Young Americans for Liberty – Ole Miss Chapter

It seems the dynamic duo of Mccain and Lieberman have joined forces once again to produce one of the most horrifying pieces of legislation to date.

It’s called the “Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.” A post on xpostfactoid notes on the atrocities of this legislation and provides a link to the bill. If passed, this would grant the federal government the legal authority to commit any individual it considered an “enemy combatant” to indefinite detention and suspend Miranda rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

In light of conversations I’ve had (one way or another) with a few of my friends over the course of the past few days, I want to take this opportunity to explain why I am voting for a “Third Party” candidate in the upcoming election. I am writing this because based on the feedback I have received each time I’ve mentioned not voting for either John McCain or Barack Obama, as this decision is not a popular one.

The typical response that I get is probably the least logical, so I will start with that one. A vote NOT for John McCain, is NOT a vote for Barack Obama (however much some may want me to believe it is). If I vote for a candidate that I don’t like to keep another candidate I don’t like out of office, I have accomplished nothing. I want anyone reading this to know that I believe in democracy and I love this country, and I mention this to say that I do not believe that democracy should entail being told who I should or should not vote for, especially when NEITHER of the so-called options (as if I only have two) is worth my consideration, much less my vote… Read the rest of this entry »

So with the two presidential nominees set to spar over the Executive seat up for grabs, we are all left asking ourselves, “Which is the lesser evil?” I would like to first point out that I believe these two candidates are both horrible choices for president, but right now I would like to focus on the self-proclaimed change candidate, Barack Obama. I hear Obama when he labels himself as an agent of change; I’m just not sure what kind of change he is talking about. Seemingly, nothing has come out of his mouth that is a big change for democratic presidential nominees.

Perhaps he is talking about his change in positions. In February, when asked about vouchers, which involves the payment of government money to the parents of private school children, Obama said that he might be open to them. His reasoning was that if studies could show that they help to improve education, he would not let his predispositions stand in the way. An interesting stance seeing as how some studies show vouchers do improve education, while others show they don’t. However, after a little pressure from teachers’ unions, Obama quickly ‘changed’ his stance on vouchers. His position now is to not support vouchers in any shape or form. Maybe he found a foolproof study among the lot.

Speaking about the Cuba embargo, which is the US trade ban with Cuba, in January 2004, Obama said we should, “end the Cuba embargo.” His reasoning was that it had, “utterly failed to overthrow Castro.” In a speech given in 2007, Obama ‘changed’ his position, saying that he would not, “take off the embargo,” because, “it is an important inducement for change.” Let’s not consider the fact that the trade embargo has been in place for 46 years already. Has much changed with Cuba in 46 years? The US trades with communist China and Vietnam, yet we deny Cubans the right to American goods. Is this 46 year-old initiative your idea of change?

While running for US Senate in 2004, Obama said he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. However, in 2007 he ‘changed’ his position to fit in with his fellow democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of the drug. Obama has also ‘changed’ his stance on civil liberties. He now supports legislation to grant immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with wiretapping without warrants. Let’s not forget that Obama also voted for the Patriot Act, which is a gross overstatement of federal involvement in the lives of citizens. This bill lets the government illegally spy on its citizens, most notably through international phone calls. This is confusing if you consider that the democrat/liberal position of pro-choice is based on the Bill of Rights and our right to privacy, and, as Obama has stated, the trust he has of women to make the right decision. So evidently, he trusts us enough to decide if our children should live or die, but he doesn’t trust us to make overseas phone calls.

In January of this year, Obama described union contributions to the Clinton and Edwards camp as special interest money. However, once Obama started getting several union checks himself, he ‘changed’ his position. He now refers to unions as agents of the working people. How about campaign financing? Obama once was a supporter of public financing for campaigns and said he would accept public money as a presidential candidate if his opponent did the same. He now has ‘changed’ that stance and recently denied public funds so he could maintain his massive private fundraising. Keep in mind he will be the first presidential candidate since Watergate not to accept public funds. In good ole politician form, he also put a spin on why he did this whilst blaming his opponent at the same time. What a change! So perhaps the change Obama is talking about is the kind in his pocketbook.

Obama is also in bed with AIPAC, and is dedicated to Israel. He has recently sounded more like Bush in talking about the nuclear threat of Iran, which is pretty much non-existent. He doesn’t ever mention Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million people. He does downplay the threat of Iran to America, yet considers them a huge threat to Israel. I suppose we should risk the lives of US soldiers and the near suicide of the American economy so Obama can please AIPAC and keep Israel safe while not making a single American more secure.

The fact is there is nothing about this man that embodies change. People who believe this will be very disappointed in his performance. We deserve better than somebody who can merely give a good speech. We need good policies, and Barack Obama is lacking in them.

