homerun in extra innings to keep the Red Sox out of the World Series in 2003. Today, there is Lance Armstrong.

As a grown man it is not very often that I have my heart broken, even less so that I feel like crying. Sports have been a source of that helpless, bewildered, isolated feeling, and today, as I read the details of the Lance Armstrong doping case I had that feeling again. I can handle Manny Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemons, and the list goes on; but it is hard for me to swallow the reports on Lance Armstrong. 26 witnesses, including 11 former team mates of the once legendary cyclist have come forward with very convincing evidence that he cheated his way into winning seven Yellow Jerseys in the Tour de France. He was a fake.

It made me want to go sit alone somewhere and weep just thinking about. I have always understood that athletes are not role models, and I have rarely placed athletes on a pedestal. Lance Armstrong was no ordinary athlete. It takes a Pat Tillman type athlete to earn my respect off the playing field, and Lance Armstrong did that.  Not only was he a hero for his athletic accomplishments, but his Livestrong has raised roughly half a billion dollars for cancer research.

I have never been a cancer patient, and I cannot relate to someone fighting the disease, but that does not mean I cheer any less enthusiastically for those who do take on that battle. Lance Armstrong did take on that battle, and he won. He beat cancer; not only did he beat it, he took it out behind the wood shed and pummeled it. After surviving cancer the man did something no cancer patient had done before–he won the Tour de France. Then he did something no man, cancer patient or not, has ever done before–he won seven Tours de France…in a row. A heroic feat for any man, let alone someone who had to battle cancer. The message this sent to others fighting for their lives was clear. “You can bet this, and you can come out of the other side stronger.” Every doctor, friend, family member, and lover all said those words, but Lance did not have to; he proved them. They were not just words of encouragement from those around you, it was proof, it was hope, it was miraculous. I believe in miracles, and Lance Armstrong helped others believe too.

But it was all a fraud. Lance was able to achieve super human success because he was a super human. It is no longer realistic for a cancer patient to look up to Lance Armstrong and think, “if he can do it, I can do it.” The fact is he could not do it, he did not do it, he cheated. The icon, the hero, the hope, all gone with one report. The fact that it all disappeared with the blink of an eye made my eyes water. His fall from grace means more than one more athlete disappointing the public. I hope to God the report is not true; but examining the evidence, I just do not see how that can be.

Negative Action: Why Affirmative Action Needs to go

Racism is the act of singling out a person because of the color of their skin, treating them differently, and acting in ways or making decisions toward them that one would not make if not for the color of their skin. Of course racism exists–denying this would be naive. Racism stems from each race being different than another, and racism will exist as long as this is the case. The most obvious difference between cultures is race, and so race is blamed for the differences. But institutional racism can be ended in one simple decision: take the race question off of all legal forms. True equality would mean making all races equal and indistinguishable under the law, the way the 14th Amendment specifies when is dictates equal protection under the law. Affirmative action is a law that does not grant equality; Affirmative Action is racism.

The Supreme Court has heard the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student who was denied admission to the University of Texas in favor of minority students despite being more qualified. This means that the university singled out minority students and treated them differently than they would have had they been white. Affirmative action is racism. Racial preference means that minorities are not treated as equals. Affirmative action, by its very nature, infers minorities are inferior to whites, and thus need an unfair leg up. If there were ever an institution that gave whites preferential treatment even if they were less qualified for a job, admission, scholarship, or so on, then we would have a need for affirmative action. But in this day and age that rarely–more likely, never–happens. Does our society believe minorities are Inferior?

Not only does affirmative action suggest that minorities are inferior, but there is evidence that affirmative action may actually be detrimental to minorities. Proposition 209 was a California ballot initiative on affirmative action. The citizens of California voted to end racial preference in their state. What happened afterword gave an interesting insight. Minority enrollments into the state Universities declined, but the number of minorities graduating stayed the same, while the rate of graduation grew. This means that Affirmative Action was not helping minorities graduate, in fact, it was hurting them. Because they were given preference in schools, some students were being admitted to schools they were not qualified for. Because the graduation rate stayed the same this means many of these students did not finish college. Affirmative action was getting them into a school that, for one reason or another, they could not finish. This is not a racial thing, white students similarly qualified, if admitted to these schools would expectedly have the same result. What this does mean, however, is that these minority students left college with no degree, most likely large amounts of student loans, and a bad experience with higher education. How does any of that help minorities?

