non interventionist

There was a substantial population of anti-war activists in the country. “American Firsters” and other non-interventionist groups were well-organized. Then there was the German American Bund. They were all over the place, heavily financed and effective in spewing their propaganda of hate; a fifth column of Americans following the Third Reich party line. They organized pseudo-military training camps such as ‘Camp Siegried’ in Yaphank, Long Island and held huge rallies in such places as Madison Square Garden in New York. Our irreverent treatment of their Feuhrer infuriated them. We were inundated with a torrent of raging hate mail and vicious, obscene telephone calls. The theme was “death to the Jews.” At first we were inclined to laugh off their threats, but then, people in the office reported seeing menacing-looking groups of strange men in front of the building on Forty Second Street and some of the employees were fearful of leaving the office for lunch. Finally, we reported the threats to the police department. The result was a police guard on regular shifts patrolling the halls and office.

No sooner than the men in blue arrived than the woman at the telephone switchboard signaled me excitedly. ‘There’s a man on the phone says he’s Mayor LaGuardia,’ she stammered, ‘He wants to speak to the editor of Captain America Comics.’

I was incredulous as I picked up the phone, but there was no mistaking the shrill voice. ‘You boys over there are doing a good job, ‘ the voice squeaked, ‘The City of New York will see that no harm will come to you.’

—  Joe Simon, in “The Comic Book Makers”, on why America First-ers hated to see a Nazi punched and how a Mayor protected Captain America

anonymous asked:

But trump is honestly less interventionist than most of the candidates. Plus there is a big difference between what the candidate wants to do and what they actually will do. There is a congress and supreme court in existence. They are the reason trump won't do anything stupid. Plus trump uses his words very loosely so make sure you aren't taking something he said literally when he didn't mean it that way. I'll admit that that is sometimes a bit of a gray area but it still needs to be done

“But trump is honestly less interventionist than most of the candidates”

“I would take away the oil”

“We’re going to have to knock them out and knock them out hard,”

“Take out their families”

Less interventionist doesn’t mean non-interventionist.

“There is a congress and supreme court in existence.”

Since when did Obama have congressional authorization to bomb Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria or to resume combat operations in Iraq? He didn’t but those things still happened.

The guy is just as authoritarian as Clinton or Sanders. I’m telling you right now, I will not vote for him based of what he’s said.

femmmefatalist  asked:

A little late but for Deaton headcannon - I always wondered about how he and Marin fit as siblings. Why the different last names? Why seeming so distant with different ideologies about balance? I headcanon them as being taught separately, maybe raised to be druids but when it came to actual training, Marin was taught a different approach so she's more aggressive about maintaining the balance. Deaton has his own agendas and always has and she knows he can't be trusted to do what needs to be done

It’s never too late! 

And here is where I wish that canon had given us their backstory, or done little more world building in regards to druids and emissaries, because clearly Deaton and Marin have different approaches. Deaton, on a surface read at least, appears to be non-interventionist. Marin isn’t. 

I can definitely see them as being taught two very different paths. 

I wonder if powers like theirs run in families too, and if somewhere out there is a whole extended family, each with their own specialties, and each with their own packs. Those would be some interesting family reunions! 

anonymous asked:

What is your opinion of the notion that modern soldiers, especially in the US, do not deserve the culture of respect they currently receive? By this I essentially mean that despite being a volunteer force and engaging in wars proven to be malicious and illegal, the US Military and its members are still revered as defenders, and a culture of unquestioning respect still surrounds them. So with this newly emerging idea of not honoring those who fought in these recent wars, what are your thoughts?

Growing up I never thought that “too much respect” was given to soldiers; I still don’t think that’s true.

Regardless of whether you’re anti-war or not, you should at least acknowledge that going out of your way to serve in the military is a brave thing to do. It’s a huge sacrifice because they put themselves in harm’s way to protect the nation. I’m pretty non-interventionist when it comes to war, but I can recognize that. A really common justification for people thinking that those who serve don’t deserve the amount of respect they get (or any at all) is that they kill. They should know that serving in the military isn’t just about killing.

