Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Western Imperialism Strikes Again

Western Imperialism Strikes Again

In his 2005 exposé, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes his life as an economic hit man in the 1970s. As a chief economist for the consulting firm Chas. T. Main, Perkins worked with U.S. intelligence agencies and multinational corporations to convince foreign leaders to build infrastructure projects in their countries financed by billions of dollars of loans from the World Bank and other lending institutions. Perkins’ job was to provide phony or exaggerated predictions of the economic benefits of such programs for the country undertaking the massive loans. Once hooked into loans it ultimately could not repay, the victimized country was then used as a pawn to further U.S. foreign policy and economic interests.

In the classic one hand washes the other and both hands wash the face scheme, the loans were given with the stipulation that the construction and engineering contracts for the projects were awarded to American companies. In return, handsome bribes and kickbacks were provided to the signatories (heads of state). Those on the hook were the taxpayers in the developing countries who were stuck with massive debt they could not repay. Not only did the imperialistic scheme destroy any hope the world’s poor had for developing their countries, when default happened the U.S. or the International Monetary Fund would move in and dictate the terms of bankruptcy which included everything from control of its budget to dictating its United Nations votes to security agreements.

According to Perkins, from time to time there were foreign heads of state that refused to play ball, refused to accept financial remuneration for acquiescing to loans that would enrich American companies and ultimately place their countries in bankruptcy with the U.S. government acting as receiver. When that happened jackals were sent in to eliminate the obstruction. Perkins mentions at least two leaders, President Jaime Roldos Aguilera of Ecuador and General Omar Torrijos of Panama who were assassinated because they put the best interest of their countries ahead of their personal greed. If assassination were not possible pretences for full military invasion were produced to bring the rogue leader to justice. Panama’s Manuel Noriega was “brought to justice” in this manner.

And that brings us to our current involvement in Libya. It is a well-known fact that Muammar Gadaffi has been an international pariah for most of his 42 years ruling Libya. However, in 2004 after Gadaffi ended his quest for weapons of mass destruction, President Bush lifted sanctions against Libya. Since then American companies have invested heavily in Libya. For instance, energy giants ConocoPhillips and Marathon have each invested about $700 million. Everything seemed to be going great.

However, let’s not forget that Gadaffi has always marched to his own tune. Over time Gadaffi began demanding tougher contract terms, big bonuses up front, and most remarkably he demanded that global oil companies operating in Libya pay the $1.5 billion bill for Libya’s role in the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks or face “serious consequences” for their oil leases. But perhaps the last straw for American imperialists was Gadaffi’s plan to unite African and Arab states under a new currency to rival the dollar and Euro. Under the proposal, oil and other resources would be sold only for gold dinars. The economic implications for the West would be immense.

All of these moves by Gadaffi have not only made it difficult for western oil companies to operate in Libya, his gold dinar proposal could be the beginning of the end for western currency hegemony. Gadaffi had not held up his end of the deal with western corporatists. He was not “playing ball”. Western special operations forces on the ground in Libya were unable to covertly assassinate the Libyan leader. Thus, under the pretense of protecting civilians, NATO instituted a military “no-fly zone” over Libya. Make no mistake about it, military operations in the skies over Libya have always been about regime change in Libya. NATO forces care about the civilians on the ground in Libya about as much as American forces cared about the more than one million Iraqis who have been killed as a result of our eight year war of “liberation” in that country.

About Kenn Jacobine

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn – Ron Paul is not bought and paid for by big business. This is what I mean by you lumping everybody that you disagree with together in one big pot.

    Jordan – what difference does it make if I am overseas? How does that preclude me from sharing my opinion?

  • zingzing

    “what difference does it make if I am overseas? How does that preclude me from sharing my opinion?”

    come on, kenn. you can figure it out.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    I’ll give you that Ron Paul shouldn’t be lumped in as being owned by Big Business, AND I’ll give you that he’s got a lot of positions that sound good and make sense…

    …he’s still Looney Tunes. Ron Paul is a strict idealist who apparently doesn’t understand the necessity of pragmatism in government. Strict idealism without allowance for pragmatism is a recipe for tyranny, Kenn. As an historian, you should know that instinctively.