Now, of course there are many minorities that have graduated from college and become very successful. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor has even referred to herself as an “affirmative action baby”. Now, how this does not create a bias on her part that should cause her to recuse herself from the case is beyond me; however, we will have to play that song another day. Either way, the evidence suggests that she would have graduated from a great school—even if that school was not Princeton or Yale—and gone on to a successful career regardless. But if affirmative action is granting admittance to students who will only be harmed by attending that university, the racial preference should be done away with. The evidence suggests Justice Sotomayor is the exception, not the rule.

Consider this: in his own 2011 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that it makes no sense for immigrant students to get a world class college education, then be sent home to their country to compete against the United States. Affirmative Action furthers that problem. Not only are some immigrants being given admission over citizens, but minority citizens are being given admission over more qualified citizens. This means that we are giving more immigrants degrees, and sending them home to compete against less qualified Americans. Summing it all up, we are giving other nations an economic advantage over our own, but we are shooting ourselves in the economic foot. The best candidates–no matter what race they happen to be–should be the ones admitted to schools. For the less qualified students, there are less prestigious and demanding schools to fit their needs. If every student goes to the right school we will have more graduates holding more degrees in every race. This helps minorities, the education system, and the economy.

True equality does not have racial preference; moreover, it has no preference at all. This nation was founded on the idea that all men are created equal; not that all men become equal. Being created equal means we all have the same rights, and that we achieve based on our own capabilities. Becoming equal means minorities need help to earn equality–inferring that they are inferior as people to the white race; this is racism. Not only was our nation not built on the idea of becoming equal, but the champion of civil rights, the great Martin Luther King JR–one of the greatest men in our history–did not support the idea of becoming equal. Being born equal and being treated equal was his vision. His dream was “that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”  The very purpose of Affirmative Action is to judge people first and foremost by the color of their skin.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the three basic human rights repeated from kindergarten to doctoral theses, but Affirmative Action limits liberty, and hinders the pursuit of happiness for thousands of whites who are not granted admission to schools they have earned the privilege to attend, and for thousands of minorities who are not able to finish at the school because they were not as qualified their peers. Race discrimination is rampant in college admissions. Affirmative action not only hurts minorities, but it also hurts whites, and the entire nation and economy as a whole. It is time we took Dr. King’s dream, and the 14th Amendment for what they are. If races are really equal, Affirmative Action needs to end. There is no place for racism in America.

–Matt Young

15 October, 2012

Incompetent Negligence or Cover-Up: The Congressional Hearings on Benghazi Attack

               The last time Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) held a high profile hearing in Congress Patriotslog identified it as a political witch hunt–and it turned out to be the case. This week however, it seems to be a different scenario. Hearings are being held this week on the security leading up to the attack on the Benghazi consulate in which Ambassador Stevens was killed, and it has not been kind to the administration. Left Wingers and Liberals are trying to play off the investigations and hearings as election year politics; to Patriotslog this is disgusting. When we initially wrote an article following the attack we were hesitant to say that the attack was caused by the YouTube video as the administration originally claimed; this is why we used the word “reportedly”, and only mentioned the video once. Protestors just do not show up and happen to be carrying rocket propelled grenades and automatic assault rifles in their backpacks. We all know Stephanie Cutter is so biased that she is delusional, but to say that an Ambassador and three security personnel dying is only a big deal because Mitt Romney wants it to be for his election is ludicrous–even by Stephanie Cutter standards. For the Left Wing to suggest that finding the truth in the attack and the security failures at the Benghazi Consulate is election year politics is a slap in the face to the families and the patriotic legacies of the four victims. We, and most of all they, deserve to know the truth. If there was more the administration could have done, and if they were denying that this was an act of terror, then voters deserve to know the truth before they cast a ballot.