-Justin Head

In summing up the presidential candidates, I don’t think I could come across an easier critique than John McCain. Republicans these days almost always seem to be a walking contradiction. McCain personifies that image with amazing ease. His warmonger rhetoric is enough to deny him my vote, yet he loves giving me new reasons. It really upsets me that the democrats had to pick such a horrible candidate for their nominee, because I would really like to vote against the platform of John McCain. Lucky for the republicans, the democrats have kept stride and chosen Barack Obama. I guess, for me, it’s either vote third party or not vote.

McCain embodies the reincarnation of George W. Bush’s presidency. The neocons that got Bush elected even when his opponent received more votes are now on the John McCain bandwagon. So where does John McCain fall when it comes to the neocons’ most famous issue? Well if you haven’t viewed McCain’s Beach Boys remake on youtube yet, let’s just say he aligns very well with the neocons on the war issue. That’s right, John McCain can sing, “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and not feel sympathetic for it. He actually said he was proud of it. He tells people to, “lighten up,” when they criticize him for his unique song writing ability. I wonder what John McCain would say if Ahmidinijad jokingly sang a song about bombing America or Israel? Let me give you some straight talk my friends; John McCain is not funny. It’s not funny for a presidential candidate to sing a song about bombing a country that we already are having hostile relations with thanks to the very rhetoric of people like John McCain.

Not only does McCain nonchalantly speak of bombing Iran, he confuses Iranians as sponsors of Al Qaeda almost daily. McCain has stated, “It is common knowledge,” that, “Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back to Iraq.” This, he said, “is well known.” Of course this was well known only to him until he was quickly corrected by Joe Lieberman and had to apologize to his audience. Of course Sunni, Shia, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Extremists: these are all the same to John McCain. One of the most important lessons in demonizing your presumptive enemy is lumping them all into a big nest of insanity, isn’t it? If you can make people believe that Iranians are all crazy and sing, “Death to America,” every night by the bonfire while roasting American flags and dreaming of suicide bombings, then you have a shot at starting a war that would otherwise seem immoral and completely ludicrous. Can you seriously trust a man who doesn’t understand the culture of the Middle East to be able to fix what is mainly a cultural problem?

McCain is even worse on economic issues. He himself has said that he still needs to be educated on the economy. You should watch his ‘deer-in-headlights’ expression when asked about the Federal Reserve and interest rates. When asked if he thought the Federal Reserve had cut interest rates aggressively enough, McCain said, “I’m glad whenever they cut interest rates, I wish interest rates were zero.” I’m hoping that was another one of his hilarious jokes, because it sure made me laugh. Let’s not also forget that if we do attack Iran, which McCain loves to sing about on karaoke nights, the Straight of Hormuz would most likely be cut off. If this happens, oil prices could very well double almost overnight, and then have a near endless rise thereafter. What do you think that would do to the American economy? Could McCain and his zero percent interest rates fix that kind of a blow?

McCain is also quick, with his new neocon agenda, to say he never supported amnesty for illegal immigrants. Yet McCain has been quoted with saying, “I think we could set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people,” and that, “amnesty has to be an important part,” to any kind of immigration reform. McCain has also stated that he would not even vote for the immigration bill that he helped write! Moreover, McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts and said that he would not support extending them. Yet now, he has come out with campaign ads saying he will make them permanent. So which side of the issue can you trust him not to do?

It saddens me listening to McCain and his opponent, because I know that both parties had good candidates to choose from. Maybe in a perfect world, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would be the nominees. However, until then, we’re stuck with more of the same.

-Justin Head

So the debate has come and gone and while we no longer have the ability to walk around on campus with a high probability of being interviewed, we have been left with a few memorable moments. I personally didn’t find anything either candidate said during the debate laudable. However, I now believe my suspicion about their foreign issue stances to be affirmed. That suspension was that their foreign policy is nearly identical.

I have for a long time now been totally ashamed of American foreign policy. I am ashamed, not just because it doesn’t work in accomplishing its goals, but because it shows a complete lack of respect for human life. If I asked you how many countries we are involved in hostile relations with, how many would you guess? To tell you the truth, I am not even sure of the number. However, I know that right now we are still involved in a war in Iraq. We also have the blood of thousands of Somalians on our hands after we paid and trained the Ethiopian army to invade Somalia and overthrow their government. This crisis has been called one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world today with tens of thousands killed and millions left homeless. We’re constantly threatening Iran and are chomping at the bits to attack them. We’re picking a fight with Russia for retaliating against Georgian advances into South Ossetia. We want to send more troops into Afghanistan, and we’re beginning to pick a fight with Pakistan for not allowing the US to kill anymore innocent Pakistani civilians. Are we insane? Do we not think people within these countries are going to react negatively toward our actions? These are human beings we are murdering.

With all of these issues weighing on my mind, I get frustrated when people ask me how I felt about the debate. I honestly didn’t see much of one. Did Obama or McCain address the crisis we created in Somalia? Not to my knowledge. Where was the disagreement over what should be done about Russia? Did either of the candidates admit Georgia actually started the conflict or suggest ceasing with the threats in order to prevent a reemergence of the Cold War?