    Most of the following twenty reasons why I won’t vote for Ron Paul can be found here. Ontheissues.org is a great site – and I’ll be using it a LOT.

    1 – Ron Paul allowed racist articles to be posted in his name, under his byline, in his magazine, over the course of years. (This is, of course, assuming that he’s telling the truth that he did NOT write the articles that appear in his name, under his byline, in his name, over the course of years)

    2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

    It would be really interesting – and tragic – to watch half of America’s real estate market and MOST our farming industry come to a screeching halt just so Ron Paul can bring his libertarian fantasy to fruition.

    3 – Ron Paul is strictly against abortion rights and against embryonic stem-cell research.

    4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)

    5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.

    6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.

    7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)

    8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

    9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective).

    10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state).

    11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.

    12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)

    13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system

    14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?

    15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility

    16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
    managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)

    17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)

    18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.

    19 – Would allow teacher-led prayer in public schools.

    20 – Wants to declare English as the “official language” of America.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

    Good luck to him with that: there aren’t any.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Please provide a source that he would allow teacher-led prayer and wants English as the official language.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill that would allow teacher-led prayer.

    Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill that would declare English as the official language of America.

    As I said, Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas…but he is a strictly idealistic Looney-Tuner who cannot see past his own dogma. That makes him a real danger to the democratic ideal of America.

  • S.T..M

    Kenn: ” … English as the official language”.

    He’s at least on a winner with that one. Why shouldn’t it be? It’s the langiage of the country. Migrants to America should be requitred to learn it as a condition of permanent residency or citizenship … even if that learning is government-funded.

    Why should this be an issue even worth discussing??

  • Arch Conservative

    “Ah well, Arch … under our system, you accept the referee’s decision. In this case, the ref is the vote.”

    Unless you’re a Wisconsin Democrat. Then you hide out in Illinois.

    Oh and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to declare English our national language………unless your a whackjob leftist with a penchant for calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with you “racist.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Stan –

    The reason it shouldn’t be the ‘official’ language is that none of us know where it will end. Right now, for instance, one can open up a private university where classes are taught in, say, Spanish. Would such a law outlaw the private sector’s ability to do that? Nobody knows.

    Secondly, while I certainly can’t speak enough of another language to claim that I’m bilingual, I’ve learned enough to know that there are words in other languages that carry concepts that cannot be easily translated into English. By making English the ‘official’ language, we would also be discouraging the use of any other languages…and the actual educational level of our people would suffer as a result.

    Thirdly, English is already the ‘official’ language in fact if not in law. Do we really need to legislate what is already the practice of nearly the entire nation? The only ones who would profit by such legislation…are the lawyers who would litigate the inevitable lawsuits.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for Arch and Stan –

    Conservatives claim to want ‘limited government’…but how, exactly, is declaring English as the ‘official language’ a form of “limited government”?

    And how far will it go? Will local governments – or even states – begin outlawing the speaking of foreign languages in public places? Don’t tell me it can’t happen, because that’s exactly where such a law can – will – eventually lead.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    (off topic)

    My niece just had a baby…and she named him Khrushchev Glenn [last name]. I’m still wondering if I should be flattered….

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn,

    The prayer bill would simply protect a persons right to pray in school. It would not force teacher led prayer. It is simply a protection of the First Amendment.

    The English bill would not make Englsh the official language just simply require immigrants to know enough English to know what they are agreeing to. Your characterizations of both bills is disingenuous to say the least.

  • iball

    I see NATO has once again valiantly protected Libyan men, women and children by blowing them to bits with smart bombs.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    It doesn’t force it, Kenn…but it allows teacher-led prayer.