The death of an Ambassador is an embarrassing incident for any administration, but if it was due to State Department security failures, then the administration tried to mislead voters by suggesting it was not a terrorist attack, Patriotslog can think of no other reason to do this than because the administration was worried about the implications for President Obama’s re-election. Now, President Obama may have not known anything about this. Those in his administration may have fed him bad information on purpose and acted alone in orchestrating this apparent cover up, but even still, this looks terrible for the administration.

In all fairness, the two witnesses yesterday from the administration were hounded, and often (maybe as much as 20% of the time) were cut off before they could entirely answer a question. However, what we did learn yesterday is shocking. From what was revealed yesterday, this situation looks like–in the best case scenario–incompetent negligence, and amateur investigating. There were certainly warnings of the attack. Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, who was in Benghazi to investigate the attack, stated that a rocket propelled grenade had entered the compound months before the attack (this was confirmed in yesterday’s hearing), possibly to test the American response, which was minimal. There were 134 security incidents in Libya from June 2011 until September 2012; however, only about 20% or so of those occurred in Benghazi. It

Do These Look Like Anti-American Protestors?

calls to wonder why then on the 135th security incident, which happened to be on the 9/11 anniversary, the administration would suggest this was a protest due to a video, and not a terrorist attack? Of course, there was a protest in Egypt in which protestors stormed the compound and destroyed the American Flag, but the State Department finally admitted, the day before the Congressional hearings (ya, that smells a little fishy to me too) that there was no protest outside the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack. It is now a month after the attack; this suggests either that the administration took an entire month to ask one of the survivors of the attack if there was a protest preceding the attack, or they kept this information from the public for an entire month. Again, this demonstrates either an incompetent negligence or a cover up. One must also ask why the Libyan Government was clear from the beginning that this was a terrorist attack, but it took eight days for our government, and weeks for our President to confirm such. It is even less likely that Libyan intelligence is better than our intelligence than it is that Newt Gingrich would have really put a colony on the moon. Moreover, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood testified that an intelligence agency also concluded that this was the result of a terrorist attack in less than 24 hours; so one must ask again, was this incompetent negligence, or a cover up?

Mohammed el Gharabi, a militia leader in Benghazi also revealed that he told State Department that the security situation in Benghazi was deteriorating; not that this was anything knew, testimony suggests that the State Department was aware of this, however, to have a friendly militia leader say that they were losing control of the city and it was becoming very dangerous should have been a strong indication of the situation. Almost as strong, perhaps, as the repeated requests for increased security personnel by the State Department security team on hand in Libya. Reportedly, these requests were continuously denied, and they were even told to stop the requests because they would not be granted. Indeed, in yesterday’s hearings, Eric Nordstrom, the former State Department Regional Security Officer for Libya revealed that he was told that 12 more security personnel was the equivalent of “asking for the Sun, Moon, and stars.” For all of his partisanship, Rep. Issa did make one good point. By denying requests for increased security while increasing pay for current security, the State Department was essentially stating that they will not keep their security personnel safe, but they will pay them for taking the extra risk. There are even reports that officials worked against increasing security. There may have even been a three day advance notice from the Libyan Government that the attack was coming.

Following the attack, it was mentioned in the hearing that government officials, including U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice identified the video as the cause based on concrete evidence, yet no investigation had been completed, and all available evidence pointed to a terrorist attack. It has also been reported that security personnel considered that it was not a matter of if, but when an attack took place.

The afternoon of September 11th, hours before the attack on the consulate, a United States intelligent agency intercepted a phone call between an Al Qaeda group in North Africa and a local Libyan group. Several phone calls had been intercepted previously, but this one, just after the protest in Egypt erupted, was particularly interesting because “officials believe al-Qaida told members of the Libyan militia that they should take a cue from the Cairo protests and launch immediately any attack they had been planning for the future.” It is unclear if there was enough time to relay this information to those in Libya, but if bureaucratic red tape is the reason why it was not, we need an explanation. Those intelligence officials should have called Libyan security officials immediately.

