Category Archives: Anti-Semitism

Ukraine, Ron Paul, and It’s not our problem: The suicidal joys of Isolationism

“[America’s] previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler’s Germany and Tojo’s Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does. America has to act.”—P.J. O’Rourke, Peace Kills: America’s Fun New Imperialism

So yesterday I was treated to Ron Paul  appearing on The Russian Propaganda Network Russia Today where he blamed the whole Ukraine mess on THE JEWS “Global Bankers” and the “Military Industrial Complex” and also took a few cheap shots at America including a lie about America being an empire.  He also said it’s up for argument if Russia has violated the sovereignty of Ukraine (it’s not up for argument Ron you daft ass, it’s a fact).  He then defended Obama and compared the actions of a tyrant like Putin trying to extend his empire to the acts of the US when trying to destroy tyranny (the complete inability of this man to understand ethics is really sickening).

But despite his usual mixture of idiocy, anti-Semitism, implicit hatred of America, and evil that defines Ron Paul we have the isolationism he that is the hallmark of his vile rants. He keeps making the a point that boils down to “It’s not our problem.”

I’ve heard a lot of people talking about getting out of world affairs in the wake of the current Eastern Europe ruckus. As is always so popular in America, Isolationism seems to be making a comeback in the psyche of the nation, it’s not just Ron Paul, he is just the mouthpiece for a larger movement.  Isolationism.  Because, it’s not our problem.  Great idea. Let’s take a look at how well isolationism has always worked in this country’s favor over the last century…
Coming off our crazy Manifest Destiny kick, Americans swung into a full isolationist mode in the early 20th century. So much so that when people started dying by the thousands in WWI we chose to do nothing. Thousand of soldiers—British, French, Italian, German, Austrian, to name a few—suffered in trenches with some of the most horrific conditions modern warfare has to offer. But it’s not America’s problem so we do nothing. The Ottoman Empire (ally of Germany and Austria) begins genocidally slaughtering Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks so brutally the Allies actually issue a statement using the words “crime against humanity” for the first time (so I doubt everyone in America was ignorant of this). America still does nothing, because still not our problem. Then one of our ships gets torpedoed while going through a war zone, so now it’s our problem. We come in with enough troops to end the war (if we had come in years earlier it would probably have ended the war then and spared thousands upon thousands suffering and death, but, oh, that’s right it wasn’t our problem at the time).

 

“some men just want to watch the world burn.”

So World War I ends. President Wilson has a good idea in the form of a world organization to oppose tyranny and support democracy around the world, the League of Nations, but the isolationist quickly take power again in America and decide not to be a member of the organization. I’m not saying American participation in the League would have stopped World War II from happening, but explain to me how it would have hurt. So in the end the League of Nations is filled by almost nothing but countries that have pacifist views that will cower when anyone with a gun shows up.
The first major failure of this war weary League and America (both parties are equally guilty) is allowing the continuation of the Red Army in the former Russian Empire. World War I ended officially in 1919, but the Russian Civil War didn’t end until 1923, yet no one even really offered to help the White Army put down the communists (good call, because the Soviets didn’t cause any problems over the next 70 years or so). No, rather than actually take out the root of the problem at maybe the cost of a few thousand more lives for Western nations, here in America we chose the policy of going into a hysterical fit over the fear of communists in our country, mobilizing every federal and state power to track down what turned out to be nothing more than a few dozen radicals with access to gun powder and a rough skill in making bad mail bombs.( I’m not saying there weren’t Soviet agents ever in America, there were, but odds are they didn’t become entrenched until after the Russian Civil War was over.) So we’ll use police powers against our own people over the fear of a foreign nation but won’t actually deal with that foreign nation we fear, because it’s not our problem.

Unknown

Isolationism…because evil isn’t coming after you…yet…

The next few years brought up other things that weren’t our problem. The Spanish Civil War, which allowed the country to fall to fascism. Italian aggression and empire building in Africa, but not our problem. The growing Maoist Army in China, not our problem. Invasion of China and Korea by Japan, not our problem. And dare we forget all those things Germany under Hitler did that weren’t our problem. Crimes against humanity each and every one of them. Not even counting the Holocaust, literally millions of people are being killed, raped, enslaved, and tortured. Americans can’t be that stupid to not know anything about this. Yes, many chose not to learn anything, just as nowadays many don’t bother to read about what goes on in the Sudan, because we know deep down if we knew we would be morally required to act, but American ignorance was one of choice, not one of lack of information (also much like how after we went into Germany all we found was a country filled with “Good Germans” who never knew what was going on in the concentration camps). And if all American’s were really that ignorant of these things, then how does one explain the very few Americans who went to all these wars to fight against fascism, to fight for what they believed to be right. They had to learn about it somewhere.
But these things weren’t our problem.
Then once again a weird thing happened. Low and behold after nearly every other nation who opposed fascism had fallen or was under siege, all of a sudden the fascists turned their eyes to us and it became our problem. Who could have guessed that an ideology founded on conquering the world would ever come to American shores. Completely unpredictable. So once again it suddenly became our problem again, and we went in and took down most of the bad guys. Then we went back to isolationist tendencies. Now some history buffs out there will call me crazy, because Truman’s post war policies could hardly be called isolationist—after all, we helped rebuild Western Europe and contained the Soviet Union. True, we contained the Soviet Union. This was isolationist in itself. Let’s go back to the day immediately following Japan’s surrender and look at the situation. You have Soviet Russia preparing to take total control of Eastern Europe as a “buffer zone” between them and Germany. Even at this point in history everyone knows Stalin is a worse butcher than Hitler. The bulk of the Soviet Army (devastated far more than the rest of the Allies by the war) is racing across Asia hoping to get a foothold into Japan and thus more land to control, thus leaving everything up to Moscow with minimal defenses. Gen. Patton (certainly not the most stable of men, but a strategic and tactical genius nonetheless) has this wacky plan to push the Russian army in Europe back to the Russian border if not destroy it completely. It was August, giving us at least a couple of months before those infamous Russian winters set in. Oh, and America was the only country that was a nuclear power at this point. It wouldn’t have been bloodless, but had the Allies decided to attack Soviet Russia it wouldn’t have been a long war, nor would it’s outcome been in the favor of communism. But we chose once again to not deal with a problem until it affected us.
We create the U.N., but then give two of the most evil governments in the world veto power to stop any action intended to stop their tyrannical ways.
Some more things that weren’t our problems after that. Eastern Europe is placed under a dictatorship as brutal and bloodthirsty as the one we just liberated them from. China, with Soviet help falls to communism. Tibet, after asking for U.S. help, receives no help and falls to Maoist butchers. The Soviet Union becomes a nuclear power (yes we did recognize that as our problem, but the fact is if we had recognized them as a problem a few years earlier, they wouldn’t have been around to become a nuclear threat). And after some half-hearted (I’m insulting the politician who made war policy, not the soldiers who fought) fighting we allow the communist to take North Korea (it’s not like allowing that one would ever lead to problems). Cuba also falls to communism, but not directly our problem, until low and behold communist from one part of the world start giving communist in another part of the world nuclear missiles.
So isolationism is not looking like a good option at this point to anyone who can count hundreds of millions tortured and killed as a direct result of it, but the U.S. still can’t give up it’s isolationist way. So we now try a kind of halfway isolationism. The use of the CIA to work behind the scenes and the use of the U.S. military only in “police actions.” The problem with police actions is if you have rules about when and where your troops can fire back at the enemy, and what lines they can cross, and just generally the falling short of fighting a real war then all you end up with is a lot of U.S. soldiers in body bags and a wall in D.C. commemorating the fact that despite being excellent soldiers, who never actually lost a real battle, politicians will make their deaths completely worth nothing by just leaving countries like Vietnam to communist governments.
Then Khmer Rouge takes over Cambodia and does things that might turn a Nazi’s stomach, but again, not our problem.
All this time it would take a whole book to recount all the bloody things being done in Africa that weren’t our problem.
Iran falls to a dictator whom we don’t support, falls to a dictator whom we do support, then falls to a radical Islamic cleric who no one in the world of the sane is not disturbed by. Our president at the time of this final change of power decides it’s best to be weak, and let them hold American hostages until he leaves office. But then again this is the same man whose grand stand against the invasion and resulting crimes against humanity in Afghanistan by the Soviets was best combated by boycotting the Olympics. Way to take a stand, Jimmy.
So we learned not to use police actions. So still not wanting to actually fight real wars, because it’s not really our problem, we just start arming people in their wars against our enemies. People like the rebel soldiers in Afghanistan to fight the communists (this guy named Bin Laden comes to mind), and people like Saddam Hussein to fight off Iran. I wonder if that policy ever came back to haunt us?
Oh wait, it did. Hussein invades other countries; we kick him out of Kuwait but leave him around for the next generation to deal with (incompetently I might add).
Our genius plan of dealing with the collapsing Soviet Union is to support whatever dictator comes along in the Balkans, which once again leads to genocide and U.S. troops having to go in under the cover of the U.N. (really wasn’t even our idea, it required Tony Blair twisting Clinton’s arm to get U.S. troops to go). And I’m still trying to figure out what drugs were being passed around when it came to our policies involving Russia itself, but the result was what it always is, let’s not get involved.
Then let’s try and help out in Africa, until a few bullets get fired (in a war zone of all places, who could have predicted that) and it’s decided that’s it’s better for a few soldiers to have died in vain, than to actually clear Somalia of the warlords.
Afghanistan falls to psychotic religious fanatics, not our problem. At least until the New York skyline gets a permanent makeover.
Is it just me, or does it seem that all of these things that aren’t our problem have a bad tendency of becoming our problem, and rather big problems at that? Ironic because they weren’t necessarily always big problems, in fact they would have been more easily dealt with problems back when it wasn’t our problem.
And let’s look at another pattern that seems apparent to me, when what wasn’t our problem becomes our problem we go in long enough to stop the current problem without sticking around long enough to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The few places we gone into with a plan and have stuck around in (Germany, Japan) seem to be pretty stable.
So no matter how you want to look at it isolationism on any country’s part, but especially one as large as the U.S. seems to lead to three things: (1) Torture (2) Death (3) and problems that become so big they do become our problems.

 

I’m not entirely sure what should be done about Venezuela, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, or Sudan right now, mostly because we need to wrap things up in Iraq and Afghanistan before further overextending ourselves…but not doing anything is a really dumb idea as history has shown and it shows that Paul’s claim that non-interventionism is “Pro-American” is a vile lie that can only be told by the very stupid or the very evil (or both if you’re Ron Paul).

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy

Ron Paul is championing home schooling…God help us all…

I think we are all very happy that Rand has not inherited his father's raving lunacy.

I think we are all very happy that Rand has not inherited his father’s raving lunacy.

I believe so strongly in the homeschooling movement that I have just announced my own curriculum for homeschooling families. Please visit this revolutionary new project at http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com.–Ron Paul on the-free-foundation.org

Ron Paul is championing home schooling.

 

Usually I would say this is a good thing.  Homeschooling can be one of the most rewarding forms of education around (so long as the parents are involved and also willing to put in the time and effort needed).  For instance I always recommend The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home by Susan Wise Bauer for anyone considering homeschooling… it is a reasoned, balanced, and in depth curriculum for homeschooling that stresses critical thinking and reading primary sources.

And at first glance the program Ron Paul is pushing seems to be that…what with things like:

  • It should be an academically rigorous curriculum that is tied to primary source documents — not textbooks. Textbooks are screened by committees. They dumb down the material.

  • If your child completes the entire curriculum — which runs from K through 12 — here is what he or she should be able to do, again quoting.

  • Speak in public and speak confidently

  • Write effectively

But then you see things like:

“It should provide a thorough understanding of Austrian school economics.”

And I think as a Chicago school monetarist, isn’t that just as bad as Keynesian indoctrination…maybe teach them Keynesian, Chicago, and Austrian principles and trust that reason will work…(and then I remember that if we’re trusting reason, that would lead them to the Chicago school, and those Austrians can’t have any of that).

But it gets worse….

  • It should teach the Biblical principle of self-government and personal responsibility, which is also the foundation of the free market economy.

Ummm… am I the only one that remembers the self-government things can more be traced to Athens, and Aristotle, and the Enlightenment?  Certainly many of the ethics of the Bible lead to the ethics or capitalist democratic-republics…but the Bible wasn’t enough for republican limited government—there were other parts involved.

So this leads one to take a closer look at the person actually in charge of the project that Ron Paul is championing?  Well on the page of instructors is this guy named Gary North.

And this is where it gets fun.  And by “fun,” I mean unspeakably terrifying.  I pulled this quote off of Gary North’s own web side, garynorth.com

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we trak up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like  “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle.

I’m going to give you a few seconds to re-read that.  Several times.  Because I’m sure you’re thinking he can’t actually be advocating a complete theocracy that will destroy all opposing religions.  But yes, yes he is. This guy wants a Christian Caliphate to wipe out all the non-Christians.  This guy makes Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum’s rhetoric look stable (I’m not sure if Ricky is stable, I suspect he may be in favor of this, but at least he has the good sense not to say it aloud).  Gary North is the psycho-Christian that the entire left thinks all Republicans are.  This is the Taliban of Christianity.

And this is the guy Ron Paul wants to create a home schooling system for the next generation.

Take a moment to think about this.  If the Paulbots had had their way, Gary North might have been Secretary of Education.  Even though Ron Paul never stood a serious chance, that he even came as close as he did, that should scare the shit out of you.

Now what is more frightening is when you consider how many Paulbots there are who follow the word of their master blindly (I mean they overlooked the racism and the anti-Semitism).  We have enough issues in this nation trying to fight the left without also having to fight blindly following groups of libertarian-theocrats (yes I know, those terms should be opposed to each other just on the face of it, but let’s be honest here, in real life, people are a mass of contradiction).  Think of it Paulbots, but now they’re also motivated by religious fervor—if this gets any traction, it is possible it could be more insane than Westboro.

I’m not saying everything this man is going to put out is wrong, nor should homeschooling not be considered if you have the time and resources…but I don’t think anyone should blindly follow whatever program Ron Paul and Gary North put out.

Ron Paul is brining his insanity to education

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Education, God, Long Term Thinking, Teaching

Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney…or Vicious Psychopath vs. True Conservative

Very recently I was asked why I hate Ron Paul so much.  Now it’s partly his racist anti-Semitic attitude.    Partly it’s his idiocy on foreign affairs.  Partly it’s his extreme idealism about economics that takes reality and history and ignores them.  And then there is his hypocrisy.  But most of all it’s his followers.

Paul vs Romney…the battle for the soul of the GOP between a lunatic and a conservative.

Paulbots are insane.  I understand focusing on your candidate’s strengths, that’s called intelligence.  But to deny minor flaws in  a candidate is intellectually dishonest…for instance, I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Mitt’s social policies, however, I don’t think that those will be his first priority as President and thus I’m not too worried about them.  You ever hear a Paulbot say anything even that negative about Ron Paul.  No, Ron walks on water.

Paulbots are psychotic.  Facts have no meaning to them.  You point out that Ron Paul’s newsletter was filled with numerous racist and Anti-Semitic statements.  They either tell you you’re a liar (even when you have proof) or say that he didn’t write those, it was just someone who wrote for the newsletter.  Okay that would mean that Ron Paul hired someone to speak in his name and was so poor an executive he chose vicious and unqualified people to work for him.  So he can’t even run a small business, i.e., he’s certainly not qualified to run a country.  And when the option is either Ron’s a racist or Ron is a bad leader it’s back to I’m a liar.    Because Ron walks on water.  Hallowed be his name.  His will be done in D.C. as on Earth.

And trust me I’ve got a million other things about Ron I’m going to go over.

This kind of mindless adoration has been seen before.  You saw it in Germany in the 1930’s.  You saw it Russia in 1918.  You saw it in the Manson Family.  You see it in Twilight fans.  And you definitely saw it in the Democratic Party from 2008 to the present.  And each and every time this mindless devotion to a person, idea or thing that is devoid of real substance leads to only disaster, chaos, and destruction.

But most of all this blind devotion to Ron Paul has made each and every Paulbot in the country more sanctimonious than Rick Santorum on his worst day.  For instance let’s go with this little article that seems to be attempting to go viral “Why I Am Endorsing Mitt Romney For President (And Not Ron Paul).”  There is wit, there is snark, there is rude sarcasm….this article which tries to insult Romney is none of those things– this is ignorance and arrogance deluded into thinking it is wisdom and humor.

The poorly planned/researched concept is that this idiot lists twelve things under the guise of supporting Mitt Romney, instead supposedly he tries to insult Romney and show that really Ron Paul is not the second coming of Christ, he is so much better than that.

Yes, why should I back a real conservative like Romney when I can back a friggin’ nutjob like Paul?

Problem is that in attempting wit the author shows himself to be utterly devoid of knowledge of anything other than talking points.  The author will of course claim it’s satire…but satire is using humor to bring facts to light…this article against Romney is an attempt at humor to make fun of people for being so stupid that they believe that 2+2=4 (when every Paulbot knows it’s 3).

Let’s take a look at the 12 points.

1. Consistency – Mitt Romney has been unwavering in his public devotion to the principles and issues that would help to advance the political career of Mitt Romney.

 

Oh, I get it Mitt Romney’s a flip flopper and Ron isn’t.  Except for the fact that Mitt Romney has changed his stance on one major issue abortion…and even that was more that he changed his priorities, he has always personally been opposed to abortion.  All other flip flops are talking points by the left, Santorum, and Paulbots taken out of context or just outright lies as I have shown here.

Meanwhile it is a fact that Ron “Dr. No” Paul puts in massive pork (Billions of dollars over his very long political career) all the while decrying that very use of pork spending and voting against it (knowing that his pork money is safe even if he votes against it).  That my friend is consistency.  That is character.

Let’s see how the two stack up on the next point.

2. Flexibility – Unlike Ron Paul who has been ridiculously rigid in his defense of the U.S. Constitution, personal liberty, a balanced budget and the sanctity of life (so much so that he earned the nickname “Dr. No” in Congress); Romney has shown that he is capable of rolling with the punches, going with the tide, changing with the times, and bending with the breeze.

 

Yes, Ron has been strict in his defense of the U.S. Constitution (except for the fact that he thinks we should tax the rich which while it may now be Constitutional is clearly against the intent of the Constitution), personal liberty (unless it’s personal liberty for people outside U.S. borders, if you’re outside the U.S. borders tyrants can be running a 2nd Holocaust and Ron couldn’t care less) , a balanced budget (despite his numerous instances of pork spending) and the sanctity of life (again except if it’s outside U.S. borders).   And in all of this time, 20 years in the House, unlike career politician Romney who has only served one term in one office, Ron has gotten exactly zero laws he proposed passed.

