Thursday, June 30, 2011

American isolationism: A false concept?

For a long time I have learned in U.S. history classes throughout my life, in documentaries and the popular consciousness is that for hundreds of years, up until WWI, if not continued after WWII, America was an isolationist country. I am starting to question that idea. I was trying to fact check the new controversial Time Magazine cover story that asked about the death of the Constitution and I found the United States had numerous interventions in its history. But that’s not the reason I started to question this idea. In the inaugural speech Franklin Pierce made on March 4, 1853 he made a shocking statement. When I put President Pierce’s speech and the ideas I had come up with before, I questioned this idea that is taken for granted by many people and many experts.

To most people, they believe that America began to start intervening in the affairs of other countries in the Cold War. Students of history would say U.S. interventions are false in the beginning of the 1900s. Both ideas are false, as confirmed by the fateful words of President Franklin Pierce in 1853, “our attitude as a nation [is to] render the acquisition of certain possessions not within our jurisdiction eminently important for our protection...[They] a manner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of national act within the legitimate scope of my constitutional control will be tolerated.” ( I had no idea it stretched back that far and was shocked when I found out the truth. A Congressional Research report confirmed that what Mr. Pierce had stated was correct. These types of interventions had been happening for years and years:
  • 1810 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). Gov. Claiborne of Louisiana, on orders of the President, occupied with troops territory in dispute east of the Mississippi as far as the Pearl River, later the eastern boundary of Louisiana. He was authorized to seize as far east as the Perdido River.
  • 1812 -- Amelia Island and other parts of east Florida, then under Spain. Temporary possession was authorized by President Madison and by Congress, to prevent occupation by any other power; but possession was obtained by Gen. George Matthews in so irregular a manner that his measures were disavowed by the President.
  • 1813 -- West Florida (Spanish territory). On authority given by Congress, General Wilkinson seized Mobile Bay in April with 600 soldiers. A small Spanish garrison gave way. Thus US advanced into disputed territory to the Perdido River, as projected in 1810. No fighting.
  • 1813-14 -- Marguesas Islands. US forces built a fort on the island of Nukahiva to protect three prize ships which had been captured from the British.
  • 1814 -- Spanish Florida. Gen. Andrew Jackson took Pensacola and drove out the British with whom the United States was at war.
  • 1816-18 -- Spanish Florida - First Seminole War. The Seminole Indians, whose area was a haven for escaped slaves and border ruffians, were attacked by troops under Generals Jackson and Gaines and pursued into northern Florida. Spanish posts were attacked and occupied, British citizens executed. In 1819 the Floridas were ceded to the United States.
  • 1818 -- Oregon. The USS Ontario dispatched from Washington, landed at the Columbia River and in August took possession of Oregon territory. Britain had conceded sovereignty but Russia and Spain asserted claims to the area.
  • 1836 -- Mexico. General Gaines occupied Nacogdoches (Tex.), disputed territory, from July to December during the Texan war for independence, under orders to cross the "imaginary boundary line" if an Indian outbreak threatened.
  • 1844 -- Mexico. President Tyler deployed US forces to protect Texas against Mexico, pending Senate approval of a treaty of annexation. (Later rejected.) He defended his action against a Senate resolution of inquiry.
  • 1858-59 -- Turkey. The Secretary of State requested a display of naval force along the Levant after a massacre of Americans at Jaffa and mistreatment elsewhere "to remind the authorities (of Turkey) of the power of the United States."
  • 1865 -- Panama. - March 9 and 10. US forces protected the lives and property of American residents during a revolution.
  • 1867 -- Nicaragua. Marines occupied Managua and Leon.
  • 1871 -- Korea. - June 10 to 12. A US naval force attacked and captured five forts to punish natives for depredations on Americans, particularly for murdering the crew of the General Sherman and burning the schooner, and for later firing on other American small boats taking soundings up the Salee River.
  • 1876 -- Mexico. - May 18. An American force was landed to police the town of Matamoras temporarily while it was without other government.
  • 1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.
  • 1903-14 -- Panama. US forces sought to protect American interests and lives during and following the revolution for independence from Colombia over construction of the Isthmian Canal. With brief intermissions, United States Marines were stationed on the Isthmus from November 4, 1903, to January 21, 1914 to guard American interests.
  • 1918-20 -- Soviet Russia. Marines were landed at and near Vladivostok in June and July to protect the American consulate and other points in the fighting between the Bolshevik troops and the Czech Army which had traversed Siberia from the western front. A joint proclamation of emergency government and neutrality was issued by the American, Japanese, British, French, and Czech commanders in July. In August 7,000 men were landed in Vladivostok and remained until January 1920, as part of an allied occupation force. In September 1918, 5,000 American troops joined the allied intervention force at Archangel and remained until June 1919. These operations were in response to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and were partly supported by Czarist or Kerensky elements.
  • 1970 -- Cambodia. US troops were ordered into Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries from which Viet Cong and North Vietnamese attacked USand South Vietnamese forces in Vietnam. The object of this attack, which lasted from April 30 to June 30, was to ensure the continuing safe withdrawal of American forces from South Vietnam and to assist the program of Vietnamization.
  • 1983-89 -- Honduras. In July 1983 the United States undertook a series of exercises in Honduras that some believed might lead to conflict with Nicaragua. On March 25, 1986, unarmed US military helicopters and crewmen ferried Honduran troops to the Nicaraguan border to repel Nicaraguan troops.
  • 1988 -- Panama. In mid-March and April 1988, during a period of instability in Panama and as pressure grew for Panamanian military leader General Manuel Noriega to resign, the United States sent 1,000 troops to Panama, to "further safeguard the canal, US lives, property and interests in the area." The forces supplemented 10,000 US military personnel already in Panama.
  • 2001 -- Afghanistan [war]. On October 9, 2001, President George W. Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," and "Senate Joint Resolution 23" that on October 7, 2001, US Armed Forces "began combat action in Afghanistan against Al Qaida terrorists and their Taliban supporters." The President stated that he had directed this military action in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on US "territory, our citizens, and our way of life, and to the continuing threat of terrorist acts against the United States and our friends and allies." This military action was "part of our campaign against terrorism" and was "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations." [this war has continued onto the present-day]
  • 2003 -- Iraq War. On March 21, 2003, President Bush reported to Congress, "consistent with the War Powers Resolution," as well as P.L. 102-1 and P.L. 107-243, and "pursuant to" his authority as Commander-in-Chief, that he had "directed US Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq." He further stated that it was not possible to know at present the duration of active combat operations or the scope necessary to accomplish the goals of the operation "to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States." [this war still continues tody]