I’m not trying to say that all of their actions are immune from criticism because there are questionable things that the military has done in the past/present. (such as their recruitment methods) But to say they don’t deserve a modicum of respect is pretty close-minded imo. Hate the war, not the soldiers. 

anonymous asked:

I don't believe Tucker Carlson is a principled anti-interventionist

He’s very conservative, so he isn’t ideological. Conservatives are just a collection of biases and prejudices. But from what I can tell he seems to be pretty consistently skeptical of American foreign policy interventions over a long period of time. I think that he has an non-interventionist bias. At the very least, he is definitely a foreign policy realist and I’m glad he’s in O’Reilly’s spot now

A pivotal moment in the history of the Cold War - election day in Poland, 4th June 1989

In communist Poland, strikes during the summer of 1980 led to the birth of Solidarity (“Solidarność” in Polish) - the first independent trade union in the Soviet bloc, which rapidly turned into a mass movement for social change.

The government attempted to crush the movement in December 1981 by the imposition of martial law, accompanied by mass arrests and internment of opposition activists - thus driving Solidarity underground. However, after years of increasing austerity, a new round of strikes and nationwide unrest broke out in 1988 which forced the communist authorities to convene the so-called “Round Table” talks with opposition leaders.

The non-interventionist policy adopted by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made possible the re-legalisation of Solidarity and an unprecedented agreement to hold elections in Poland on 4th June 1989, in which the opposition could field candidates against the Communist Party - the first free elections in any Soviet bloc country. A new upper chamber (the Senate) was created in the Polish parliament and all of its 100 seats were contestable in the election, as well as one third of the seats in the more important lower chamber (the Sejm).

Solidarity won 99 of the 100 Senate seats and all 161 contestable seats in the Sejm - a victory that also triggered a chain reaction across the Soviet Union’s satellite states, leading to the almost entirely peaceful overthrow of each Moscow-imposed regime, and ultimately to the end of the USSR itself. 

anonymous asked:

Eltigrechico is wrong. For if everything he says is true, then libertarians should be isolationists not non-interventionists since a state never had a right to fight our conflicts. Even if another nation is committing a genocide against us. However, if a state is justified in doing so in cases of defense, then given your definition of defense, almost every war we got into was justified and hawkish policies should be supported by libertarians

Before you read this, I want everybody to look at what my stance was on this a year ago. My, my, how things have changed.

Anon, why, exactly, do you think libertarians are anti-war? Also, what do you think isolationism entails?

If anyone, anywhere, is a victim of aggression, then anyone, anywhere has the right to defend the victim. That is beyond dispute. That does not, however, create an obligation.

Take Saddam Hussein. Literally anybody on the planet had the right to kill him. He had committed acts of aggression against the Kurdish people, and if even one had cried out for help, then any person or group of people could choose to answer the call. (That’s not even why we started the Second Gulf War, I know, but bear with me.) George Bush himself could have personally taken out Saddam with a well-placed sniper shot, and no crime would have occurred. It would have been an act of defense of the innocent.

But nobody had to answer the call. If they were so inclined, every human being on the planet could have chosen to simply turn a blind eye to Saddam’s numerous crimes against humanity and let the Kurds die. It would certainly not be the first time.

This would not be virtuous. This would created a darker world by signaling to others that genocide could not or would not be punished. There are a million reasons why letting genocide occur is a Bad IdeaTM. But if for some reason the people of the world all did a risk assessment and determined that they did not wish to stick their necks out on the issue, nobody, not even the Kurds, would have the right to force people to help them.

The reason the State wars are immoral is two-fold.