    And THAT would put untoward pressure on the students.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Your characterizations of both bills is disingenuous to say the least.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • S.T..M

    Glenn, sorry, but the country was founded on English, everything’s been done in English, English IS the national language.

    Who cares where it’s going to end.

    Sure, speak other languages. Keep your own culture.

    But here I in Oz I would suggest to all the new Australians arriving here all the time: Be a part of our culture too and learn to speak English, or don’t bother coming in the first place. Yeah, we’re welcoming, provided you want to take all the good stuff on offer here, including English.

    I’m sure most Americans are feeling the same right now.

    What’s the national language of Mexico?

    Oh, I know, it’s Spanish, not English.

    All those Americans retiring down there, and in central and south America, do they have to press #2 for English … no they they fucking don’t. And do Mexicans, Panamanians or Barzilians have to press #1 for Spanish or Portuguese. No, they don’t.

    Come on Glenn, there are some things every nation has a right to keep sacred, no matter how welcoming it is of others.

    Language should be one of those. Are there groups of Americans on the left who think this is OK? If so, they might be the only lefties in the world whho think it’s OK to slow get rid of their national language.

    Madness. Almost as loony as some of the right-wing stuff on here.

  • zingzing

    it’s england’s language. we speak “get off my lawn.”

  • Kenn Jacobine

    #64 – right Glenn, it is libertine in that it allows Americans to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion.

    #65 – okay Dr. – I ‘ll be blunt – Glenn lied about Dr. Paul’s position.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    I lied? It looks to me like Ron Paul co-sponsored both bills. How, exactly, did I lie?

    You must answer, because to accuse someone of LYING – vice being simply wrong or incorrect – would mean that I intentionally tried to deceive.

    So…

    1 – HOW is what I stated wrong or incorrect, and

    2 – WHERE did I post anything with the intent to deceive?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Stan –

    Over the years I’ve seen several instances of idiot business owners posting signs that they will refuse to serve anyone who doesn’t speak English. I’ve seen men in the Navy who were greatly offended when they heard two fellow sailors speak to each other in a foreign language.

    English is ALREADY the default national language here…but if we put it into law, we WILL see legislation outlawing the use of any other language in the workplace, in school, in public. Will such legislation pass? I hope not – but it might. The only ones who win in such a situation are the lawyers – and IMO they don’t need any more help.

    Stan, let’s have a little empathy here. Let’s say you were to go stay in, say, Myanmar for a while on a business trip, and at a business meeting you see a fellow Aussie and the two of you start having a proper conversation in the Queen’s English. Then all of a sudden you are accosted by everyone else there that it is illegal to speak any other language than Burmese.

    Does that sound ridiculous? Of course it does…but the designation of an official language in a nation where there are so many far-right-wing dumbclucks raises that very possibility. I’d like to avoid that possibility, thank you very much.

    Also, the day is coming that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority…and if current trends hold, then the eventual majority will be Hispanic. When they become the majority, should they, then, change the law to say that Spanish is the national language of America?

    I’d rather not open up this particular legislative can of worms, Stan.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Kenn –

    While you’re trying to figure out how to respond to #69 above, bear in mind that in comment #53 I listed twenty extremist or ill-thought-out positions by Ron Paul. You’ve argued against two of those positions. How about the other 18?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn,

    You said he is proposing teacher-led prayer. He is not.

    You said he is proposing English as the official language. He is not. You were either lazy with your interpretation or lying.

    Give me a chance to address his other “extreme” positions. I will be back shortly.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    Who here is being lazy? I NEVER said that Ron Paul was proposing teacher-led prayer. I DID say that he would allow it. As you can see on this site listing his views, here is the summary of the bill that he co-sponsored:

    Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by any State to participate in prayer . Neither the United States nor any State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public schools.

    The children will not be required to participate…but you know as well as I do that (1) if there is no law against teachers leading a class prayer, then some WILL do so, and (2) children WILL be forced by peer pressure to join in.