I found that as history came closer to the present, more so-called police actions were committed by the U.S. armed forces. That’s why it gets thin in the way of possessions of land. From evidence I reviewed, I believe the American Empire started to protect its citizens starting in the 1890s and increasing after the 1920s. During Pierce’s Administration (1853-57) there wasn’t acquisition of possessions as he exclaimed in his inauguration speech, but it was in the spirit of what he said. It was basically police actions to protect American interests:
- 1852-53 -- Argentina. - February 3 to 12, 1852; September 17, 1852 to April 1853. Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution.
- 1853 -- Nicaragua. - March 11 to 13. US forces landed to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances.
- 1853-54 -- Japan. Commodore Perry and his expedition made a display of force leading to the "opening of Japan."
- 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands. Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa; he also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands with the purpose of securing facilities for commerce.
- 1854 -- China. - April 4 to June 15 to 17. American and English ships landed forces to protect American interests in and near Shanghai during Chinese civil strife.
- 1854 -- Nicaragua. - July 9 to 15. Naval forces bombarded and burned San Juan del Norte (Greytown) to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.
- 1855 -- China. - May 19 to 21. US forces protected American interests in Shanghai and, from August 3 to 5 fought pirates near Hong Kong.
- 1855 -- Fiji Islands. - September 12 to November 4. An American naval force landed to seek reparations for depredations on American residents and seamen.
- 1855 -- Uruguay. - November 25 to 29. United States and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo.
- 1856 -- Panama, Republic of New Grenada. - September 19 to 22. US forces landed to protect American interests during an insurrection.
- 1856 -- China. - October 22 to December 6. US forces landed to protect American interests at Canton during hostilities between the British and the Chinese, and to avenge an assault upon an unarmed boat displaying the United States flag.
- 1857 -- Nicaragua. - April to May, November to December. In May Commander C.H. Davis of the United States Navy, with some marines, received the surrender of William Walker, who had been attempting to get control of the country, and protected his men from the retaliation of native allies who had been fighting Walker. In November and December of the same year United States vessels Saratoga, Wabash, and Fulton opposed another attempt of William Walker on Nicaragua. Commodore Hiram Paulding's act of landing marines and compelling the removal of Walker to the United States, was tacitly disavowed by Secretary of State Lewis Cass, and Paulding was forced into retirement.

