Tim Condon wrote:
> My friend Fred below displays what many libertarians often approach,
> i.e. seeing America as an "aggressor" and blaming it for many if not
> most of the woes of the world.
Clarification: Governments of the world are the "aggressors", in
general; your average individuals are typically not interested in
conquering and dominating the world. I blame *all* major governments,
not just the U.S. government.
Also keep in mind that I distinguish "government" from the people. The
popular notion is that they are "the same", but clearly they are not. I
actually see that as an intentional conditioning to get the individual
to acquiesce to the will of his government.
> We have a similar blame-America, pacifist, appeasement-oriented
> individual in the White House, with an amen chorus in the old media.
You totally misunderstand me. I am NOT a pacifist. But I do firmly hold
in not being the initiator of any aggression. If someone were to break
into my house, rest assured I would not sit idly by and allow said
person to do what he wants, as he would be "lead" to a different
conclusion. :-) If some group were to march into my town and start
shooting up people and blowing up buildings, I'd be the first in line to
return the favor -- to "blow them off"...
> It would be a mistake to conflate this attitude with the mass of
Nor do I claim to speak for all Freestaters, either.
> A decent examination and refutation of that attitude is found in this
> magazine article<http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784
> <http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10784>> from the
> Conservative Free Press. --Tim Condon
Let me deal with some of what is stated in that link:
> In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions
> have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This
> is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent
> trip abroad and to Mexico:
> * In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown
> arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
Is this not true, though? Has not the US government, under the Bush
Administration, shown arrogance towards Europe and the rest of the world?
> * In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged
> “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a
> world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad
> America’s ability to defend itself!
Nuclear weapons are no defense if you plunge the entire planet into a
nuclear winter, or blanket the entire atmosphere with radionuclides that
have long half-lives, etc. Want some Strontium-90 in your bones instead
of calcium? Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate killers. And all-out
nuclear exchange between, say, the US and Russia, or the US and China,
would spell the death-knell for the world. Defense? No. Suicide? Yes.
I recall, as a child, seeing a picture of a nuclear shadow of a little
girl who had just tossed her ball up in the air at the instant The Bomb
went off in Hiroshima. Did that little girl deserved to be instantly fried?
The US and Japanese governments were at war with each other. But it's
the innocent individuals who are always caught in the middle and die or
suffer as a result. The then Japanese government was doing some rather
nasty things to China at the time as well, developing biological
weapons, among other things. Governments seem to be all over ways of
killing lots of people wholesale and indiscriminately. What is wrong
with this picture?
And a government with the gall to do that to innocents abroad will also
not hesitate to do the same to its own citizens. Interments of Americans
during WWII, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Move, Kent State in more recent times.
You want your government to be Big and Bad? I thought the whole idea
behind having a Free State is to be Free of governmental power and rule.
You can't have it both ways. Any government that flexes the will to be
aggressive with those abroad is also capable of being aggressive against
its own citizens.
> * In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while
> the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered
> another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our
I am interested in the Truth. It is true that the US government has been
a real stinker in world affairs for many decades. But then again, so has
many other major governments.
I think Obama is trying to repair the bad image the former
administration created of the US. But really, it's all politics. I don't
like Obama; he's for a one-world-government. I heard it from his own
lips that he seeks a "global regime". So did Bush Sr. I think what Obama
is really up to is softening the world up to be more amenable to some
sort of "global regime", which, of course, would have the US at its top.
He, I think, really has a Stalinesque agenda. Do not be fooled by what
appears as him "bad-mouthing" the US. There is much more going on here.
This is a speech Obama gave in Prague, using the N. Korea incident as an
excuse to push his agenda for a "global regime".
> * In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively
> while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of
> what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again
> emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
There is nothing to defend, really. The US Government did do a lot of
nasty things in Central America over the decades. The CIA has done many
"covert ops" to destabilize various governments in Central America over
the years. Just what, pray tell, is Obama supposed to say to defend that?
> * In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America
> was not a Christian nation.
America is not supposed to be a "Christian nation", but it is, defacto.
As an Atheist myself, I take great offense at this fact. As, I'm sure,
many non-Christian religions and beliefs do, as well. Though, I think
this site has an ultra-conservative agenda. Which kills the claim of it
being a "decent" refutation.
> * And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating
> border violence was essentially America’s fault.
Not sure what "border violence" this site refers to here. But the border
issue has always been a contentious one. And the US has been escalating
border "security" over the years. But I have not had a chance to focus
much on the details of the border issues to say one way or another.
> Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history
> who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it?
> I can’t.
When you understand what Obama's true agenda is, he's just like any
other leader greedy for more power, control, and dominance in the world.
The only difference is in his tactics. Bush/Chenny took the blunt
approach; Obama is a "sweet-talker". As I recall, Stalin also spoke
wonderful words to the nearby countries he wanted to take over and
control. Then, he would get his people in place, and then all of a
sudden, presto! You are now part of the Soviet Empire -- "Free" to do as
you will as long as it is the will of Russia!
It is my humble opinion that Obama seeks similar -- to establish an
American Empire as his new "global regime". The creators of the web site
seem not to realize what's really going on. Then again, Obama is shewed
in that way.
It is my hope that, no matter what political persuasion you are, you
don't want a world government -- controlled by the US or any other
nation -- as it would only mean a loss of even more freedom.
So, as you see, I am NOT in the same class as Obama, Bush, or anyone
else who seeks global power and control. Yes, we should be able to
defend ourselves against any credible threat. But that does not mean our
governments should also be stomping on other nations and peoples at the
same time, let alone its own citizens. I wish to see *all* governments
with less power and *all* individuals with more freedom. And I assume
that is the wish of every FreeStater here.