Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?

I recently asked, on facebook, "Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?".  It was, of course, a rhetorical question, intended to be bring grins or fury depending who read it.  But under the rhetoric is a disturbing trend - a trend which, in may ways, validates the question.  Why DOES Ron Paul hate freedom?

In 2009 Iran was rocked with mass, anti-government, pro-democracy protests following the fraudulent election results.  Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iranians took the streets and their roofs and streets, and the government in turn unleashed their thugs upon the democracy activists.  The following Green Protests were followed all around the world, and united both the left and right in their sympathy for the protesters.  We saw dozens of images and videos of defiant protesters being beaten, chanting with bloodied faces, and in once case, dying on the street.




Neda died on June 20th, 2009, shot by a Basij thug at random.  One day earlier Ron Paul was the sole member of the House to vote against a resolution which expressed "support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law."  Here is his statement on why he voted no:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about "condemning" the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama's cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Dr. Ron Paul's reasoning here is about as sound as a sinking ship.  In fact sinking is exactly what he's doing here.  RP works off the foreign policy belief in non-intervention, which is really just isolationism, but him and his followers try hard to pretend it isn't.  However I don't see how you can interpret what he says as anything other than a cheap cop out.  RP focuses his reasoning around the basis that the US has no right to "meddle" in the affairs of other nations, ignoring the fact that a condemnation isn't really so much meddling as it is a strongly worded letter.  If sanctions or military action came from this resolution, then perhaps Ron Paul would have a valid point, but it doesn't.  All it does is condemn violence against pro-democracy activists, and applaud the activists for their bravery.  Where exactly is the harm in that, other than to our relations with that nation?

Relations with a nation is exactly where Ron Paul takes this argument next, pointing out our citicism is based largely on pragmatism. America doesn't want to piss Saudi Arabia off, so it doesn't condemn it's human rights record, but because we don't like Iran we're eager to jump down their throats.  That may be, but what does that have to do with anything?  Are you somehow morally superior than the people who pretend to care about human rights - but ignore abuses in countries they want to curry favor with - by ignoring all of the instances of abuse altogether?  Why RP decides to bring up this point after clearly stating that he doesn't want to "interfere" in the internal affairs of any foreign nation is beyond me.  He clearly doesn't care to condemn the abuses in Saudi Arabia any more than he could care to condemn the abuses in Iran, so what purpose does this point serve?

Commenting on the internal affairs of foreign nations also exposes Ron Paul for the hypocrite he is.  On April 6th, 2006 he had no problem getting involved in Romania's policy on intercountry adoptions and how they treat orphaned children.  In June of this year, he had no problems condemning the Israeli raid on a flotilla trying to break through the Gaza blockade.  But six days ago he couldn't vote yes on a resolution to congragulate Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese democracy advocate who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Ron Paul is creating a habit out of condemning those who yearn for freedom and democracy, and use peaceful means to try and attain it.  This behavior isn't exactly uncommon from him, and any clear thinking individual who watches Ron Paul for any decent amount of time will realize that the man is, at best, a bit extreme.  At worst he's down right insane.  So again, I ask:  Why does Ron Paul hate freedom?

5 things Conservatives shouldn't say

Obama isn't my President.

It's unsurprising that the first time I heard someone declaring that the President wasn't their President was during the Bush years.  Although I'm certain others have made this statement toward other Presidents, I doubt it was quite as widespread, and so the statement has come to personify the rabid, foaming at the mouth hatred that liberals expressed during those years.  The statement isn't offensive because the man in charge happened to be from my political party, but it offends me as an American.  To disagree or even hate a President is one thing, but to declare that he isn't your President is something else entirely.

The same goes for Obama.

Is it unfortunate that an incompetent, far-leftist got elected to office?  Of course, but does that mean he's not your President?  Absolutely not.  Him being your President doesn't mean you owe him any particular loyalties.  Americans aren't expected to love or follow their Presidents, but we should be expected to respect the office.  I hardly consider it respectful to ignore the current officeholder just because you disagree with - or outright loathe - his policies and ideology.  Like it or not Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America, so unless you're in the process of throwing a revolt or giving up your citizenship, he is your President.

There's a surprisingly thin line for legitimate dissent to outright insanity.  Liberals sprinted across that line without looking back, and conservatives could find themselves teasing with that boundary if they're not careful.  I can count the number of people I've heard say "Obama isn't my President" on one hand, but virtually no one offers any sort of condemnation for such statements, and that's what worries me.  Conservatives need to ensure that we don't become what liberals became during the Bush years.


Obama is a Kenyan!/Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where is the birth certificate?

That question isn't aimed toward Obama, but the Birthers who, for whatever reason, have pursued this relentless despite having little to no proof.  Initially I was open to the suggestion that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and thus wasn't eligible for the Presidency, but as time went on I became less and less impressed with Birthers and their arguments.

For the last year and a half they've been going on about this, and for the last year and a half they've produced...nothing.  Their argument never evolved past its original point, in which they point to Obama having never released his birth certificate.

For a starting argument it isn't bad.  It is suspicious that we've never seen a birth certificate, and that Obama has blocked that information with an executive order, but that's circumstantial evidence at best.  At some point you have to start producing something to validate the serious nature of your claims, but they never did that.  There was never any decent answer to the certificate of live birth, or the newspaper clipping declaring Obama's birth, but their absolute lowest moment came when they declared that they had the birth certificate, only to find out it was forged by a blogger.

Conservatives should treat Birthers for what they are:  Conspiracy theorists.  If they want to spend their own time pursing this, then that's their business, but conservatives need to continue to distance themselves from people who believe Obama isn't a natural born citizen.  At the same time we really do need to pass legislation which requires presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.


Obama is a Muslim!

The argument for Obama being Muslim goes something like this:  Because Obama's father was Muslim, and because he spent time as a child in Indonesia learning in Islamic schools, Obama is a Muslim today, as is evident by his poor treatment of Israel.

It's a bit difficult to address that argument simply because it's so absurd, and is on the same level as doubting Nikki Haley's conversion.  I'm not even sure why they would bring up his faith of his father since that's certainly does not bind a man toward any particular faith, especially when you grow up in a completely different culture.  Pointing out that he spent time reading the Quran and learning in Islamic school has a bit more validity, but again has no consequence on choices he made later in life in regards to faith.  It would be like saying a Muslim child is Christian because her family has embraced the American life and now celebrates Easter and Christmas in the same commercial sense that so many other Americans do.

I've repeatedly maintained that if Obama is anything other then what he says he is, it's Atheist, but ultimately it's not something worth focusing on.  Arguing over whether Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist doesn't change what he's doing to this country, but it does serve to make his opposition look radical and/or insane.


When will the States/People revolt/secede?

Revolt and secession should always be a legitimate option for the American people to take should it ever come down to it, and wondering how far you would have to be pushed before you take up arms against your own government and countrymen is something we should all think about at least once.  However it's a thin line between asking yourself what the prerequisites are for rebellion, and openly demanding/supporting it.

Advocating revolution is a serious thing, so unless times are extremely dire or your reasoning is perfect you won't find much sympathy with the public, and to be honest that's a good thing.  When people make such threats they often do so not because they believe they have an obligation to fight against a government that has usurped the law, but because they disagree with the current ideology/policies in practice.

Again we can look to the Bush years for an example.  During this time it wasn't uncommon to hear smug liberals saying that the blue states should leave the union, have their own President, and watch the red states crumble and die.  This talk wasn't driven by a belief that they had a legal obligation or case to rebel, but from a hatred of the man (Bush) and his policies. 