I think the most shocking moment of the debate to me was when Obama, talking about Pakistan’s unwillingness to aid in capturing Bin Laden or other Al Qaeda members, said, “If Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” This is a sign to all you Obama supporters who think he is the peace candidate. If you look at the situation in Pakistan, you will understand why this comment he made is totally abhorrent. The main reason Pakistan has been pushing back against helping the US is because their country is falling apart due to all the bombings we are initiating inside their territory. So maybe we kill a few Al Qaeda leaders here and there, but how many innocent civilians are being killed during these bombings? How long do you think Americans would put up with another country bombing us in order to kill a few enemies of theirs? I believe the US would have launched a retaliation strike before the first bomb hit our soil, yet these people have been putting up with it for years now. Why is it that we can murder innocent people but nobody in foreign countries can even burn our flag without Americans talking about how evil they are?

Now, Obama is saying he is going to send troops into Pakistan. Pakistan is already threatening to retaliate against the US because we have been killing Pakistani civilians in cross-border attacks, yet Obama is going to provoke a nuclear armed country by sending troops within their territory against their will. This could start a Vietnam type war except this time our opponent would have nuclear weapons. That is a war the Bush Administration would have trouble dreaming up, yet people see this man as the anti-war candidate. Of course the response McCain gave to Obama launching military strikes into Pakistan was, “You don’t say that out loud.” Lord help us!
Americans need to begin seeing the people we kill in reality. Thousands of people are dying at the hands of our government, and they are not our enemies. These people are innocent civilians, and we have sunken to the level of threatening to attack other countries because they are finally saying they will no longer allow us to murder its citizens.

-Justin Head

“Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn’t. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country, let men label you as they may.  If you alone of all the nation shall decide on way, and that way be the right way according to your convictions of the right, you have done your duty by yourself and by your country–hold up your head.  You have nothing to be ashamed of”

-Mark Twain

Ole Miss witnessed a political event this weekend that would make the founders of our nation proud. The stars and stripes of liberty that so many generations of Americans have fought and died to defend glistened in the warm Mississippi night, casting light upon the civilian duty to defend freedom against tyranny. America’s enduring soul pried open a window to the past, when the spirit of freedom pumped so fervently through the hearts of Americans that when Patrick Henry cried “Give me liberty or give me death!” he was merely representing the convictions of his fellow countrymen. This momentous occurrence was not the hosting of the Presidential Debate, but the audacious act of one young woman leaving her seat vacant at the most anticipated national spectacle her college campus had seen in generations.

It couldn’t have been an easy choice for eighteen year old Asma Al-Sherri, a political science and pre law freshman at Ole Miss. The 150 student tickets were highly contested, most of which were distributed through a lottery in which tickets had to be earned by attending debate-related events. Thousands of students made efforts to win the tickets, to experience an historical exhibition through their own eyes. Most of the lottery winners were overflowing with excitement when their names were called, wasting no time to call their parents and friends to tell them “I won! Look for me on TV!” Most of the ticket winners were thrilled with the prospect of seeing the next president on their own campus. But not Asma. Asma had already made her decision not to attend and never faltered when the opportunity came to light.

What could compel a young woman who defines herself as “extremely patriotic” and fascinated with politics to refuse such an opportunity? For Asma, patriotism required such a refusal. She does not believe that either candidate in Friday night’s debate represents the principles of what it means to be an American. These virtues have been abandoned by the two major parties today, she contends, and she would not honor the two politicians competing for the presidency with her presence. “I was thinking about the jeopardy of my civil liberties and how they have been stepped upon… Obama and McCain have both voted for legislation that has denied us certain civil liberties that are protected in the Constitution,” she writes in a Facebook note, “I refuse to have to worry about choosing the lesser of two evils.” Asma’s patriotism resides not in the glorified battle between corporate candidates, but in the freedoms authorized in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the documents that define America’s devotion to liberty. She spent the entire day with her student group the “UM Constitutionalists,” talking to community members about the breaches of their civil liberties and the afflictions of an interventionist foreign policy. “This is more important,” she told me with an extraordinary sense of humility.

Asma’s vacant seat is reminiscent of other actions of noncompliance in American history that we have come to know as the most courageous deeds of our past: the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the schemes of the slave abolitionists, and the nonviolent protests of the Civil Rights Movement to name a few. But as in the case of these great Americans, Asma was not concerned with her own historical legacy. She left her seat unoccupied “in the name of liberty;” for a cause she believes is in the best interest of the entire nation.

America would be a better place if we all stood up for our convictions as steadfastly as this courageous young patriot. Asma has bestowed a symbol of inspiration for freedom lovers everywhere, reminding us that our duty as citizens is to defend liberty against its enemies, especially during times when the enemy is concealed beneath the prevailing rhetoric of our political institutions.

-Dan Blazo