These actions in the 1850s made America into the so-called “global policeman”, years before Teddy Roosevelt’s Big Stick Policy, to use the U.S. Navy to gain global supremacy and keep the Western hemisphere under control of the federal government. As a result, America was not an isolationist state, rather it was involved in affairs of the world if it concerned the United States of America, its citizens or its interests. The report released by the Congressional Research Service last year confirmed these facts as valid. To justify this, let me define two terms: interventionism and isolationism. Isolationism, according to is: “the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.” By contrast interventionism is defined as “the use or threat of force or coercion to alter a political or cultural situation nominally outside the intervenor’s moral or political jurisdiction.” ( The United States did try to advance itself, but not all of its resources were devoted to betterment of the whole country. In addition, the U.S.A. did not isolate itself from the affairs of other nations and did not decline to enter foreign alliances, agreements, etc... as long as these affairs benefited the state of America. Efforts in what would now be called ‘police actions’, the U.S. military made sure that the U.S. never really remained at peace, even if it seemed there was peace. Peace means no war, and there have been armed conflicts throughout U.S. history. Before I get into more current arguments about isolationism and politics, I wanted to debunk another part of history many are thought in the classroom.

On Randi Forums a user commented: “Discussion "elsewhere" has made me aware that the idea that the US was strongly isolationist before Dec. 7th, 1941 still holds for some people. I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the results of polls taken by the Gallup organization and the Public Opinion Quarterly during 1939-1941 show that the US was NOT primarily isolationist. The fact of the matter is that many people were aware that we had to face up to the fact that we would drawn into the war, and, albeit it reluctant to face the maelstrom yet again, knew that we would have to fight the Axis.” I looked up the source that was quoted, the public opinion quarterly to see if this user was correct. I didn’t find that source exactly, but i found an essay about supposed isolationism before WWII: “At first glance, the empirical evidence seems to support this hypothesis. Polls taken from 1938 to late 1941 show that an overwhelming majority of the American public opposed direct U.S. involvement on the side of the allies...For example, a Gallup poll in June 1940 found that 72 percent of the respondents supported drafting men into the army “if enough men do not volunteer.” Moreover, a series of 10 Gallup polls from June to October of 1940 found that between 62 and 76 percent of respondents agreed that, “every able-bodied American boy twenty years old [should] be required to go into the army or navy for one year.” I tried to look more in depth on this issue and couldn’t find much more. Even if you were able to prove that America was isolationist in public opinion, the federal government continued a policy of interventionism. Even the government that we trust believes this is not true as conveyed on the State Department website. The website states: “During the 1930s, the combination of the Great Depression and the memory of tragic losses in World War I contributed to pushing American public opinion and policy toward isolationism. Isolationists advocated non-involvement in European and Asian conflicts and non-entanglement in international politics. Although the United States took measures to avoid political and military conflicts across the oceans, it continued to expand economically and protect its interests in Latin America.” Interestingly enough, the State Department goes against its own argument. From a source I used earlier, a 2004 Congressional Research Service report, it mentions four interventions in the 1930s
- 1932 and 1934 (China)
- 1933 (Cuba)
After 1934, there is a gap in U.S. involvement until 1940, which should show isolationism, accompanied by the end of an intervention in the Dominican Republic that year (,741,1029&pid=11333). So, America may have been isolationist for six years, from 1934 to 1940, but otherwise, the U.S. was not isolationist in its history. However, this led to war as acedemicamerican stated. That war was WWII.