There are some similarities the conservative case for revolt against Obama.  It would be dishonest to say that the majority of flirting with revolt doesn't stem from a conservative hate of the man and his ideology.  While there is a valid argument that his ideology could be outside the constitution, and thus illegal, the argument isn't so clear cut as to permit talk of revolution.  There is quite a bit of gray, and certainly nothing that mainstream America would see as valid.   It's worth noting that in some cases the threat is merely on the table, with legitimate reasoning for it, such as when Governor Perry of Texas spoke of secession if the Federal government continues to usurp state power. The distinction has to be made between the two, otherwise you risk coloring the entire movement as one of radicals who may very well be those "right-wing terrorists" the DHS spoke of.


Impeach Obama!

Much like how I'm offended as an American when people say Obama isn't their President, I'm also offended when people call for the impeachment of Obama.

Throughout this post I've brought up the Bush years, and I've done so because it's easy, for me at least, to remember the disgust I felt over the way liberals acted during those years.  Those memories and feelings have been invaluable in guiding my dissent against the current administration, in reminding me where the line is and why I shouldn't cross it.  The call for impeachment personifies this best.  During the Bush years liberals were proud to call for Bush's impeachment, often validating it under the belief that he lied about the Iraq war.  It was, and is, a flimsy excuse, one that if true would mean the impeachment of many Senators and Representatives, including many Democrats and liberals, and would imply a greater conspiracy throughout the world.  Pointing this out doesn't change their mind, and only serves to remind you that their dissent is based in disagreement turned into rabid hatred.

Just to be fair:  The above picture actually came from a Ron Paul rally, but it's just an example of the type of thing you would see broadcast, proudly, by liberals.

Just as liberals had no legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Bush, conservatives lack a legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Obama.  Many of the arguments I made when talking about revolution apply here.  There is a legitimate line of questioning about if his ideology is legal under the constitution, but it's such a gray that I don't believe any of the arguments (that I've heard) for impeachment are reasonable, let alone legitimate.  The call for impeachment stem from a sizable minority, who often make the call during Obama's particularly bad moments, and often are never called out.  It's not beyond reason to believe that if Obama were reelected it could send conservatives into a frenzy not unlike that of liberals during the Bush years.

The consolation is that impeachment would ultimately do more damage.  Biden is a complete moron in every sense of the word, and impeaching Obama would only serve to make him a martyr for Progressives.  His defeat, however, would be a crushing defeat, and perhaps see moderates retake control of the Democrat party.


Final thoughts

Unlike liberals, conservatives do not have much in the way of leeway.  Liberals got away with their rabid, foaming at the mouth because they have the support of the media and as such they were able to present themselves as far more moderate and reasonable then they were.  The worst of them were not shown, and the bad was always presented as no so bad.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always presented as bad.  We're violent, we're radical, and we're insane.  Most people don't buy into that, but conservatives can't take that for granted.  Conservatives need to remember what it was like during the Bush years, and always need to do their best to keep their arguments within reason, or at least be able to justify them when the time comes.

Often people say shocking things (and too often it seems they do it just to be shocking) and too people many look the other way, unwilling to attack another conservative.  However, this is our movement, and we have an obligation to police our own.  Maybe we can't control it, but we do have the right to try.

If nothing else internal dialogue offers us the chance to strengthen our views, and helps us to defend them against liberals later.  As the bible says:

     As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Insanity on the Right

Having a large network of friends on facebook is interesting.  I've never "networked" before so it was fun meeting new people who had a similar interest in politics.  The vast majority of my friends are good people who post stories, pictures, and anything else they can get their hands on.  We disagree sometimes, but most have the sense to recognize that a little disagreement is healthy.  Every now and then you get something that is just not salvageable.  Usually it's a rare person who can't tolerate any disagreeing with them, but sometimes it's someone who truly believes something flat out insane.

I'm not actually sure how much of this needs or deserves a serious reply.  The vast majority of it so ridiculous that I think it speaks for itself.  The note was long too so I cut out parts.  Most of it is just mindless rhetoric anyways, but here you go:

Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler are one in the same. Both are very dark men who hide their ancestral roots and claim to be Christians, all to gain power and corrupt the free world with their Satanic ways.

I am very afraid of Barack Obama and you should be too. Hitler’s ultimate goal was to commit genocide and Obama supports the endless murder of babies. Let us look at the eerie similarities between these two dark souls.