    And HOW is it that you can claim that Ron Paul is NOT supporting designating English as the official language of America when I gave you a link that showed you the very bill he co-sponsored????

    Are you somehow of the mindset that even though Ron Paul CO-SPONSORS a bill, that he’s still not responsible for the contents of the bill and cannot be said to support that bill?

    C’mon, Kenn! I SHOWED YOU THE FREAKIN’ BILLS THAT HE CO-SPONSORED…and yet you still call me a liar!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    the day is coming that non-Hispanic whites will be a minority…and if current trends hold, then the eventual majority will be Hispanic. When they become the majority, should they, then, change the law to say that Spanish is the national language of America?

    I’m not so sure they’ll want to, Glenn.

    Of course, history is full of examples of languages dying out in the face of an influx of speakers of another language which comes to dominate. There are numerous extinct Celtic and native American tongues which bear silent testimony to that.

    However, history also shows that English is an astonishingly robust language, and was even before it became the lingua franca of the world. The invading Normans couldn’t kill it even when they banned it: it just nicked a bunch of French words, adapted them to its own purposes and carried on.

    In the case of the USA, it’ll be a question of which language blinks first. And my bet is that English won’t be going anywhere fast.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I’m not saying they would want to, or that English would ever go away. I’m well aware that it is the lingua franca of the world and will be for at least another generation or two. All I’m doing is pointing out the kind of precedent that such a law would set.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Yes, I know, Glenn: language laws are fairly pointless, stupid and almost always end up being draconian. In one corner of my own home island, for instance, it wasn’t much more than 50 or 60 years ago that kids caught speaking Welsh at school were severely punished.

    Now, Welsh is a compulsory part of the National Curriculum in that country.

    Just as English has adopted words from Latin, French, Hindi and goodness knows how many other languages and made them its own, American English is quite capable of doing the same in its encounter with Latin American Spanish, and coming out all the more vigorous for it.

    Indeed, this is already happening. One example: in California, the Mexican slang word for underpants, chonies, is already in common usage.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Glenn,

    Here are my answers to your other points.

    1 – Ron Paul allowed racist articles to be posted in his name, under his byline, in his magazine, over the course of years. (This is, of course, assuming that he’s telling the truth that he did NOT write the articles that appear in his name, under his byline, in his name, over the course of years)

    Bogus claim that the MSM has not even covered.

    2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

    The government should allow the private sector to supply flood insurance otherwise it is a ridiculous use of taxpayer money and promotes a moral hazard.

    3 – Ron Paul is strictly against abortion rights and against embryonic stem-cell research.

    Abortion is not a federal issue and as Dr. Paul has stated should be given to the individual states to decide. The government has no right constitutionally and morally to fund things like stem-cell research.

    4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)

    It was. As morally repugnant as discrimination is the CRA violates the Constitution’s protection of private property rights. It has no right mandating that private businesses of any kind must serve who the government says to serve. People can boycott businesses that discriminate to get them to peaceably change.

    5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.

    It is unconstitutional

    6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.

    I would have to see the source on this one. I will say that libertarians believe adoption is a private matter and thus gay and lesbians would not be restricted from adopting as long as the biological parents and private agencies consented

    7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)

    Again, I would have to see the source, but again libertarians believe the government should not mandate the practices of business in this regard. If you are unhappy that a company you have stock in pays their CEO too much then you can divest your holdings.

    8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.

    Ultimately the schools should be privatized so all these moral, ethical, religious, and other issues become a moot point

    9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective).

    I can’t see him wanting any federal funding for sex ed. Please supply source.

    10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state).

    It is wrong for parents to pay for public schools with their property taxes. What is worse is them paying that and then private school tuition for their own kids.

    11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.

    So he is also a huge friend of all businesses. He certainly would regulate things that prevent others from enjoying their natural right freedoms. Fraud is prohibited, and if a company damaged (polluted) the private property of another they would be held to make the victim whole.

    12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)

    Parents are entrusted with children not the state.

    13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system

    A state issue under federalism

    14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?