The myth of isolationism up until 1941 in U.S. history is false but it is brought up again and again in political talk today. John McCain recently talked about parts of the Grand Old Party, or the Republicans, that oppose the current war in Libya. Real Clear Politics quotes him as saying:
“Well, I was more concerned about what the candidates in New Hampshire the other night said [about the Libyan war]. This is isolationism. There's always been an isolation strain in the Republican Party -- the Pat Buchanan wing of our party.” At the end of the article it concludes: “This is not isolationism; it is a rational effort at judging how best to advance American values and interests in an ever-more witheringly dangerous world. The charge of isolationism should be reserved for the genuine article. Such name-calling advances neither rational debate nor national interest.” I believe that America being isolationist (as it was for six years of its history (1934-1940)) could be disastrous, but complete interventionism is not good either. The American empire must balance it’s ability to stand up for human rights around the world and respect the sovereignty of other countries. In order for this to occur, America would have to close many if not all of its military bases across the world, military spending, material, and manpower would have to be reduced. The American government must remember “the best defense is the best offense.” In the end, like every empire, America’s stretching of armed forces will break the country as a whole and cause it to decline 20-30 years in the future, if not sooner.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

The others: Democrats running for President in 2012

I keep hearing about the Democratic party and how there is only one candidate running as the President, Barack Obama, but that’s not true. There is 22 Democrats are candidates in the 2012 Presidential race. I wanted to highlight the six I found that had websites. The others do not have websites and could be formidable candidates, which are all on the site, I compiled information on the political positions of each candidate by looking through each website. I also compiled the same information on Mr. Obama and will publish it soon.

I’ll start with Jeff Boss. Jeff Boss has very different positions from the average candidate. Mr. Boss believes NSA “ARRANGE [d] THE 911 ATTACK and has…WITNESSED THE TOP HIGHEST CLEARANCE IN THE NSA CALLING THE 911 HIJACKERS IN MARCH 2001 [from the evidence of] 212 NSA AGENTS ON DVD.” He seems to be very interested with this subject on the homepage of his campaign website. He even thinks the NSA is trying to kill him (maybe because he felt they would not like his challenge to their authority). Along with that, he has filed a court case against the NSA in the past because he is so passionate about this issue. In addition, he seems to be very paranoid about the NSA spying on him, but that could be because he filed a court case against them. Also, Mr. Boss believes “The NSA controls the media and prevents Jeff Boss’ message from being heard.” I think the media rejects him because they don’t think he is real candidate and seems a bit crazy or would not be accepted by enough of the population. I think that he may have trouble on the campaign trail. In a sort of conservative position he is against bailouts of any kind which I agree with because those companies should deal with themselves. If they broke apart, then that’s just what happens. On the economy, he has a free market perspective that rejects socialism (equality of all people for monetary purposes and according to Economics and Liberty is a “centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production”). He [believes] “when the government controls the big companies [it] is Russian style communism.” So this makes him a hard-nosed civil libertarian, with a position like some constitutionalists in Congress and elsewhere. He has a Ron Paul-like position on the country, as he stated that Our Civil liberties, Constitution, and Democracy are rapidly disappearing.” It sounds similar to Ron Paul’s words: “…our liberties are rapidly fading before our eyes…rule of law is constantly rejected [in America] and authoritarian answers [are accepted as valid]…acceptance of…dictatorial powers to the President.” My conclusion is that he is a candidate who wants the truth, but is one who doesn’t agree with the American government’s narrative about the 9/11 attacks and he wants to tell what he says is the real story. Wille Felix Carter on the other hand is not a one issue candidate as Mr. Boss and covers almost all the issues.