The start and picture pretty much tell you exactly how this is going to go down:

1. Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler Obscured Their Origin

Obama: Barack Obama is not an American. He’s a Muslim.

Barack Obama and his socialist supporters circumvented the law, so he could inflict Soviet and Indonesian Sharia edict upon our land in preparation for a great war.

Hitler: Adolf Hitler was not a German. He was a genocidal socialist, just like Barack Obama.

Born in Austria, crippled and to a Jewish mother, Hitler grew up in squalor. Obama was also not wealthy in his upbringing.

While Hitler championed the talk of being poor and having to be a self-made man, he hid the fact that he was of Jewish ancestry. He hid the fact that he was a Godless atheist. Again, just like B. Hussein Obama. This is terrifying.

More often then not the Birther and Muslim lines go hand in hand, and sometimes you even get the "He's the anti-Christ!" thrown in there for good measure.  People who do this tend to be the exact people that the media try to claim all conservatives are, down to bringing up race in a manner that makes even me uncomfortable.  Lets continue on though.

Birthers are their own brand of special and there isn't much to say.  Give us proof or just go away.  Stop dragging the entire movement down with you.  We hear about them so much that I don't feel like I have to waste time with them.

The Muslim argument, however, isn't dealt with enough.  I have a simple question for everyone who thinks Obama is a Muslim:  Why?  Because he lived in Indonesia as a child?  By that logic couldn't I argue he's Christian because he spent most of his time in America going to Christian Churches?  If Obama is anything other than what he says he is wouldn't it be Atheist?  That would be the most logical choice for a man who thinks himself an intellectual and is commonly accused of being a socialist or communist.  Even for this particular author that argument would be far more rational and do more to help him draw a line between Hitler and Obama.  Instead he falls back on one of the most ridiculous and childish arguments.

The last argument in point number one is just icing on the cake.  Congratulations on discovering that politicians try to portray themselves as normal people who worked hard to get where they are.  Clearly this proves Obama is Hitler.

Point number two isn't numbered so I had to just assume that this was point number two:

Obama: People follow him blindly without question and his political rallies were held in stadiums.

People like “Obama Girl” make shameful propaganda videos in his name and Obama’s Youth sing chants to worship him and make him unto a Fuhrer.

Obama’s Youth are secretly trained to support genocide of the innocent and taught to hate their Christian American heritage, instilled by their Republican forefathers.

Wait WHAT?  Obama has an organization called the Obama Youth?  And they're being secretly trained to do what?

I've never really understood people like this (with Truthers being in the same boat).  If I had a private army that I had been training to slaughter anyone who disagrees with me you can bet that anyone who tried to blab about it would go "missing".  I certainly wouldn't let someone tell the world on their -facebook-.

Point number three has pictures that are supposed to show Obama and his supporters doing Nazi salutes.

3. Frightened Crowds Heil Pledge of Loyalty

To Obama and Hitler Obama: Barack Obama hates it when people pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; our one nation under God. Obama hates it so much that he publicly refuses to salute our nation’s flag.

As seen in the terrifying image above, Obama wants crowds to acknowledge him with ‘Heil Obama’ as no flag is seen on the podium, only his body. Obama often starts speeches by giving the Heil symbol, which harkens to his social ancestry and desires for our nation.

Oops...

Well I'm going to assume you don't actually mean a military salute since Obama is a civilian.  But uh...argument debunked?

Oh and yeah I hear Obama screams "HEIL OBAMA!" and raises his arm, which is repeated by the crowd several times before he begins his speech.  I also heard he attacked a 5th grade class that was saying the pledge of allegiance.  Just kinda saw red and started swinging.  He HATES IT when you say the pledge.

4. Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler Wrote A Book about “Their Struggle”
Obama: Obama is well-versed in the application of Machiavellian politics. He understands the true purpose of The Prince but twists it to its most sinister ends: to win over the crowd so he can use them for building a empire of evil, based on false love and deep fear.