There may yet be more evidence that will surface; however, one month after the attack all intelligence gathered indicates that it was obvious that this was a terrorist attack, and that the administration failed to provide more security when requested. Given the circumstances it seems that it would have been common sense to provide that security; however, we do not know what the security situation is like in other nations or the reason for the denials of the security requests. But until that information becomes available it appears that the administration was negligent to the threats in Libya, and either incompetent or participated in a cover-up. All three of those scenarios should be extremely significant to the American people. Those accusing Congress of election year politics should realize that this is not about politics, this is about truth. The acts of the administration appear to be either due to the election politics, or inadequate executive abilities. If there is solid information out there that provides a descent explanation as to why security requests were so often denied, or why the administration looked like they tried to cover up this embarrassing series of events we need to know about it. I do not want to hear that the administration was acting on the best intelligence they had; that is a lie I would expect from a child. If Libya has better intelligence than us that illustrates incompetence as much as anything else would. We need to know the truth. President Obama accuses Mitt Romney of bad foreign policy; Patriotslog admittedly is not a fan of Mitt Romney, but this situation makes it look like he is worlds ahead of the President in foreign policy. Mr. President, it is time to end the silence. We need your side of the story.

–Matt Young

11 October 2012

Is Our Alliance with Israel Worth the Trouble?

                With every day that passes Iran becomes more dangerous. It appears that they are committed to reaching nuclear capacity and developing a weapon of mass destruction. This means that with every passing day Israel and Iran are closer to an armed conflict. Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has voiced his desire to wipe Israel off the map. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu has promised Israel will use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and will act alone if necessary. With an armed conflict appearing almost inevitable there is little doubt the United States will join the armed conflict on the side of Israel. There is no question that a nuclear Iran should be considered a threat to America; the real question is this: should America still be fighting in the Israeli corner?

Patriotslog has been considering all the angles to this question for quite some time, and after weighing in all the consequences the evidence suggests it is not worth the trouble. Does Israel even provide a single advantage being our ally? They certainly do not give us any economic advantage, and our involvement with them continuously breeds negativity from the rest of the world. I suspect the most conservative of readers will argue that an alliance with Israel gives us a strategic military position of power in the Middle East. Patriotslog will challenge this idea with the assertion that Israel has become liability, in the policy, influence, economy, and military aspects of our foreign relations.

                Recently the government convened an analysis of our situation in the Middle East. The results came in an 82 page report titled “Preparing for a Post Israel Middle East.” Needless to say, in our ideologically divided nation, a report like this emblazons many passions. However, the report uses a lot of logic. Israel has been known to spy on us and intentionally steal intelligence from us. Would we let any other ally get away with that? Israel also participates in many illegal arms transfers; the report continues, “this includes supporting more than 60 ‘front organizations’ and approximately 7500 US officials who do Israel’s bidding and seek to dominate and intimidate the media and agencies of the US government which should no longer be condoned”. Patriotslog currently has a freedom of information act request pending for a copy of this report, but currently we do not have a copy and therefore cannot provide specifics on who or what those front organizations or officials are, or how much influence or detriment they have on our nation. However, the point still stands that Israel is and has been spying on us–their greatest ally–and participating in illegal arms deals. Again, would a real ally do that?

Israel supports, condones, and practices, as a sovereign government, severe racial discrimination. This is not the individual people being racist; this is the government of Israel intentionally discriminating against the Palestinian people. They have forcibly removed scores of thousands of Palestinian people from their homes or businesses to make room for Jewish interests, while allegedly killing hundreds. They discriminate in education, business, and housing. Has there been any other ally of the United States–post-WWII–that has done these things? Israel has supported anti-Palestinian terrorism in the

Israeli terrorist attacks on Gaza

West Bank. How can we support a Jewish terrorist act but deplore an Islamic terrorist act? Israel is pushing with increasing aggressiveness to create a religious state, where Jewish law becomes Israeli law. The United States has opposed creation of Islamic states, how can we support the creation of a Jewish state?