Willie Felix Carter’s administration there would be a government “OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE” (I went through his positions to see if this was true). He promises on the homepage of his campaign website saying he “will take the God fearing approach, addressing the needs of all the people of our nation, the homeless, jobless, the elderly, the business community, moving forward to reduce our national debt, and dependency on foreign resources, fair international trade, maintaining a strong military, strong foreign diplomacy, and stopping the cycle of violence across our nation.” My question is: What is a strong military? Will the military be kept at current levels? It seems unsustainable at this time, but his other ideas could balance out a strong military. Also I fear that what he says is too broad and could led to more trampling on the Constitution by him if he was President and interpreting it in a way that does not help the American people. For those that want to reform the military, this is not your President. In his own words, he “believe[s] that we should leave the military forces intact as they [on] strong diplomacy and [keep our] intelligence capabilities [intact, while]...reserving the military for greater force application when necessary.” On reference to the homeless he states: “We must work together to create a business friendly community, with incentives to encourage hiring, and working to ensure affordable housing.” I’ve read Michael Harrington’s The Other America and I believe that Mr. Carter’s plan is not enough to help the homeless. Housing must match the housing that is destroyed and more resources should be given to poor and the homeless to help them live better lives. On another subject, he promises to make affordable healthcare by “work[ing] with Congress [with the interest of cooperate America [in mind] and [insuring] small businesses that we not drive them out of competition in the process [of creating affordable healthcare].” This plan is nothing like Mr. Obama’s plan for healthcare but is sounds a lot like Mr. Obama’s plan in the sense of how it was constructed. So, I fear that this candidate will not change the healthcare system in place or could erase the current healthcare system and put in something much worse. In terms of the one of the chief concerns of Americans, jobs, he has an interesting tact. Mr. Carter states: “There must be a balance to insure that while creating jobs, we do not send businesses out of the market. I will work to insure fairness in the work place, and at the same time allowing for healthy business growth.” I feel that more must be done than Mr Carter suggests. Unemployment insurance must be extended to 99 weeks as it will help boost the economy, an idea this candidate would not warm up to. On a hotly debated topic in Congress these days because of the Libyan war, he is not completely antiwar, by partly. He states: “I will work diplomatically to resolve conflicts, and only with a clear vision resort to military power to protect the freedom of our nation, and our interest abroad.” I feel his approach could provoke interventions in other parts of the world, possibly. He takes an approach on crime that is different than most others. He wants to “improv[e] methods used in courts to properly identify those individuals that are a constant and dangerous threat with permanent residence in prison, and giving those who need minor adjustments opportunity to return to society, equipped to successfully restart their lives.” I don’t like the idea of permanent residence in prison or identifying individuals that are a threat, but I like the rest of his statement and I think that giving criminals an opportunity to return to society is step in the right direction. The multitude of positions he supports makes him like a Blue Dog Democrat in Congress. In addition, he is anti-abortion which could turn off certain people that could support him. On another hotly debated topic, taxes, his tax policy is bit obscure: “I believe that with proper involvement we can make our taxes fairer, and simplified.” It is hard to know if Mr. Carter wants to support the fair tax, have a surtax on millionaires or what his exact tax policy is. What is sure is that he wants reform of the tax system in place. He believes in education the importance of employment should be stressed and that every student needs a support network. On marriage, he takes a strong Christian position that a man and woman married can not have sexual relation outside a marriage. While Mr. Carter supports immigration law reform (United States Immigration Law that needs to be seriously addressed as we see tension mounting about the responsibilities of maintaining our Federal laws”), he supports the current immigration laws that are on the books at this time. He is planning to reduce give taxpayers more buying power...[and to help solve the national debt].” Mr. Carter’s hope is that for self-sufficiency of the people of America to give “relief to the national debt.” To create jobs, he will call upon the American business community and educators. Like the rhetoric Presidents have repeated since Richard Nixon’s Administration, he wants to end dependence on foreign oil, in part by telling OPEC countries to cut production if they want stable prices and he will increase domestic production of energy. Despite what was said earlier, he promises to have just laws in place, but what he is proposing as just laws? In his mind, his proposals (such as punishing those who do not follow U.S. law, protecting the environment, ending war in Iraq and protecting U.S. industry) seem to be just. On the other hand, Dee Neveu is completely different candidate than Mr. Carter.

