It's really self depreciating to listen to Barack Obama--or even his deputy of questionable intellectual prowess, Joe Biden, railing on endlessly about America's commitment to ending human rights violations around the world. In spite of Biden's forward attitude, which went as far as to naively endorse the use of American soldiers to end the crisis in Darfur during the 2007 Youtube/CNN debates for Democratic candidates, neither elected official has actually moved towards deploying soldiers, whether they be from the home soil or out of the barracks of the United Nations.
But Darfur is only a small fraction of the larger scaled problem. Genocide exists, all but ignored by the international community in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Botswana, and South Africa. Heads of state in these nations, once applauded as the harbingers of democracy, have now crossed over to the very depravity which they formerly decried, committing unspeakable acts while still diplomatically cordial with the modern world. Spitting in the face of the United Nations and the international forces which supply their nations with relieving monetary aid, leaders like Robert Mugabe, Paul Kagame, and Sharif Amhed are all presently allowing criminal acts to occur under their tenures.
It might be viable for the Administration to argue against involvement based on funds available, but it still fails to explain why none of its pro-UN rhetoric has actually foreshadowed firm military action against any of these nations. Nothing can be made of the point that these miniature powers would be difficult to overrun; in fact, their militia groups could be made short work of by advanced foreign troops. Most analysts--including the generally less astute Joe Biden have noted that a small brigade of special forces would be enough, at least in the case of Darfur, to incapacitate Omar Sharif and neutralize his radicalized government institutions.
We as a nation can try to propel ourselves into a depth of reason and philosophy to oppose any course of action which is not strictly based on national interest, but the question still must be raised; how are any of these countries not in our best future outcome for foreign conflict and trade? Any of these entities, charged by a force of capitalist government and renewed through democratic process could easily become meaningful trading partners with the United States, and possibly, valuable allies in the War on Terror.
The issue at stake in recent years has been the government's refusal to create new allies in more secure areas of the world. Africa in particular is not a dramatic ally today, but its strengthening by the Western World could monumentally restructure the focus of international disputes which are ongoing today in a positive manner. If one looks at the populations of many of these nations, documented within the CIA's World Factbook, they rise considerably and offer large forces of able bodied men in the present time, giving an entirely feasible channel of soldiers to bolster coalition forces around the world today. Were only a few sections of these bodies of force to stand alongside the United States and fully fledged allies, the wars in Afghanistan and other potential conflicts would be less costly to solely the manpower of America and Great Britain.
Combating extremism about the globe should not be as narrow sighted as to require the use of the only the largest nations and their military forces. With a supplemental help from smaller countries, which would benefit by receiving economic ascensions through their participations, the burden of any conflicts would rest not only on the United States, but more evenly on the remainder of the free world, a goal which we must all strive for.
Michael Veramendi
National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues
Showing posts with label biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biden. Show all posts
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Believing in the Future
Perhaps there has never been an organization of political interest that has fallen so hard in agonizing defeat as the GOP establishment did in yesterday's Delaware and New York primaries. For the purpose of being direct, I will pass over the New York results for this article, and instead focus on the ruthless results of the First State, and how they relate to the climate of the nation.
Notwithstanding partisan views, any American with a generally impartial attitude could fully appreciate the incredibly poor sportsmanship and ungracious attitude of Congressman Michael Castle as he delivered his concession speech on Tuesday night. The brief and clearly rushed statement, which mostly worked in a self serving manner to promote the liberal Republican for his work over the past 40 years failed to mention the name of victorious nominee Christine O'Donnell, despite Castle's supposed honor and respect in politics. It could be that facing a 6% point loss was just too much for the old moderate to take, yet his less than cordial response to the people's decision is still inexcusable.
Before facing the voters, Castle attempted to simply run a popularity campaign, slinging mud in secrecy at O'Donnell only after her own organization received a boost from the activist Tea Party Express. According to his campaign, Castle's young opponent was both a con artist and a fraud, a person incapable of paying her bills and with views far outside the centrist path of Delaware's political history. And now, his career finally ended, the Congressman only helps spread the fire by refusing to endorse O'Donnell's victorious campaign.
It might be true that sometimes politics get out of hand, but failing to help one's own party in a critical year because of a humiliating defeat is unbecoming of good public servants. More so, its is a simple reflection on the type of man Michael Castle is: a disconnected, self-interested opportunist. His career certainly stretched long and far, from service in the state house, to governor, and finally to the representative seat, which he has held for almost eighteen years. Truth be told, he had ample attempts to run for the Senate--perhaps even the presidency, but turned them down for the sake of political expediency and comfort. Assuming Castle would only run as a governor or congressman, he might have tried to take Delaware's upper house seat in 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, or 2008, yet he stood aside out of respect for Joe Biden. Only once the playing field was absolutely leveled did Castle wade into the possibility of becoming a United States Senator, and his campaign still failed to reach out to the common voters, instead clinging to his poor political credentials like a dog to a thrown out bone.
Regardless of Castle's behavior however, it is time for America to embrace the prospect of Christine O'Donnell as the next United States Senator from the State of Delaware. Not only has she stood up consistently for American values, but her platform is also in line with much of Delaware's population, which according to Gallup Polling dissents from the healthcare package, tax increases, and even elements of cap and trade.
Even beyond the obvious, it is entirely possible for O'Donnell to route Democrat Chris Coons come November, especially if Republican forces fall behind her campaign and promote a positive, small business message to the voters. As an insurgent conservative in a liberal state, O'Donnell is the test of Republican traction with even more moderate voters for the election in 2012. If cards are played correctly, she can win, and even by a respectable margin.
It is important to remember two major elements to this possibility. First, O'Donnell has run two state wide campaigns, the latter in 2008, when she captured 35% of the popular vote, despite running against a vice presidential nominee and having only $100,000 for the effort. Now she stands able to beat the opposition with both the absence of the Biden name, and his candidacy for the vice executive post.
For all that is claimed and advertised, Chris Coons is not a very impressive candidate, having served as a county executive for only five years, and prior to that possessing little national experience with a federal campaign. In fact, despite his seemingly impressive array of degrees from Amherst and Yale, Coons is employing tactics rather under handed for such a proposed intellectual. His movement recently listed O'Donnell as being bizarre and out of touch, even going so far as to imply she might be mentally delusional.
Victory in 2010 is about values, not convenience. Michael Castle would have represented everything wrong with our system: the status quo, establishment picks, and little change in government. Yet Christine O'Donnell has the capacity to change what is wrong in our nation and create a new future of prosperity for us all. Were the National Alliance Party to field a candidate in a race such as this, they would embody the same qualities as Miss O'Donnell, and thus she receives our utterly complete support and encouragement. To change Washington, we must change the process, and as a senator she will be part of that revelatory shift in policy.
Cate Ashton
National Alliance Vice President for Operations
Notwithstanding partisan views, any American with a generally impartial attitude could fully appreciate the incredibly poor sportsmanship and ungracious attitude of Congressman Michael Castle as he delivered his concession speech on Tuesday night. The brief and clearly rushed statement, which mostly worked in a self serving manner to promote the liberal Republican for his work over the past 40 years failed to mention the name of victorious nominee Christine O'Donnell, despite Castle's supposed honor and respect in politics. It could be that facing a 6% point loss was just too much for the old moderate to take, yet his less than cordial response to the people's decision is still inexcusable.
Before facing the voters, Castle attempted to simply run a popularity campaign, slinging mud in secrecy at O'Donnell only after her own organization received a boost from the activist Tea Party Express. According to his campaign, Castle's young opponent was both a con artist and a fraud, a person incapable of paying her bills and with views far outside the centrist path of Delaware's political history. And now, his career finally ended, the Congressman only helps spread the fire by refusing to endorse O'Donnell's victorious campaign.
It might be true that sometimes politics get out of hand, but failing to help one's own party in a critical year because of a humiliating defeat is unbecoming of good public servants. More so, its is a simple reflection on the type of man Michael Castle is: a disconnected, self-interested opportunist. His career certainly stretched long and far, from service in the state house, to governor, and finally to the representative seat, which he has held for almost eighteen years. Truth be told, he had ample attempts to run for the Senate--perhaps even the presidency, but turned them down for the sake of political expediency and comfort. Assuming Castle would only run as a governor or congressman, he might have tried to take Delaware's upper house seat in 1990, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, or 2008, yet he stood aside out of respect for Joe Biden. Only once the playing field was absolutely leveled did Castle wade into the possibility of becoming a United States Senator, and his campaign still failed to reach out to the common voters, instead clinging to his poor political credentials like a dog to a thrown out bone.
Regardless of Castle's behavior however, it is time for America to embrace the prospect of Christine O'Donnell as the next United States Senator from the State of Delaware. Not only has she stood up consistently for American values, but her platform is also in line with much of Delaware's population, which according to Gallup Polling dissents from the healthcare package, tax increases, and even elements of cap and trade.
Even beyond the obvious, it is entirely possible for O'Donnell to route Democrat Chris Coons come November, especially if Republican forces fall behind her campaign and promote a positive, small business message to the voters. As an insurgent conservative in a liberal state, O'Donnell is the test of Republican traction with even more moderate voters for the election in 2012. If cards are played correctly, she can win, and even by a respectable margin.
It is important to remember two major elements to this possibility. First, O'Donnell has run two state wide campaigns, the latter in 2008, when she captured 35% of the popular vote, despite running against a vice presidential nominee and having only $100,000 for the effort. Now she stands able to beat the opposition with both the absence of the Biden name, and his candidacy for the vice executive post.
For all that is claimed and advertised, Chris Coons is not a very impressive candidate, having served as a county executive for only five years, and prior to that possessing little national experience with a federal campaign. In fact, despite his seemingly impressive array of degrees from Amherst and Yale, Coons is employing tactics rather under handed for such a proposed intellectual. His movement recently listed O'Donnell as being bizarre and out of touch, even going so far as to imply she might be mentally delusional.
Victory in 2010 is about values, not convenience. Michael Castle would have represented everything wrong with our system: the status quo, establishment picks, and little change in government. Yet Christine O'Donnell has the capacity to change what is wrong in our nation and create a new future of prosperity for us all. Were the National Alliance Party to field a candidate in a race such as this, they would embody the same qualities as Miss O'Donnell, and thus she receives our utterly complete support and encouragement. To change Washington, we must change the process, and as a senator she will be part of that revelatory shift in policy.
Cate Ashton
National Alliance Vice President for Operations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)