I know some readers are thinking that we do not support those things. Israel is a strategic ally, but we do not have to support their actions. To this I argue, why has no other ally in our modern era done these things? Any ally that has thought of or suggested these things has been scolded by our nation: why does Israel get away with it? Moreover, if we continue our alliance with Israel we are de facto supporters of their actions. It would be virtual suicide for anyone to attack any nation that has strong support from the United States. Israel has become our crazy-super-model girlfriend. She is very difficult for us to deal with, and certainly causes more harm than good to us; but we refuse to break up with her because of her sex appeal. We are losing our friends, our money (billions of dollars in aid to Israel, while our nation is in massive debt), and our credibility for keeping our sexy super model around, but we are afraid of what life might be like should we end the parasitic relationship. Moreover, when a caring individual does step in and try to help, we insist our dazzling beauty is not crazy at all, and deny the fact that she needs counseling. We are de facto enablers of the Israeli policies.

Our support of Israel is tantamount to a six decade blind support of Afghanistan. Imagine the outrage from our public if we supported Hamid Karzai, no matter what he did, for the next 53 years? We would keep spending billions, irritating the world, and losing credibility; and for what? A base closer to Pakistan or China? This does not make sense! Most Americans believe that once we have secured the safety of Afghanistan we need to let them be their own nation, as long as it is not a terrorist nation. Why is this different with Israel? Why can we not see that we deserve better than our blonde bombshell girlfriend? When it comes to national alliances, the girl next door is almost always a better choice.

George Washington, in his farewell address, warned our nation that the two most dangerous things for our nation are radical political parties, and perpetual alliances. Given the evidence, can you think of two things that hurt our nation more? Maybe a little more evidence will help.

In 2004 the Pentagon released a strategic communications report. The conclusion; our problem in the Middle East is not ideological or religious, it is occupational.

“Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom’, but they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably, Egypt Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States.”

They do note hate us because we are American. They hate us because their dictators are our allies, because we have a perennial presence in the Middle East and perpetually stick our nose in their business. We have placed such huge emphasis on keeping Iran from reaching nuclear capabilities, but why? We are now their enemy and this policy makes sense for American security, but has it always been that way? The logical answer is that Iran supports terrorists and provides recruits for violent jihad; yet if you think about it, so does Pakistan. The Haqqani network might be the biggest reason Afghanistan is not yet secured, and Pakistan has had a shaky history with India, very similar to that of Iran and Israel. With Iran, it is our crazy girlfriend that is threatened. We cannot let that happen. Of course we have already gone down this road and we cannot turn back now that Iran also views us as an enemy. I wonder if we had stayed out of their business from the beginning, would it be this way? As little as 25 years ago Americans were welcome in Iran; not any longer.

The report goes on to highlight that the American occupation of the Middle East is the most chaffing irritant to the Islamic people. While many boundaries–race, language, religious sect, culture, and ethnicity–divide the Muslim world, a sense of American oppressiveness unites them.

 “Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic–namely, that the war is all about us. As the Muslims see it, everything about the war is–for Americans–really no more than the extension of American domestic politics and its great game…When Americans talk to Muslims they are really just talking to themselves.”

                Many Muslims see our presence in the Middle East as an extension of our support of Israel. It is us being there, not us being Americans that angers them. Some of the largest Muslim nations in the world–Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Nigeria–the United States has stable and often positive relations with. If our identity as a nation was the problem, this would not be the case. The largest problem is our relationship with Israel. Though we may have gone beyond the point of no return with many of the Islamic radicals–now equating America with evil as they do Israel–the majority do not feel this way. The problem is that the longer we stay with our Israeli girlfriend the smaller this majority becomes. A break up now would pull the rug out from under much of the recruiting strategy terrorists now use. It may take a generation, but if our policies that no alienate the Muslim world are abandoned the chances of them abandoning their radicalism will be far greater. There will always be a portion of Islam that will hold to their radical terrorist ideologies, but as long as we are seen as colonialist invaders that portion will continue to grow. Our alliance with Israel serves us no benefit we could not easily find somewhere else. George Washington was right: our alliance with Israel is not worth the trouble.

 

–Matt Young

6 October, 2012

The Casualty of Truth in the Presidential Election

                It is no secret that politicians lie. That has become one of the staples of American election cycles. We have come to expect it to such a great degree that nobody even attempts to hold them accountable. This Presidential election has been one of the most dishonest in recent memory. The election is not about policy, it is about personality. One candidate cannot run on an abysmal record in office, the other cannot run on an elitist record on Wall Street. The result; a verbal combat zone scattered over hundreds of television and radio waves carried by hundreds of millions of dollars–the bulk of it in an attempt to attack the character of the opponent. The problem is that when truth becomes a casualty, you and I are the collateral damage.