The next candidate was Deonia P. “Dee” Neveu who said she was a “real vote for the people.” Ms. Neveu said she would be accountable to the people and work only with the people, not corporations. She says “At times...if you want something done right, you have to do it an ultimate truth and necessity.” I believe that this statement implies that she supports self-sufficiency. Its not usually a left-leaning position, but its the direction her policies could be headed. Like every candidate, she promises to uphold what she says in the campaign in office. To further this concept, she states sincerely: "I don’t want to make a false promise that I can’t keep, or lead any person to deception on a promise.” Her first promise is an idea that has its origins in Thomas Jefferson being a supposed vote for the people. Its an idea that dictates that she doesn’t “want to live in the White House [so]...part of the White House [can] host Fund Raising events for America [a process that] the citizens of America can help with...[when Ms. Neveu doesn’t live in the White House, it will] offer American citizens the glorious privilege and experience of the White House.” I believe that having a house for just the President is a bit much, as its seems like a King’s Castle. So, I agree that a President should live in a normal house, like everyone else and that it should be completely open to the American people while holding fundraising events. Also to support the American people, she is against outsourcing. Enthusiastically she states “American jobs need saving” which almost every American citizen would agree with. Every candidate and many politicians want to save American jobs, but like the others who have talked about American jobs, she doesn’t lay out a plan to save American jobs. But that plan could be coming in the future possibly. On another note, she wants to encourage service and volunteering by American citizens to help America. In addition, Ms. Neveu stated “I do believe that a President should be for helping everyone, both rich and poor [by having fair tax laws and through other means].” I agree that the President should help everyone, but he/she should also help themselves. I feel that Ms. Neveu would be fit to fulfill this idea of a President that helps the country. As an antiwar position, she says if America is provoked then we should attack that country and the borders of U.S. need to be protected. I do not completely agree with this because I think U.S. borders should be open and the U.S. should only attack countries if it is attacked itself (self-defense). Later on she states the often used point: “How can we continue to help everywhere else...when we need to help ourselves again right here in America [?]” On a personal level she doesn’t agree with abortion and same-sex marriage, but she won’t force her view on anyone else while believing that all people should be respected and live happily. On a final note, her views are different than the average candidate, making her have some promise as a Democratic candidate for U.S. President, even the next U.S. President and views very different from John Sawyer.

John W. Sawyer, III calls himself a conservative on his homepage. But, Mr. Sawyer states: “I support Unions. I'm against reducing Capital Gains taxes to create jobs (it doesn't), and against the death penalty.” But, Mr. Sawyer doesn’t support every union as for religious reasons he takes an anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stance. Also, I believe that being against the death penalty is very liberal stance, so he is not a complete conservative. In addition, he respects religious beliefs of all (I hope so! Every candidate should support religious beliefs of all.) As President and in life, he will “never...ASSUME ANYTHING. IF I DIDN'T KNOW THE FACTS, I WOULD KEEP MY THOUGHTS TO MY SELF.” It is good to not assume anything and I commend him for his words, but you can’t always keep your thoughts to yourself. In a cynical position, he believes “Our elected officials don't know what they are doing” because of all the problems that exist in America at this current time. I think that is not putting faith in elected officials and is a pessimistic view of the world, not having the optimism that things will change. On foreign affairs, he dislikes Saudi Arabia and thinks they are duplicity driven because they say they are fighting terror when they support it (Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national). In the same tune, Mr. Sawyer needs to come up with a Mideast policy to counter the current Mideast policy, since it world make him a stronger candidate. Later on in his blog, he even questions the government’s narrative relating to Osama’s death, thinking that the U.S. government may not be telling the truth or not the whole truth. I am a bit cynical of the government’s narrative myself, but I don’t want to take sides at this time saying that I support Mr. Sawyer’s statement or the government’s narrative. In addition, he proposes that Osama Bin Laden was taken alive from his compound which could be possibility, but not enough details have been released so it is hard to know the truth. But sometimes he too cynical, saying he dislikes all the Republican candidates other than Mitt Romney and that Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan would “drastically slash Medicare benefits...[they never] ask[ed] Seniors what THEY thought of their ideas [that] are based on one premise - Social Security and Medicare are going broke...Well, then by all means, cut the programs [but no one has the courage to cut them].” I believe that these programs should be reviewed to see if they can be limited to help solve the deficit, then the debt, but they should not be destroyed. Mr. Sawyer takes a good position on Mr. Ryan’s plan. In a somewhat downing note, he enthusiastically says “American is governed by losers” and concludes that You're a loser. So am I. We continually make the same mistakes, over and over...[so] America [is not] great.” This is the saddest part of his website. It makes him seem like he doesn’t even have confidence in himself to win the election for U.S. President. But, he has the confidence to attack a sitting President.