The first is that the citizens of the states fighting the war are forced to support it. If a person does not believe in intervention in the Middle East or Southeast Asia or Latin America or wherever, they are still forced to support it anyway through government extortion. Not only that, but there is a distinct increase in government extortion every time the government chooses to engage in these wars without the consent of any given citizen. Not only that, but the government inevitably harms freedoms in other ways outside of specific tax burdens, through violations of the rights to privacy, free speech, free association, and so on.

A man who loses his son in 9/11 could say that he has seen enough bloodshed and does not want to bring that horror to another father on the other side of the world in a country that didn’t even have anything to do with the attack, nor does he want to give into fear and panic at home.

“No,” says the state, “we must respond with force, and you must support this.”

He must act according to the state’s vision of virtue, no matter how much it tears at his soul. In other times past, the State might have even forced the man to send another of his sons to participate in what this atrocity, but we are just a bit more civilized than that.

And then the state tells the man that if he does not like it, he may leave. But even if the burden was on him (it isn’t), Where is he to go? Any other state to which he moves will likely engage in the same behavior. If he complains there, he will be told that he should have stayed in his own country to fix it, and yet when he tried to fix his own country, he was repeatedly shown the door. And the sicker irony is that the US in particular routinely bombs countries with which it is not even at war in the first place, shrinking his so-called choices even further.

The second is that the state continually obfuscates responsibility for its own crimes in order to commit more of them. The state kidnaps and tortures innocents on word of mouth. The state obliterates families and retroactively designates the males as combatants. The State kills groups of people in their own lands for fitting some sort of pattern. At one point, the US government deliberately murdered 200,000 civilians with a superweapon on the grounds that if they did not, they would have had to kill even more civilians than that.

And through all of this, the buck passes forever.

You cannot blame the troops, even though they all volunteered to serve, for they were just following orders, even other men in the past took it upon themselves to assassinate their superior officers with hand grenades before they would violate their morals.

You cannot blame the executive, because he is simply following the orders given to him by congress, assuming he went to Congress at all.

You cannot blame congress, because they are simply following the mandate of taxpayers and voters. They wanted this, or were at least complicit in it. And you know they wanted this, because they didn’t choose to leave the country when the war started.

And god help you if you lose your family in an American airstrike or find yourself whisked away without trial to a prison site in Cuba indefinitely and choose to take it out on American taxpayers and voters. They are not legitimate targets, only troops are.

But you can’t blame the troops, even the specific troops who trespassed against you. They’re just following orders, after all.

A libertarian does not have to support a war, just because he thinks the target deserves to die. He may very well decide that the agent prosecuting the war is not capable of completing its objectives in anything approaching a timely fashion or at a cost, financial or humanitarian, that he is willing to accept. And yet as of now he has no choice. Even if he does want Saddam dead, it must be done on the state’s terms, and he cannot renegotiate them or seek an alternative provider.The only way for a state war to be legitimate is if it stopped targeting civilians and stopped collecting taxes. That is, if it ceases to become a state at all.

The logical conclusion of @eltigrechico‘s libertarian position is not non-interventionism. It is not isolationism. The logical conclusion of my philosophy is not a war economy. It is not interventionism. It is not an unceasing worldwide anti-communist crusade. (That’s just my consumer preference.)

The logical conclusion to both of our positions is Anarchism, the destruction of the state itself.

anonymous asked:

Ok but really what has Rand Paul done to prove he would be a good president

You have to know I expected this.

Any more questions?
The Problem with 'Boys Will Be Boys' - The Huffington Post

Text by Soraya Chemaly

For months, every morning when my daughter was in preschool, I watched her construct an elaborate castle out of blocks, colorful plastic discs, bits of rope, ribbons and feathers, only to have the same little boy gleefully destroy it within seconds of its completion.

It was obvious that this little guy got massive joy out of doing this. The first time, my daughter just stared in amazement and I tried to help her rebuild. Second time: sadness. Third time: The Injustice! “Why did he do that again?” Fourth time: Royally Pissed Girl wanted to know why his parent didn’t stop him. And what about me? Fifth time: She was ready with some ideas about stopping him.

During the course of this socialization exercise, we tried several strategies and his parents engaged in conversation with us, but mostly me. One or the other of them would occasionally, always after the fact, smile and apologize as they whisked him away. Figuring out what they would say next became a fun game:

“You know! Boys will be boys!”

“He’s just going through a phase!”

“He’s such a boy! He LOVES destroying things!”

“Oh my god! Girls and boys are SO different!”

“He. Just. Can’t. Help himself!”

No matter how many times he did it, they never swooped in BEFORE the morning’s live 3-D reenactment of “Invasion of AstroMonster.”

I tried to teach my daughter how to stop this from happening. She asked him politely not to do it. We talked about some things she might do. She moved where she built. She stood in his way. She built a stronger foundation to the castle, so that, if he did get to it, she wouldn’t have to rebuild the whole thing. In the meantime, I imagine his parents thinking, “What red-blooded boy wouldn’t knock it down?”

She built a beautiful, glittery castle in a public space.

It was so tempting.

He just couldn’t control himself and, being a boy, had violent inclinations.

She had to keep her building safe.

Her consent didn’t matter. Besides, it’s not like she made a big fuss when he knocked it down. It wasn’t a “legitimate” knocking over if she didn’t throw a tantrum.

His desire – for power, destruction, control, whatever- - was understandable.

Maybe she “shouldn’t have gone to preschool” at all. OR, better if she just kept her building activities to home.

I know it’s a lurid metaphor, but I taught my daughter the preschool block precursor of don’t “get raped” and this child, Boy #1, did not learn the preschool equivalent of “don’t rape.”

Not once did his parents talk to him about invading another person’s space and claiming for his own purposes something that was not his to claim. Respect for my daughter and her work and words was not something he was learning. It was, to them, some kind of XY entitlement. How much of the boy’s behavior in coming years would be excused in these ways, be calibrated to meet these expectations and enforce the “rules” his parents kept repeating?

There was another boy who, similarly, decided to knock down her castle one day. When he did it his mother took him in hand, explained to him that it was not his to destroy, asked him how he thought my daughter felt after working so hard on her building and walked over with him so he could apologize. That probably wasn’t much fun for him, but he did not do it again.

There was a third child. He was really smart. He asked if he could knock her building down. She, beneficent ruler of all pre-circle-time castle construction, said yes… but only after she was done building it and said it was OK. They worked out a plan together and eventually he started building things with her and they would both knock the thing down with unadulterated joy. You can’t make this stuff up.

Take each of these three boys and consider what he might do when he’s older, say, at college, drunk at a party, mad at an ex-girlfriend who rebuffs him and uses words that she expects will be meaningful and respecte, “No, I don’t want to. Stop. Leave.”

Based on Boy #1’s parents blanket gender essentialisms and explanations, my daughter and the kids around her could easily have come to the conclusion that all boys went through this phase, are so different from girls, cannot control themselves, and love destroying things. But, that’s not the case. Some do. Some don’t. There are also lots of girls who are very interested in ripping things apart systematically.

I have one of those, too. “Destructo Girl” was our nickname for this daughter. Given the slightest opportunity,she would grab whatever toy either of her sisters was playing with and run, giddy with power, to the top of a landing only to dash whatever was in her hand down two flights of stairs. She beamed with joy as it clattered and shattered. But, we figured just because she could do it, didn’t mean she should and eventually she understood that, even if she wanted to and it was fun, she couldn’t continue to violate her sisters’ rights as citizens of our household.

“Girls will be girls?” I don’t think so. Nor do we say things like, “She just can’t help herself.” I have heard parents of daughters so inclined say things like, “She’s just so rambunctious!” But, in my experience, most people assume girls, as a class, can control themselves better, faster, more completely, and that boys have a harder time. There are many studies that indicate the reasons why this might be true, including the fact that we teach girls to delay gratification more and also to put their needs last. But, it does not appear to be innate.

Boy #1? Yes, maybe he had impulse control issues. Maybe it would take a lot of time to teach him about self-control, like Daughter #2. Maybe it would take even longer to teach him about personal boundaries and other people’s rights. Maybe he had genuine problems with all of those things that needed to be addressed in more thorough ways than morning time social interactions.

But that boy – and many others like him – never got the benefit of the doubt. This behavior gets rewarded or not, amplified or not, sanctioned tacitly or not. Both on individual and cultural levels. To be clear: I’m not saying that there is causality between knocking down blocks in preschool and assaulting people later. I am not saying that all boys with bad manners, poor impulse control, ADHD or other behavioral issues will be rapists or abuse spouses. I’m saying the world would be a different kind of place if children were taught to respect other children’s rights from the start. Rights to be, to do, to look certain ways and not others. And that teaching children these things has profound implications for society. Anyone who has studied or worked in the field of domestic violence can tell you that the “overarching attitudinal characteristic” of abusive men is entitlement and the belief that they have rights without responsibility to or respect for others. Similar attitudes feed our steady stream of sexual assault and rape.

In general, I’m a strict non-interventionist when it comes to other people’s children, unless I am explicitly responsible for them and their safety. But, one morning, when it really became clear that Boy #1’s parents were utterly useless as people who could teach their son to be aware of others, empathetic and yes, kinder, I picked him up and moved him away from my daughter. I asked him gently if he understood the word “forever.” He said yes. Putting him down, I added that he was to stay away from my daughter and her castles for that length of time. So far, so good.

Contrary to popular belief, the United States didn’t have a non-interventionist policy before it was attacked by the Empire of Japan in Pearl Harbor. In fact, the United States had long practiced interventionist policies in Latin America and occupied countries for over a decade in the Central America region. Even since before the Spanish-American war, the United States had already established its imperialistic policies.

The U.S. had already defined expansionist policies in the Asia-Pacific by manipulating trade with the Kingdom of Hawaii and having American sugar farmers sabotage its government up until the annexation of the islands. The Spanish defeat at the turn of the century allowed the United States to acquire not just Puerto Rico as a territory and Cuba as a protectorate in the Caribbean, but also the Philippines in the China sea. The U.S. had already militarily intervened in China during the Boxer Rebellion and Commodore Perry had already forced Japan to open up to U.S. trade.

By the 1920′s, the United States collaborated with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to maintain its interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Ironically, due to Japan’s opening to European modernism (in which the U.S. played a big role), Japan was now trying to establish its own empire in its near region and interests between empires began to clash. Of course, Japanese expansionism represented a threat to U.S. interest; and in favour of its partners the U.S. government drastically cut trade with Japan, specially oil trade which Japan needed.

This cut in trade didn’t come from any moral position against Japan’s war mongering and jingoistic policies, it was intended to reduce Japan’s capabilities to affect U.S. interests. The United States wasn’t in any way having a non-interventionist policy; they had intervened in the region and picked sides almost a century before WWII.

Now, in no way I do condone the policies of the Japanese Empire, but recognizing its government as a force of evil should in no way come as thinking of the United States as a force of good. The U.S. actively participated in setting the circumstances of the war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply facilitated a casus belli on the United States to come as the “good guys”.

There is no moral justification for killing thousands of innocent civilians with nuclear bombs in a war you actively helped to set up. Had the Americans really been concerned with saving the lives of millions of American soldiers in the eventual invasion of the Japanese islands, the Americans would have officially approached the Japanese and negotiate a peace. However, the United States was never interested in negotiating peace, over and over again the United States only demanded an unconditional surrender which implies total control of Japan by the U.S. Armed Forces and its government. This was an objective that had been established long before the war seemed to be coming to an end; it was in line with U.S. foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific. The way U.S. military leaders managed to profit from Japan’s war crimes sets even clearly how Japan’s cruelty was no interest of U.S. leadership. Scientist of the criminal Unit 731 were not taken to court, they were used to expand American biological warfare and victims of these vile Japanese insitutions were ignored and labelled as communist agitators in order to protect the new military assets of the United States.

U.S. conservatives who love to put their founding fathers on a pedestal should read:

‘Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed; in order to give trade a stable course.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

To do otherwise is to pick sides and set the course of your involvement in a war.

anonymous asked:

Y r u so obsessed with Rand Paul

Who is the "Utopian"?

Non-Interventionist: “There is probably nothing the U.S. Government can do to "eliminate” ISIS, and, even if they could, there is no way to guarantee that something worse will not take it’s place (as, for example, ISIS did after the U.S. “eliminated” the then most evil man imaginable, Saddam Hussein). “

Interventionist: "With enough troops, money, bombs, and, above all, courage, the United States Government can eliminate evil in the world.”

Neo-liberalism’s ideology puts an onus on the non-interventionist state. But critical sociologists and political scientists have pointed out that as neoliberalism has developed, the role of the state has not been diminished, but transformed (Harvey, 2005; Martin R, 2002: 130). The neoliberal state remains an important steering device for the restructuring of society: while it successively retreats from fiscal intervention or the provision of welfare, it is ever-active in securing the conditions for deregulation, the expansion of markets and the privatisation of assets, while ensuring overall competitiveness of ‘its’ territory within a global economy. Consequently, the important question here is not whether the government is devolving responsibility for social reproduction onto local communities. The questions at stake are: how?, on whose terms? And to what effect?
—  E. Dowling & D. Harvie (2014) ‘Harnessing the Social: State, Crisis and (Big) Society’, Sociology, vol. 48, no. 5, p 878
  • clinton: neoliberal warmongering imperialist who’ll do everything you’re scared Trump will do, but quietly so you won’t notice. is definitely the most qualified candidate to firebomb Yemeni children
  • trump: literally a fascist, how has someone not shot him yet. not that it’ll do anything because the real threat is the resurgent fascist movement he’s kindled
  • johnson: weed and an ostensibly non-interventionist foreign policy don’t make up for wanting to auction off the entire government
  • stein: the reason people vote Green is to try and build an independent Left, but the Green Party is really not who you want to be your independent Left
  • la riva: strong Soviet armor will crush all enemies, including leftists who don’t think Stalin was just misunderstood
  • soltysik: total cinnamon roll, genuinely good dude, but SPUSA is so non-tendency that they’re basically completely ineffective
  • burning sandals: I’ll call him a revolutionary when he picks up a rifle, but I really am looking forward to that day if it ever comes

Joe Kennedy: Not a Bootlegger or a Nazi, But a Hardcore Non-Interventionist

“He’s Zelig, he’s everywhere - from World War I to World War II to the Cold War to the New Frontier,” says David Nasaw, author of the The Patriarch: The Remarkable Life and Turbulent Times of Joseph P. Kennedy. “If you look at the world the way [Kennedy] looks at it, your understanding of 20th Century American history is enormously expanded.”

Nasaw, a professor of history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, spoke with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie about his best-selling biography of the father of JFK, RFK, and Teddy Kennedy. Nasaw argues that Kennedy, who served as the American ambassador to Great Britain during World War II, was never pro-Nazi but was consistently against military intervention even during the Cold War. And to the disappointment of Kennedy haters everywhere, Nasaw debunks the myth that Joe made a fortune via bootlegging during Prohibition. In fact, those stories about Kennedy Sr., who passed multiple security checks by the FBI while serving multiple presidents, only surfaced in the late ‘60s when JFK assassination buffs tried to tie the family to the mob.


Does Noninterventionist Make You a Leftist?