The blatant dishonesty of the two major Party candidates means only those of us masochistic enough to enjoy doing our own political research are able to cast an informed vote. The rest of the country can be lead to believe that Obama will pay for their gas and their mortgage. The lies have intentionally been misleading, because it seems each candidate believes they can only win this election by degrading the character of the other. The Mitt Romney campaign ran an ad accusing President Obama of stripping away the work requirements for welfare recipients, essentially accusing President Obama of purposely creating a welfare state. This ad was so misleading that fact checkers rated it a pants on fire lie. The campaign strategists reportedly responded by saying that they will not let fact checkers dictate the way they run the campaign. If this is true it is literally spitting in the face of voters; they do not care whether or not we know the truth, they only care about winning the election. This is the radicalism our political atmosphere has come to.

Before any radical Democrat starts gloating we need to point out that President Obama is equally as guilty, maybe more so. President Obama has been so busy trying to demonize Mitt Romney that he took weeks to tell America the attack on the Libyan Consulate, in which Ambassador Stevens was killed, was a terrorist attack. He either ignored the matter, or flat lied to us all; both are frightening ideas. The Obama team assertion that Mitt Romney lied about his retirement from Bain Capital; thereby making him responsible for the outsourcing that took place is equally as worrisome. A leave of absence is a standard business practice that the Obama team should be well aware of. The fact that they ran this as a central part of their campaign for weeks shows that they were either flat lying, or they really are completely clueless as to how business works. It seems unlikely that not a single Obama team member, either in his campaign or his administration staff, would be as clueless about business as to actually believe this. They took a gamble that you were clueless, and sold you a big fat bologna sandwich. Another of the biggest whoppers from the Obama team is the line that under the Romney/Ryan Medicare plan, retirees would be responsible for an extra $6,600 of medical costs each year. Long before even being selected as the vice presidential candidate Ryan released a new budget eliminating the extra cost to retirees under his Medicare program, which is very similar to the Romney plan.

When the focus of two campaigns is mudslinging, both candidates get dirty. Paul Ryan seemed to blame the closing of a Janesville, WI GM plant on President Obama failures. This is terribly misleading, because the plant began its shutdown of production under President Bush–the decision had already been made and the process started when President Obama took office. The plant stayed open long enough to apparently fill an order of small Isuzu trucks, then the final 50 or so employees were laid off. For Paul Ryan to suggest that Obama closed this plant is either a flat lie, or an illustration of how little he understands the business world.

If somebody wanted to go into the boring details we could discuss for another 5,000 words all of the lies both campaigns and their supporters are throwing around, but that has probably already become redundant. Whether it is raiding Medicare, gutting welfare, fast and furious, cutting the deficit, changing Washington, or Mitt Romney’s taxes, the lies continue. These are not even lies the PACs have told, these are lies the campaigns themselves have told! The craziest thing is that when these two fling their poo, the radical idiots at the base of each party actually scoop up the crap and eat it. Republican talking heads will point out that the GM plant was not completely closed until Obama took office, somehow believing it was Obama that closed the plant. Democratic talking heads like Stephanie Cutter will point out that Mitt Romney signed an SEC filing stating he was the CEO at Bain until two years after he said he retired, suggesting that a standard leave of absence makes him a felon.

We as voters support the liars, then complain about being lied to. As long as we put up with our own party’s candidate telling lies, both parties will perpetuate the problem. We have to be honest enough as a nation to call out and hold our own candidates responsible for their lies, but this will never happen because each party will think that that the other will refuse, and by doing so, they will both be right.

Until us as voters develop some real moral courage we will keep being lied to, and probably keep liking it. This is one of the most dishonest campaigns in memory, and neither candidate seems to notice, let alone care. When one thinks about each specific lie the conclusion is simple; either our next President is a complete liar, or, if they believe the lies they are selling, a complete moron. Heck, it might even be both. Either way, if you or I want the truth, we are going to have to fend for ourselves.

 

–Matt Young

30 September, 2012

%d bloggers like this: