Mitt Romney is an unapologetic fearmonger
October 16, 2007 at 12:27 am | In Libertarian Rants, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Videos |I know a few people who want to vote for Mitt Romney because they believe he's very efficient and that every program he touches "turns to gold." But Mitt Romney is no panacea, in fact he's just like the rest of the neocons in Washington.
Last week, Governor Romney released one of the most horrifying campaign videos I've ever seen. Most political commercials are so diluted that they make just about anyone feel good. You know the ones I'm talking about — the ones with the sounds of trumpet and dialog like "he's an honest man, caring, he has a plan that will increase jobs." When you make a video with such a supreme lack of substance, there's not a lot to disagree with. This is not that video:
This is the most blatant fear and war mongering video I've ever seen. Sure, the neocons have been making these points for years. But when have you ever seen them in such a recorded and rehearsed fashion?
There was a lot of information in such a short video, so let's take it point-by-point:
Violent, Radical, Islamic Fundamentalism is this "century's nightmare".
I won't deny that there are violent, radical groups (some of which are Islamic) that are menacing and terrorizing. But by no means do these groups hold a monopoly on this stigma. Even our own government supports these same philosophies when it suits their fancy. In a previous age, when the bad-guy-de-joeur wore a red star on his uniform, the U.S. funded Afghan mujahudeen guerrillas to fight against the USSR. This wasn't the U.S. simply coming to the aid of an ally; this was a provocation that started with the U.S. funding the mujahudeen a full six months prior to any USSR invasion of Afghanistan. We were in the Cold War with the USSR, and we saw the efforts of jihadists in Afghanistan as a means to an end. It was in the U.S.' interest to promote these jihadists then. What's so different today?
All throughout history, the U.S. (and a few other countries) have been far more violent and radical than any small terror cell.
Jihadists want a world-wide Khalifah
Update: My friend gandhi pointed out that I indeed heard the wrong word here. My apologies. The word Romney used was Caliphate not Khalifah. I'm not an expert on the etymology here, but I believe the two words are linked.
Nice big word there Mitt. I'm sure most of your future constituency understands what that means (ha!). When you say that word along with other mean sounding words it's easy to think it's derogatory without even knowing the definition of the word.
Basically, every single muslim is supposed to be a Khalifah, a representative / steward of god on this earth. A Khalifah is roughly the same as a missionary in the christian sense — someone who upholds the principles of god and spreads his message. The Khalifah Institute does propose a plan to spread islamic principles throughout the world, they even go as far as to call for jihad. They specifically mention however, that "this is not to be a jihad of the sword, or of guns, bombs [nor] violence… that would be wrong."
Maybe Mitt is talking about some other Khalifah movement. However, for something so important as to require offensive wars I require my elected public servants to be specific. To simply say we need to fight Jihadist Khalifahs is not only insulting, but dangerous.
The U.S. is a country of Freedom Lovers
Oh, I wish this one were true. The truth of the matter is that this hasn't been the case for a very long time. If Americans love freedom, then it would follow that Americans would keep their government accountable to the very Constitution that incorporates it. If Americans were free, then they should be able to demonstrate the basic, timeless, qualities of free men and women.
Can you build on your land without a permit? Can you educate your own children without mandated curriculum and permit? Can you drive from one city to the next in a car without a permit? Can you acquire a gun without a permit (filling out the NICS is a permit!)? Can you marry the one you love without a permit? Can you die and have your body buried without a permit? Can you stay out of jail if you consume a prohibited substance? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not fight their wars? Can you stay out of jail if you tell your government that you will not pay for something you find abhorrent? I submit to the casual observer of current events that every single facet of life in this country is subverted and has been made unfree.
Permits are permission. If you need permission you are not free. Taxes and the draft are involuntary, and equate to slavery.
Jihadists hate us for our freedoms
It's true that many jihadists (and Muslims in general) hate secularism and materialism. Did they destroy four planes and three buildings on 9/11 because of this? No. Blowback is real. The countries that have experienced terrorist bombings in the past decade are not arbitrary. They have been selected. All of these countries have had a military presence in the middle east. Switzerland has a strict non-interventionist policy and you don't see them being a target.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul has spoken very clearly about the issue of blowback. Listen to his calm, yet sobering words accompanied by this short PBS documentary confirming the reality of blowback:
Romney will increase Intelligence spending
Romney wants to increase funding of our intelligence agencies but he won't listen to them in the first place! The CIA has numerous times talked about the concept of blowback. After the Iran coup d'etat in 1953, the CIA produced a (now declassified) memo describing how blowback can be a massive consequence of what the CIA was trying to accomplish (a complete overthrow of an existing government) warning CIA operatives that "few, if any, operations are as explosive as this type."
Romney will increase military personnel by at least 100,000
The U.S. has over 1.5 Million troops deployed worldwide. We have the strongest military presence of any country in all of history. We are Pax-Americana — a bona-fide Empire. 70% of Americans want out of Iraq. We need to support our troops by bringing them home!
Romney will monitor all telephone calls
Romney says he wants to monitor all calls Al-Qaeda makes coming into America. I say he wants to monitor all calls whatsoever. If his source of information on Al-Qaeda is coming from monitoring telephones, how can he know where Al-Qaeda is calling from before he listens to them? It's the classic chicken or the egg problem. If you want to listen to all calls Al-Qaeda is making, you have to listen to all the calls. If you know where Al-Qaeda is calling from, then what the hell are you doing sitting on your ass listening to their phone calls?
This isn't about listening to Al-Qaeda at all. This is about increasing control.
Romney will make sure the U.S. stops Iran from acquiring Nuclear weapons
Gah. At least he's forthcoming about it this time. Last week he said he'd have to consult his lawyers to see if pretty please, maybe, possibly, he could bomb the shit out of them without having to ask Congress for permission. Romney, real patriots protect the Constitution!
Even if Iran had the capability, let alone the desire, to build nuclear weapons (I doubt they do), what's the difference between Iran having nuclear weapons and the 10 or so other countries that have them? What is intrinsically wrong with having nuclear weapons? Whatever that answer is, it should be applied equally to us as well as to them.
Ron Paul is the only moral choice
The people that believe in Romney's War on Jihadists would call Dr. Ron Paul an isolationist and that this makes him somehow irresponsible. This is so very wrong on many accounts. First of all, Dr. Paul is in no way an isolationist. Is it an isolationist view to think that we should not fuck with the rest of the world by establishing military coups around the world, displacing legally and democratically elected leaders? Is it an isolationist perspective to think that we should be cultivating friends throughout the world by trading and having open dialog with them instead of provoking war by subverting their governments? How would Americans feel if another country were to do the same here? Wouldn't we too feel a little retaliatory? War is avoidable, because blowback is avoidable: just mind your own business and make friends in the process.
Ron Paul is your only moral choice for a conservative president, no matter if you're anti-war or even if you believe in "Just War" theory. Mitt Romney's war theory, just as any modern neoconservative, is fear-based. It lacks any historical perspective and is entirely unjust.
4 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
XML Sitemap


Good post, but a clarification. Romney claims that disjointed organizations want to organize the world under a single "caliphate," which is essentially a type of regional theocracy ruled by a caliph/khalif. In this context he definitely means a particular and singular spiritual leader.
He is wrong on this point, however. The neocons have been claiming that one of our biggest problems is that terrorists operate in independent sects, that we can't cut off the head of the hydra because it won't kill the beast, and the wound will merely spawn two more appendages. I wholeheartedly agree that this is the case, and it is logical to assume any action we take against a singular entity is would do little to resolve the greater problem. We are seeing rather clearly, in the current conflict with Iraq and the lead-in to our presence there, and how it is becoming a conflict with Iran, : the terrorist organizations are not connected to each other. There is so much in-fighting. No subgroup would be satisfied to have ANY caliph in power…they want THEIR caliph in power. This is why a statement like "single global caliphate" is not only a misnomer, but also willfully ignorant.
Comment by gandhi — October 16, 2007 #
Nice one, Ryan. Fearmonger or realist? I think this message is a good one for the Romney campaign and it resonates with what most Americans believe on this issue, not because he plays to people's fears, but rather because he sees it for what it is. He calls a spade a spade, instead of being an apologist for American Foreign policy (e.g. Paul) Before reading your post, I saw this clip. I loved it! It actually strengthened my support for Romney.
What I would appreciate from you and Gandhi is to not be caught up in labels and guessing people's motives. Just because people have a different opinion of what policy is right, doesn't mean they are ignorant, evil, power-seeking, or uninformed. It doesn't mean they don't support the constitution or core American values. It does mean they have a different interpretation and viewpoint. If the constitution needed no interpretation, then their would be no need for courts.
Comment by Dave — October 16, 2007 #
Hi Dave,
I can appreciate people like you that think through this issue carefully, but at the same time I must respectfully and whole-heartedly disagree with you.
How can Ron Paul be an "apologist for American Foreign policy"? Of the two, Romney is closest to advocating our current foreign policy. Practically every single point in this video is inline with the Bush doctrine. Ron Paul is at the complete other side of the issue, advocating a humble foreign policy with no nation building. He advocates not one iota of the U.S.' current foreign policy.
I also don't believe Romney is ignorant nor uninformed. I do however believe that what he advocates is entirely non-conservative.
Before I continue I need to preface the rest of this post: none of my dislike for Romney stems from his religious views. I don't care what his personal beliefs are as long as they don't enter into his political decisions. I'd like to quote Ezra Taft Benson, not for his religious beliefs but because I believe he is a quintessential patriot.
Ron Paul has the right idea when it comes to requiring a strictly constitutional policy towards war. Some cannot accept this theory coming from the likes of Ron Paul. It's not that they don't accept the message. They just don't accept the messenger. There are however, many more messengers of this exact same message:
These are the words of a true patriot. While Romney mulls over the legal ramifications of executing a preemptive strike against a so far non aggressive country, or talks about nation building and developing democracies, the Constitution stands ignored and abandoned. I don't need to rely on any sort of preconceived label to know that Romney doesn't protect the Constitution. He has displayed himself, plainly, at every opportunity:
I refuse to vote for any candidate that steps outside of the boundaries of his strict constitutional duties. If it's not listed, he's not allowed to do it:
Comment by ryan — October 16, 2007 #
Fascinating. Stuff.
I've yet to find a candidate who floats my boat - which surprizes me considering the vast numbers available to me.
In a way, I hear all these promises that candidates give and I don't believe they can really do what they promise. Good or evil, I don't think the presidency is really responsible for most of what goes on with america. I think it's better that way. I don't like the idea of one person holding vast power over me, whether I elect him or not. People who make big promises: "I will do ___." are people who want big power.
I don't know where I'm going with this, so: the end.
-Greg
Comment by Greg — October 18, 2007 #