Obama’s biography is titled Barack Obama: What He Believes In. The book paints Obama as a sympathetic character; an everyman. A man who believes in values and morality, a man who is from humble beginnings and is right for America.

The book does not give details on how Obama supports the murder of babies and gives terrorists in Palestine $1 billion dollars of US tax money, so the Palestinians can continue to try King Pharaoh’s goal of killing the Children of Israel.

Obama does not want to bomb Iran into the Stone Age for building nuclear technology that could be used against Israel. Obama wants to make Iran an American ally in his great war against moral, God-fearing nations.

You will not find these facts about him in his books, because it is nothing but Machiavellian propaganda.

Hitler: Hitler’s biography is Mein Kampf: My Struggle.

Muslims believe in what’s called Jihad. It literally means ‘my struggle’. A jihad can be anything; a struggle against over-eating, a struggle to be a better mother. A struggle to kill all Americans dead because they hate our freedom.

Hitler’s struggle was tricking people into thinking that he cared about them and the nation of Germany. Even his ‘own’ people were a simple tool for him and his end goal; to make Satan proud by destroying God’s children. After that was done, Hitler would have been satisfied and not cared about anything else.

My friends, Barack Obama has a jihad as well: why did ACORN help him get into office: so he could promote a social health care system that will leave the old uncovered and dieing of the common cold?

Why does Barack Obama support the genocide and scapegoating of all children that live in their mother’s womb? His true story is this: he supports gays and abortion, so therefore is not Christian. And if you are not Christian, you are anti-Christian, anti-America and anti-God.

You are anti-Christ.

And there it is.  From the context he could easily mean that the man is just the opposite of Christ and not actually THE anti-Christ, but that's getting awfully close to the line and you'd have to be rather ignorant to call someone "anti-Christ" and not think everyone is going to take it as THE anti-Christ.

But hey, you know, the crazy is complete.

The rest of argument number four?  Yeah, Obama wrote a book about himself.  Hitler wrote about himself.  Weird coincidence.  Who writes a book about them self?  Certainly not politicians.

5. Veiling Their True Names Under The Fabric of Lies

Obama: Fun fact – Barack Obama’s real name is Barry Soetoro.

Fun fact:  Obama's birth name is Barack Hussein Obama II. 

Another Fun Fact:  No one cares!  I don't care if is real name was Castro Stalin Genghis, it doesn't mean anything.


I'm not totally convinced that the person who posted this isn't a troll since it's easily in the top 10 for the most insane things I've ever read.  Even if it is the comments on the note are overwhelmingly supportive with 16 "likes" and positive comments from a bit under a dozen different people.  Only person actually voices anything other than support, and it's hardly what I'd call disagreeing.

Now I do believe abortion is genocide, I have been known to call Democrats (including Obama) fascists, and when some random protester holds up a sign comparing Obama to Hitler it doesn't particularly bother me.  But that's because I assume it's more of a statement and less that the person actually thinks the two are virtually one and the same.  However some people this have crossed that line.  No one should get a free pass just because they're critical of Obama or wrote in "Republican" or "Conservative" next to their political beliefs, yet to often they do.

The Conservative movement of today has to be both rational and principled.  I remember how the Leftists acted during Bush, and I don't want to be associated with anything remotely close to that insanity.  They got a pass because the media supported them, but we don't have that luxury.  If we want people who are curious about the Conservative, anti-Obama stance we have to present ourselves as people with well thought out beliefs.  Otherwise we only serve to drive away everyone with the sense to spot insanity.

The person who posted this on facebook is called ČonserVapidia Ŝaroka.  We have 124 our of roughly 200 networking friends in common.  If you're reading this and you're friends with him I urge to drop him or actually point out how stupid his arguments are.  Just because we're all on the right side of things doesn't mean we can't disagree with one another.  Sometimes just polite disagreements, and other times we have to say "No, we will not let our ideology be associated with someone like you."

