The Impeder

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Ron Paul Impressive in Iowa Straw Poll

How does a candidate with little name recognition outside of the internet, virtually no organization in Iowa and having spent very little money or time there end up with almost 10% of the vote in the straw campaign?

Hmmm... could it be liberty and the Constitution?

Check out the predicted results by the Iowa GOP compared with the actual results:


Actual Results:

11th place: John Cox (41 votes)
10th place: John McCain (101 votes)
9th place: Duncan Hunter
8th place: Rudy Giuliani
7th place: Fred Thompson
6th place: Tommy Thompson (1039 votes)
5th place: Ron Paul (1305 votes, 9.1%)
4th place: Tom Tancredo (1961 votes, 13.7%)
3rd place: Sam Brownback (2192 votes)
2nd place: Mike Huckabee (2587 votes)
1st place: Mitt Romney (4516)

5th place and 9.1% of the vote instead of last place and 0% of the vote. Such exceeding of expectations would logically be considered positive news for a campaign that has struggled with name recognition.

However, ABC "News" thinks otherwise: "Paul challenged his supporters to show that his campaign is more than just online support and urged them to convert that support into actual votes. Rep. Paul's fifth-place showing demonstrated his supporters were unable to meet that challenge."

So, the "scientific polling" which has showed Paul at 0-2% means that his supporters are just online. Apparently, garnering almost one tenth of the vote in a straw poll with little campaigning or name recognition also means that his supporters are "just online".

What a joke.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

They don't hate our freedom. They hate our policies

From the USA Today:

Any anti-American sentiment does not extend to commerce, the shop owners said.

Although militants target U.S. soldiers and Iraqis who work with U.S. officials or Americans based in Iraq, store owners feel safe selling Maxwell House coffee and Speed Stick deodorant.

"It's not a big problem," al-Jabir said, "because you can find American goods everywhere."

Our culture/freedoms are not what foments Anti-American sentiment.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Let's Nuke 'Em!

Polls from Iran show that Iranians have a positive view of America. Keep in mind, this are the same Iranians upon whom ALL presidential candidates except Ron Paul, Dennis Jucinich and Mike Gravel, would consider making a pre-emptive Nuclear Strike.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Don't Blame Bush

Irish Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams recently made headlines by saying "I could kill George Bush!". Aside from the fact that murder threats are evil and not what you expect from someone who won a Nobel Peace Prize, Ms. Williams' expression of hatred exemplifies a major flaw in the Bush-hating crowd.

The flaw is the failure to recognize that Bush is one man, and is not himself to blame for whatever calamity that brewed Williams' hate for him. Sure, Bush is powerful, but events like the Iraq War, for instance, have been projects in place for some time. The set up for the war was of course, the First Gulf War waged by Bush's father and Clinton's periodic bombing of the country.

Also, if you want to discuss the monarchical manner in which the war in Iraq was commenced (with which Congress complied), it may be useful to note that Clinton showed even more disregard for restraint when he decided to wage a war of choice against the Serbs in 1999. Bush, in all his faults, at least asked for Congress to abdicate its war-making authority before attacking Iraq.

The Imperial Presidency that led to this war and any other policies that Ms. Williams hates have been in the works for a long time, well before the current Bush was even thought of.

The problem is a lot bigger than Bush, and for the most part, it seems that most don't realize it. Unfortunately, that means that once Bush leaves office, we're likely to see more of the same.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Let's Spread Peace and Freedom through War

Neoconservative AOL Newsblogger Dinesh D'Souza recently posted a blog stating that Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is not a real libertarian because he does not advocate invading countries in order to "free" their people.

D'Souza had the gall to use the example of the American Revolution as evidence that since the libertarian founders fought for their own liberty, they would support a government doing "whatever it could" to spread "liberty", including invading other countries. D'Souza bases this belief on the fact that the founders believed liberty is a universal right.

Of course, comments by Ron Paul supporters debunked D'Souza's ridiculous assertion, citing that the American Revolution was a defensive war against imperialism. They also noted that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and quotes of the founders reveal that D'Souza has more in common with King George III or Julius Caesar than American Revolutionaries.