    It is only the market that can determine what it requires through market research and the principle of supply and demand.

    15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility

    State issue

    16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
    managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)

    It is a complicated issue and you continue to solely fault the lack of socialized medicine in the U.S. for lower life expectancy. Things like lifestyle, diet, culture, heredity all figure into life expectancy. Government involvement doesn’t work. Costs are the issue and less government would bring down the costs so more people could afford care.

    17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)

    It has been proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment especially for those at the lower end of the pay scale – blacks, Hispanics, teenagers.

    18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.

    It is bankrupt, even government economists are warning that if something is not done soon it will devour almost the entire budget within 10 to 15 years

    Glenn, all of Dr. Paul and other libertarians’ positions are based on the rule of law (Constitution at top) and property rights. These were the positions of most of the Founders and they are the right positions as well given how government screws up everything it touches. You see Dr. Paul is not interested in power for power’s sake. He votes his philosophy and has been elected 12 times to Congress. He is the only candidate for president this time around that would actually address and permanently fix the problems – given Congress’ acquiescence (and I grant it is not too likely).

    So, short snippets of emotional rhetoric from you doesn’t do justice to libertarian principles. I truly don’t doubt that your intentions are righteous. Just can’t understand why leftists can’t believe the same thing about others they disagree with. You are always using scare tactics and name calling as a response to ideas different from yours.

    Bogus claim that the MSM has not even covered.

    2 – He has stated he would get rid of the National Flood Insurance policy…and as I have pointed out, this would devastate the housing industry since most major cities in America’s heartland (not to mention the cities in most of Florida, central California, and all along our vast coastline) are built in flood plains and the banks will NOT approve of mortgages or approve building loans in flood plains if flood insurance is not purchased as part of the deal. And this isn’t including the majority of America’s farms since they tend to be built on flatlands which are usually flood plains.

    The government should allow the private sector to supply flood insurance otherwise it is a ridiculous use of taxpayer money and promotes a moral hazard.

    It would be really interesting – and tragic – to watch half of America’s real estate market and MOST our farming industry come to a screeching halt just so Ron Paul can bring his libertarian fantasy to fruition.

    3 – Ron Paul is strictly against abortion rights and against embryonic stem-cell research.
    Abortion is not a federal issue and as Dr. Paul has stated should be given to the individual states to decide. The government has no right constitutionally and morally to fund things like stem-cell research

    4 – Ron Paul has stated that the Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations (of course no one would EVER think this has anything to do with #1 above….)
    It was. As morally repugnant as discrimination is the CRA violates the Constitution’s protection of private property rights. It has no right mandating that private businesses of any kind must serve who the government says to serve. People can boycott businesses that discriminate to get them to peaceably change.

    5 – He has stated that there should not be a law that women should get equal pay for equal work to men.
    It is unconstitutional
    6 – He has voted against allowing adoptions by gay couples.
    I would have to see the source on this one. I will say that libertarians believe adoption is a private matter and thus gay and lesbians would not be restricted from adopting as long as the biological parents and private agencies consented

    7 – He voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation (yeah, since when should shareholders have a say, right?)
    Again, I would have to see the source, but again libertarians believe the government should not mandate the practices of business in this regard. If you are unhappy that a company you have stock in pays their CEO too much then you can divest your holdings.

    8 – He wants schools to present scientific facts that support creationism.
    Ultimately the schools should be privatized so all these moral, ethical, religious, and other issues become a moot point

    9 – He wants equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education (never mind that such has NEVER been shown to be effective). I can’t see him wanting any federal funding for sex ed. Please supply source.

    10 – He wants tax-credited programs for Christian schooling (so much for separation of church and state). Again it is wrong for parents to pay for public schools with their property taxes. What is worse is them paying that and then private school tuition for their own kids.

    11 – With the exception of subsidies, he is a HUGE friend of Big Oil, since he wants no regulation at all.
    So he is also a huge friend of all businesses. He certainly would regulate things that prevent others from enjoying their natural right freedoms. Fraud is prohibited, and if a company damaged (polluted) the private property of another they would be held to make the victim whole.

    12 – Is against requiring vaccination of children (has this doctor heard of polio? Of SMALLPOX? Smallpox has been eradicated, and polio nearly so…and ONLY because of mandatory vaccination)
    Parents are entrusted with children not the state.

    13 – Voted against the AMBER Alert system
    A state issue

    14 – Stated that “Government investment in ANY business is malinvestment.” I wonder if he’s ever heard of nuclear power, of communications satellites, of every advance we’ve ever gotten from the space program?
    It is, only the market can determine what it requires through market research and the principle of supply and demand.

    15 – Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility
    State issue

    16 – Stated that socialized medicine won’t work; nor will managed care, and that
    managed care is expensive and hasn’t worked. (I wonder what’s his explanation, then, why America is something like forty-seventh on the life-expectancy list…and all but one of the nations with higher national life expectancies has socialized or managed health care?)
    It is a complicated issue and you continue to solely fault the lack of socialized medicine in the U.S. for lower life expectancy. Things like lifestyle, diet, culture, heredity all figure into life expectancy. Government involvement doesn’t work. Costs are the issue and less government would bring down the costs so more people could afford care.

    17 – Believes that the minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (AHHH! So THAT’S it! Allow businesses to pay black people LESS, and that means that businesses will pay black people MORE! Brilliant!)
    It has been proven that the minimum wage causes unemployment especially for those at the lower end of the pay scale – blacks, Hispanics, teenagers.

    18 – Believes that Social Security is a failure…never mind that Social Security has NEVER defaulted and that millions of elderly Americans over the years have depended on Social Security to have food on the table.
    It is bankrupt, even government economists are warning that if something is not done soon it will devour almost the entire budget within 10 to 15 years

    Glenn, all of Dr. Paul and other libertarians’ positions are based on the rule of law (Constitution at top) and property rights. These were the positions of most of the Founders and they are the right positions as well given how government screws up everything it touches. You see Dr. Paul is not interested in power for power’s sake. He votes his philosophy and has been elected 12 times to Congress. He is the only candidate for president this time around that would actually address and permanently fix the problems – given Congress’ acquiescence (and I grant it is not too likely).

    So, short snippets of emotional rhetoric from you doesn’t do justice to libertarian principles. I truly don’t doubt that your intentions are righteous. Just can’t understand why leftists can’t believe the same thing about others they disagree with. You are always using scare tactics and name calling as a response to ideas different from yours.

  • STM

    Glenn (and Doc), I’m not talking about outlawing any other language. I don’t have a problem with people speaking other languages to each other in this country or any other country, including yours. You can also make laws that say while English is the official language, it’s also illegal not to serve someone in a shop on the basis of their lack of English, or to stop a business that deals only with Spanish-speaking people from hiring people who only speak Spanish. Anti-discrimination laws are good in that respect.

    But you genuinely cannot understand what a country is REALLY all about unless you speak the language. It’s also quite disrespectful in my view to emigrate to a country and NOT learn the language. It shows that it’s only about you, not about your willingness to become part of the culture and to give to it and contribute to it in a meaningful fashion.

    What I’m suggesting is that English should be the OFFICIAL language of the country … in education, government business, etc.

    And to make the learning of the language a prerequisite, say, for getting a driver’s licence. I can’t understand how in Oz we give driver’s licences to people who did the test in, say, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Arabic, Serbo-Croation or the dialect of Burkina-Faso. I was at the motor-registry today and noticed you didn’t have to be able to read English to get a licence – just memorise what the signs mean and do the test written part of the test in your own language or with an interpreter. How does that work. You see a sign saying “emergency detour – left lane must turn left”, and can’t read it??

    My view is that permanent residency and citizenship in this country should include a clause about at least trying to learn English – even if the government pays for it through the public education system. My understanding is that you can do the written citizenship test in Oz in a foreign language, answering questions about Australia. It’s just political correctness gone mad. Language is key to becoming part of a culture. Different if you’re just visiting a place, but moving there and not giving a rat’s is ridiculous.

    I mean, otherwise, why bother coming??

    And I’m serious about that. I welcome any new Australians who want to make a better life for themselves. I don’t welcome those who think we’re a soft touch and they can continually rort our generosity, kindness and compassion for no other end than themselves.

    I feel the same way about radical islamists who want us to adopt Sharia law.

    My view: if it worked so well before, why not go back there and keep practising it if your religion demands it.

    There are a couple of dozen or so countries throughout the world that have sharia law or some form of it. That’s a couple of dozen or so others to choose from rather than coming here and complaining about our benign, free and fair rule of law.

    Because this country isn’t one of them.

    I believe people who complain about this stuff and who weren’t born here and came here for a better life should either accept what we are and shut up, or ship out.

    That includes the learning of English.

    I’m sure many Americans (or Brits, or Canadians, or New Zealanders) feel the same way on this as many Aussies do.

  • STM

    Sometimes I wonder whether the people who think they run this country (we do, in case they’ve forgotten) and the fatcat PC bureaucrats they hire dream most of the laws of this country up while they’re in the pub or at dinner parties and write them down on napkins and beer coasters.

    The latest thing in Australia is: If you are a refugee seeking resident, housed either in the community or in an immigration detention centre (an illegal arrival or an asylum seeker who has arrived on a boat via people smugglers), the government gives you $2500 a year (that’s about $US2800) to make phone calls home. That’s, what, $7 a day?

    You can phone Sydney-New York these days for a few cents a minute. I called Yellowknife, Canada, from Sydney, Australia, last year and spoke for nearly an hour. The total bill: about 20 cents.

    I wonder who they’re talking to and what they’re talking about. Their friends and relatives most likely, about how good it is and why they should come.

    “Hello Ahmed – mate, you HAVE to make your way down here. It’s risky but it’s worth it. They’re a soft touch … look at this: they even pay us to call you every week! And if you don’t end up getting a job, you get a free house or money for rent, extra money for every kid you have, money for food, free education, free hospital care, and all without even having to have a job or pay taxes. Everyone drives a car too, even if they don’t have a job. Amazing!”.

    Fair dinkum. Let’s keep being welcoming, kind and compassionate but just a little bit tougher.

    I’d prefer: “Hello Ahmed, you have to come here. There’s work for everyone, you can easily get a job, the pay’s good, and the housing is nothing like we’ve got at home. They have only three people living in houses with three bedrooms. Now we’ve worked hard, we’ve got enough money to buy one. All we had to do was learn the language, accept their culture WITHOUT being forced to give up ours, and make a contribution to society by working hard for a fair day’s pay, paying our taxes and obeying their laws.”

    Having said that, I would like to see more genuine refugees take their place in this country, rather than people who think they can just arrive illegally and we’ll accommodate them no matter what.

  • STM

    And yes, I do understand we should cut people some slack and shouldn’t expect people to walk into jobs or private housing the minute they lob, especially if they don’t have the requisite work or language skills.

    But there are limits, and there are limits.

    (You might have guessed this is a bit of an issue here at the moment). I’d also like to think I’m centrist in my views compared to some of the looney left and loony right ones I’ve heard lately.

    Let’s bring back some commonsense to this kind of debate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Stan –

    I’m not talking about outlawing any other language.

    Obviously…but it’s precisely that very possibility that right-wing nutcases here stateside would try to make happen. And that’s why I’m against making it a law.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    I don’t have time tonight to address your most recent, um, er, reply. When I have time tomorrow, I will.

  • iball

    ????? ?????? ???? ?????

    In English: NATO bombs killed my family.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    iball,

    Please elaborate.

  • Cannonshop

    #84 maybe the posting system doesn’t take Arabic Fonts.