We can all hope its just incompetence

On July 4th, 1776 America declared independence from Great Britain, and with it their monarchs.  We cast down their kings and queens and became a Republic, a nation ruled by laws and not men.  When we became a sovereign nation we demanded to be treated as equals, not as subjects.  We have no masters, and we rule ourselves.  Such a fundamentally American message became one of the key rules to all US Presidents for over 200 years:  Don't bow.  The American people don't bend their backs to any foreign power, so why should our leader?

Err...ok, so he bowed.  He's new at this whole being a leader thing.  And beside Nixon did the same thing.  He wasn't kissing the floor, but he bowed!  Surely we can overlook this one mistake and cut our new President some sla...

For the love of God, Barry!  We just went over this!  Don't.  Bow.  Look, I'm not bowing right now!  You try it now.

....I...I just...can't...*sigh*...

Today's post is in honor of Obama bowing to his third world leader last night.  The first time he did it conservatives had a lovely time expressing their outrage.  Everyone else was still drunk on the Obama kool-aid so they largely just watched from the sidelines.  But among the conservatives things broke down into two camps (although there were people who went between the two).  The conservative fringe thought that this was proof positive that Obama was a muslim.  Bowing to the leader of the Sunni faith isn't a coincidence right?  Eh well they're fringe for a reason.  All the other rational people thought it was either a sign of his weak ideology or just flat out incompetence.  Between the two incompetence was the preference, although conservatives had been making the argument that he would be a terrible leader since 08 so the "I told you so" points may make it even.  Of course inevitably the bow came with a whole bunch of fun attached to it including a White House denial:

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

What the hell does that even mean?  How does that even excuse bending your spine forward in a gesture that closely resembles bowing?  If you're going to lie to the American public at least -try-. 

And then, of course, there was the media outrage. 

"..."

Harsh, but what more could we expect?  In 1994 the NY Times tore Clinton apart for ALMOST bowing to the Japanese Emperor, so of course Barry had to expect the same treatment!  We're nothing if not consistent.  That's what it takes to have a fair, unbiased media.  Even The One is not above such things.

Eventually the controversy died down until conservatives used it as something to snicker about.  Just a little piece of evidence to remind us of the type of people we had in the White House.

And then Obama went to Japan.

The thing about the Japanese bow is that its -so low-.  In Japan the lower the bow the more respect you're showing to someone.  Oh and weakness.  Lower the bow, the more weakness you're displaying.  Of course such details are below the leader of the free world.  Heck the Emperor of Japan is just a figurehead anyways, I bet plenty of people say "Damn the protocol!" and kiss the ground anyways.



Tch.  Well at least we got the White House spin!

"...But I don’t think anybody who was in Japan – who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there – would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan."

I had a friend try to argue this point with me.  "Well whats one bow if it gets stuff done?"  How the public  of the nation in question views the representative of your nation has NOTHING to do with trying to get things done diplomatically right?  If we're going to sit down with another nation and engage in diplomacy shouldn't it be done as equals?  It's not even that the Japanese find bowing so completely offensive.  There are correct ways to do a bow and to show respect without conceding weakness.  Its just that nobody told Obama that.

"The bow as he performed did not just display weakness in Red State terms, but evoked weakness in Japanese terms....The last thing the Japanese want or need is a weak looking American president and, again, in all ways, he unintentionally played that part."

Hey about just shaking his hand next time?  None of Japan's newspapers will be so embarrassed by a handshake that they'll refuse to publish the picture.  Unlike your bow.

By the time we get to the Chinese bow there's nothing left to say.  Apparently Obama just likes bowing when its completely inappropriate.  If its incompetence then its crossed that line into stupidity.  Seriously, not bowing isn't hard.  In fact I do it pretty much every day.  I'm pretty sure I've gone years without bowing!  The alternative is that he truly believes it's ok to whore out the respect of his both position and that of the United States for the chance of diplomatic gain.

Or that he's a Japanese, muslim, communist.  (I love you fringe <3)

Like the title says:  We can all hope its just incompetence.