But D'Souza was not done. Recognizing that the founders were indeed averse to the freedom crusades that he advocates, he replied with this absurd response:

"So how can the ideological universalism of the founders be reconciled with their practical caution? Easy: the founders realized that America at the time had very big ideals but very little power. America in the late eighteenth century was what we would today call a "developing nation." It was simply not in a position to promote freedom abroad. The founders had their hands full in trying to secure it at home."

Ah, it is that easy! The founders caution against imperialism did not stem from the principle that the bloodshed, taxes and suppression of dissent brought by wars would harm the very liberties that they had just fought for - their objection was only "practical". If they had a bigger army, they would happily violate the rights of their own countrymen along with the rights of the citizens of some other hapless country all for the sake of ... defending rights! Sure, many people will be killed - an obvious violation of their liberty - but others will be "free" when our army takes over their country.

So goes a tortured neo-conservative revisionism of the founding of this country.

Thomas Jefferson didn't really mean it when he said "[c]onquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government". The quote was out of context - he really said "Sike!" at the end of the quote.

What he really meant to say is that conquest is not in our principles ... until we have laser-guided bombs and nuclear weapons. Once that happens, we can throw that whole idea of governments ruling at the consent of the governed out the window and tell the rest of the world how to live. After all, protecting the lives, liberties and property of its own citizens is not the real sole legitimate purpose of our government. Our rights should be sacrificed in order to defend the rights of the rest of the world. ... Right Dinesh?

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

They Hate Us Because We're Free!

I thought I would never hear that silly argument again. I over-estimated our politicians.

In last night's presidential debate, Anti-war Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul had the gall to suggest that U.S. government military interventions in the Middle East (you know, all the bombing and "collateral damage") helped bring on the hatred that was behind the 9-11 attacks.

This opinion, by the way, is shared by our own Central Intelligence Agency and numerous Middle East experts. It is also supported by history and polls of the people of the Middle East. In a normal setting, such an opionion would be considered reasonable.

But at the debate, reason and logic were not what seized the day.

Rudy Giuliani interrupted and had the following response: "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."

And the crowd erupted, as if Giuliani had actually made a point by offering an alternate explanation, when all he did was appeal to emotion. In essence he said "I think your opinion, based on the CIA, opinion polling and historical evidence is absurd. Take it back!" That is not exactly an intelligent argument.

Then, later in the broadcast, he gave one of the dumbest, most intellectually lazy explanations for the 9/11 attacks. He said that they attacked us because "we are free" and "women have rights here". That is almost as bad as President Bush once saying that they hate us because we can buy a home" (he really did say that in a speech. In that same speech he also gave the following doozy: "When we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." !!!!)

Ok, now compare the arguments.

Terrorists attack us because we are free and because women can vote and don't have to wear headscarves.

Terrorists attack us because our policies kill their fellow countrymen and fellow Muslims.

Which sounds more plausible, given the evidence?

Remember, this is not a justification for their actions. It is only an explanation.

Without a valid explanation, we cannot defeat the threat and keep Americans secure.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

"Protecting the Homeland"

It's great that we have the government to protect us and our freedom. In order to fulfill that duty, it has recently acted to tackle 3 of my worst fears - fears shared by millions of Americans. The government's agents scored victories for freedom by taking the following actions on our behalf:

1) A small bootleg radio station was sacked by the feds last Wednesday. Apparently the government hadn't granted them a freedom license to broadcast.

2) An indebted former Stanford Law student had $61,000 seized by the feds without charges on suspicion of prostitution. She (kinda sorta) allegedly worked as a call girl to pay off her debts.

3) A pregnant woman was shoved to her knees and arrested by the Metro Police in D.C. after having talked too loudly on her cell phone.

The government agents involved in these cases are obviously heroes. They should be saluted for protecting our freedom from the threat posed by small, anti-state radio stations; for protecting our freedom from someone else accepting payment for sex; and most of all, for protecting our freedom from hearing pregnant women yell at people on their cell phones. All of these innocent (oops didn't mean that!) people deserved what they got - a nice drubbing from the state's agents who protect our freedom. We should be thankful for their service. But for the heroic feats of these agents this would not be a free country.