Tom respond to the perennial claim of the neoconservatives that people who impose imperial adventures must be left-liberals. This is a fun one.

anonymous asked:

As a Republican, naturally I ❤️ apple pie, our lord, war, and the American flag. I hate feminists, gay people, people of color, I am against birth control for women, healthcare for people in need, and I refuse to let women have the right to do what they will to their own body. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? You're just another white man who doesn't want anybody having his money taken away, no matter what good it's doing. Hope you feel great about what your party is accomplishing: 0⃣

“As a Republican, (insert my personal idea of republicans and let me project it as your beliefs), Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?”

The instability of your statement is so great that I’m genuinely frightened at your lack of intelligence. You know nothing of me or, any Republicans for that matter.

  • I love apple pie

Yes, my girlfriend makes hella fucking good apple pie. I love that shit

  • Our lord

I love our Lord and savior Aqua Buddha, yes. (I’m an atheist).

  • War

Must be why I’m totally a non-interventionist.

  • The American Flag

I don’t give a shit about a piece of cloth, but I’d die for the idea that it represents.

  • I hate feminists

No, just disagree.

  • Gay People

No. I don’t.

  • People of color

I don’t, I certainly won’t reduce them to nothing but their skin color, which is exactly what the term ‘people of color’ does.

  • I am against birth control

There’s no one against birth control. There are people against government paying for birth control. I am a big supporter of birth control. I repeat, my girlfriend and I are big supporters of it.

  • Healthcare for people in need.

I am for healthcare, which is why government shouldn’t be messing it up like it has for so long

  • I refuse to let women have the right to do what they will to their own body

Women can do what they want with their own body, so long as it does not harm another person.

  • You’re just another white man who doesn’t want anybody having his money taken away.

I barely have any money to be taken away. I’m a broke college kid. My total wealth is negative -($63,000). The amount of wealth I have is in the negatives. I have more liabilities than assets.
The Leftist Case for Clinton
You don’t win tug-of-war by dropping the rope.
By Milo Beckman

1. Hillary Clinton is a liberal transnationalist. She believes in the primacy of human rights, particularly of individuals against oppressive governments. She dreams of a future system where nations are encouraged to adhere to international norms by something like the U.N. on steroids.

2. Hillary Clinton believes in firm commitment to international agreements. The only way to bring about this future globalist order, the argument goes, is to honor our present commitments and compel others to do the same.

3. Hillary Clinton does not see inaction as morally distinct from action. As long as you’ve factored in all costs — in lives, dollars, and potential long-term unintended consequences — she believes every viable course of action (including inaction) should be considered on its merits. As with domestic policy, she has little patience for non-interventionist ideologues.

4. Hillary Clinton equates military might with moral responsibility. In the end, she is a cold realist: Whoever has the biggest stick sets the agenda. By shirking international responsibilities, the United States transfers power to the next biggest stick.

Pulling this all together, the world according to Clinton is something like a small town without any governance, where the big and strong regularly beat up on the small and weak. She believes all parties will be best served by a formal body that draws up rules of engagement and deters defection by consistently punishing defectors. Instead, what we have is an assortment of self-interested cartels like NATO. So rather than reinvent the wheel, she wants to co-opt these existing institutions (classic Hillary!) to create a pluralist, democratic, peaceful, human rights-enforcing international order. And until that time, she believes the United States must leverage its position as the biggest and strongest guy in town to punish extreme defectors, those most horrific cases that simply can’t wait for the transnational solution.

VIDEO: Rand Paul’s FULL SPEECH announcing his run for President.

Rand is running.  In his announcement speech, he outlined his key platform issues including a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, term limits for members of Congress, non-interventionist foreign policy, and restoration of liberty and privacy rights for Americans. 

here’s the video:

Paul does a great job utilizing a tool that Democrats have mastered: using the language of the other side.  When Democrats are in campaign mode, they always use Conservative buzz words to make themselves appealing to undecided voters who would usually vote Republican.  Paul, by invoking MLK and the “two Americas” language, is able to communicate ideas that other Republicans usually struggle with.  It’s a good tool, once that will certainly help him if he makes it all the way to the general election.