In a attacking statement, Mr. Sawyers says President Obama sandbagged [Israeli] Prime Minister Benjamin Netahayhu [when he announced the idea of Israel possible going back to pre-1967 borders].” This shows he is veriantly anti-Obama (and from his other comments from his blog proves this point) and hates Obama as a President. Hating a sitting President that much can be bad because when you get in office and see that what you wanted to cut or hated isn’t that bad after all then you may even up being like the previous President. I said earlier he hated Mr. Ryan’s plan. Well, made a plan to counter Mr. Ryan’s proposal: Fund the existing programs...prosecute...$50 Billion in Medicare fraud...[Imprison]...freeloaders who subsist off SSI payments...Cut Medicaid.Along with that, he states a unbelievable concept: “The Medicare and Social Security systems are NOT broke, they were burglarized...Th[ose] in both [political] parties stole those funds when no one was looking.” I don’t completely agree with his idea about Medicare and Social Security, but at times I don’t trust either political party, so I agree with the concept that the political parties are somewhat corrupt, corrupted by the lobbying efforts of other organizations. It cannot be argued that he is very passionate about this issue and wants to improve the Medicare and Social Security systems. As part of improving both systems he would “change the dynamics of the discussion by separating the terms 'Medicare' from 'Medicaid' [since] Medicaid is welfare - paid for by someone else [and not] pay[ing] medical costs for those here illegally.” I agree that both concepts should be seperated, but I think his way of thinking is bit cynical. In a completely different political position, wars and how they should be thought, his position is different than the average candidate. His position on war, partly antiwar related takes about: “Invoking the Sawyer Doctrine (Go to war only if it is in our best interest, and if you go to war - WIN), there should be no [un]intended consequences in war, unless the unthinkable happens and the United States actually loses - an unlikely scenario if the enemy is Moammar Gadhafi, even with a liberal President. We: attack...invoke martial law...install a puppet government until they are ready to rule on their OUR best interest; then we leave.” I am scared if this Sawyer Doctrine when into effect because the U.S. could be going into countries even if they didn’t attack us, for American national interest. This is not a good thing. Installing puppet government is unacceptable and should result in jail time. The assumption that the U.S. will win every war is silly. However, later he violates his support of Libya as implied in the previous statement, saying he opposes the Libyan war: Better that Libyans die for Libyan causes. Stay out of it, Mr. President [because those who live in the Mideast hate America].” I believe this flip-flopping is part of political discourse, but could be dangerous because maybe he will flip on his other political views throughout his term as President. In another note, he is against government expansion and is wary of any unnecessary expansion of government, an idea that is usually accepted by conservatives against big government. Strangely enough, he thinks some of those in the Tea Party are idiots and that liberal politicians don’t solve any problems in America as he is a conservative Democratic candidate (like a Blue Dog) even though he supports some of their policies! In the end, his political positions are a mixed bag, with him supporting the Arizona law, SB 1070, that allows racial profiling of illegal immigrants, so they can be questioned on their citizenship. Mike Maloney, is a very different candidate who doesn’t have Mr. Sawyer’s radical positions.

Mike Maloney, as the next President promises to “Bring the Troops Home Now and take care of social justice and financial sanity at home!” The money toward Mr. Obama’s campaign (supposedly up to a $1 billion) for his reelection in 2012 will be “from the super rich to promote their own interests” and Mr. Maloney will run a campaign that works for the people. He will only accept donations from people, not corporations or political action committee (PACS). In order to enact healthcare reform he says that there must be “a Legitimate Debate on Health Care Reform Must Include Medicare for All.” On the economy he has varied views, saying “[the] government cannot plan and direct the economy and cannot be seen as the “creator” of jobs...government must constrain businesses to some extent for the General Welfare, government officials [cannot]
Government intervention to prop up failing businesses [is inefficient and [destroys]...productive segments of the economy.” Even though I am traditionally a progressive who wants to move forward, I think that government intervention in the economy, especially with stopping companies from bankruptcy is unacceptable. I believe the big companies should have never got money from the government and I believe it was the first major mistake by President Obama. Along with this, he even says that “History Shows Government Intervention Makes Recession Longer.” I can’t agree on the basis of history, but I believe that government intervention is the wrong idea to fix an economy (the stimulus bill did not lead to a recovery). Even though he is anti-bailouts as implied in the previous statement, he believes “Government Must Protect Free People from the Power of Great Combinations [in business such as monopolies and trusts].” I do not like monopolies or trusts so I was happy to see a candidate who would crack down on these companies, instead of sleeping at the wheel as the Obama administration and other government agencies have done. Along with all this talk, he proposes five ways to control the national debt:

In a similar tune, he opposes so-called ‘trickle-down economics’ because it does not allow the the greatest “National prosperity [is] when the working poor and the middle class prosper.” This situation is not happening today and I confident that Mr. Maloney will change it. In a darker note, he attempts to see into the secretiveness and leadership class of the world. According to him, each President in recent times is “[controlled by] some great power elite operating behind the scenes.” He states he will not be a President controlled by the elite, a change from our current President which at times seems under control of the elite. Along with the previous view of a world leadership class, Mr.. Maloney states that:Big Oil...banks [and] media dismantled antitrust laws...Big Corporations pushed [for] free trade treaties...[that the] Super Rich hide their wealth offshore to escape taxation.” All of his statement are true as I can tell and I believe that the elite should be controlled for the betterment on the country. As one might not expect, he is a constitutionalist. In 2008, the year America’s current President was elected, he writes: the President is not above the Rule of Law [so] President Bush should be indicted for violating the Constitution. As President he has violated it numerous times: torture, illegal wiretapping, illegal wars...In my opinion President Bush has turned my country into a rogue nation, a terrorist nation. I also hold President Obama totally responsible for continuation of the Bush practices. We must indict Bush and [remove] Obama [from office]” One of the harshest criticisms I have of Mr. Obama is continuing Bush’s policies. I agree that Mr. Obama cannot be President for another four years and Mr. Maloney should be chosen instead. Along with that, according to a voter’s letter to the editor he concludes: “Mike [Maloney] has said for a long time we have to: bring the troops home from around the world, cut the military budget in half to have money for critical domestic needs, (roads, bridges, water, and sewer systems), protect American jobs, replace a health care system built to generate profits and bonuses...restore due process, rights of habeus corpus and security from unwarranted search…restore the Eisenhower tax brackets that [America] prospered with...and replace the private Federal Reserve that charges...government interest for imaginary money.” All of these plans, that the voter lays out seem to be reasonable about would lead to an America that is more prosperous. Along with these comments on Mr. Maloney, many are confirmed in his plan for President in his first 100 days which he displays for every person to see. But, some positions weren’t included in my previous writing about Mr. Maloney included his views on how to: reform how candidates get campaign contributions, stop torture, uphold international law, restore America as a beacon of liberty and have just immigration reform. I think Mr. Mike Maloney is a very capable candidate for President of all of those I have reviewed.

I went through all the candidates for President except one, Randall A. Terry ( Why didn’t I look into Randall Terry’s positions? Well, for one, most people already know who he is. Mr. Terry is an anti-abortion activist. A Washington Post article notes the history of Mr. Terry and his positions: “Randall Terry [talks] proudly extreme politics...founded Operation Rescue...denounce[s] murderous abortionists and demonic homosexual sodomites...he calls [Islam a] religion [of] “murderers” and “terrorists”...he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a “whore” and “adultress”...[he believes the Bible] condemn[s] homosexuality.” In an accompanying article by ThinkProgress (liberal-leaning) it says “[the] infamous Christian-right activist Randall Terry followed through on his scheme to destroy the Islamic holy book, tearing pages from an English copy this morning in front of the White House...saying protests related to the proposed Islamic community center near ground zero...“disrespect the memories of our loved ones on this sacred day...veteran right-wing rabble rouser.” Forerunner has even more information about Mr. Terry: “[Terry’s] Operation Rescue activists have been successful in closing down major clinics in cities such as Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Philadelphia, and New York City...[in response to a question he said] God never gave the government a blank check to do what it wants to do. It is a heresy to teach Christians to obey a law which runs counter to His law.” From my analysis of all the candidates I have decided that Jeff Boss is too extreme with his idea that the NSA planned 9/11,Willie Felix Carter’s positions on issues that are across the map like a Blue Dog Democrat, Dee Neveu who has some good ideas like not living in the White House but doesn’t go into detail about her positions and John Sawyer is too skeptical of everything. In conclusion, I believe that Mike Maloney is the best candidate to challenge Mr. Obama because he is the most promising with his ideas on how to change America.