Meanwhile Romney who holds the record for vetoes (over 800) just goes with anything anyone said.  That’s right when the Massachusetts legislature wanted to nationalize healthcare and basically control the entire medical industry Romney let them…oh wait, no, he took the plan proposed by the hideously conservative Heritage Foundation and created Romneycare (which has nothing to do with ObamaCare) thus saving the private industry and the medical professional in his state.  And then he vetoed every liberal change to the law.  Did all of his vetoes get overturned?  Yes.  But he at least stopped them from killing healthcare in one fell swoop.

Like any politician in an executive position who has no power to legislate directly has he cut deals?  Yes.  Kind of what the Founders envisioned.  (Since you Paulbots love to praise Ron Paul the Constitutionalist…maybe you could actually read it sometime along with the owner’s manual “The Federalist Papers”…you might enjoy No. 10 where Madison goes into detail of how the system is designed to at times create compromise.   But, I know, reading is hard, and just chanting “RON PAUL REVOLUTION” is so easy…and really that chant does logically dismiss all argument against Ron.)

The fact is that Romney has always held true to his principles but realizes, unlike Ron, that getting half of what you want and making a deal is better than taking a stand and letting your opposition get everything and you get nothing.

 

3. Supporters – The top six donors to Romney’s campaign are banks (including Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, etc.). Who knows what is best for the average American? Why, multi-billionaire bankers, of course. Obviously Romney’s supporters have the kind of deep pockets that can not only pay for his campaign, but also buy the kind of Congress that will make SURE that America will have another TARP bailout if we need it.  On the other hand, 97% of Ron Paul’s donations come from individuals. His top three donor groups are the active military in the US Army, US Navy and US Air Force.

 

I love Ron Paul supporters, who are supposed to be libertarians, always hate banks and business on principle.  Not because they’re currently corrupt and sucking off the government teat, but because banks are evil by nature.  (When you combine this with the rampant anti-Semitism in Ron Paul’s beliefs, you have to wonder what percentage of Paulbots sleep with a copy of Paul’s Liberty Defined and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on their nightstands).

And it couldn’t be the very engines of a capitalist economy and the investors who know how to create a good economy might be backing the true capitalist?  Oh, no I forgot for people supporting a supposed follower of Austrian economics, Paulbots are often little more than socialist Occupy Wall Street whiners who want to engage in the class warfare of “Who knows what is best for the average American?”  I thought we were capitalists who believe that a good economy benefits all.  No, we should only care about the average American, only have laws to benefit the hoi polloi at the expense of the rich.  Damn rich people.  We’ll have none of those true capitalist laws that treat all equally.

Oh I like that 97% of Ron’s money comes from individuals. It’s true according to Open Secrets.org Ron has raised 37.7 Million from individual contributors (according to Open Secrets that’s 97% of his contributions.)

Meanwhile that evil evil Romney has only raised 97.1 Million from individual contributors or 99% of his cash. Wait…Romney is 2% higher on individual contributors.   Clearly the people are on the side of Ron and not Mitt.

Also I would like to mention that from what I know it’s considered poor form in the military to donate under you own name, usually it’s done under the name of spouses so as not to give the appearance of military support from active duty members.  But I’m sure it’s just cowards who are afraid of going to war.  Yeah, I said it.  If you’ re supporting a bigoted, anti-Semitic racist  who would let the world burn and are in the service, you are a complete disgrace to everyone who died in that uniform. Oh by the way, this is also an odd statement in the light of Romney’s overwhelming support by veterans and his endorsement by 50 Medal of Honor winners (only 81 winners are alive).    So please, don’t for a second spin facts to suggest that Paul is a man of the people and a darling of those who have served this nation (they deserve far better than to be associated with a little piece of shit like Paul) because he’s not.

4. Public image – With unrelenting national and international press coverage labeling him as the “frontrunner” (and now the “presumptive candidate”) Mitt Romney has tremendous credibility. He has pearly teeth, perfect hair, tailored suits and looks, well… “Presidential”. Ron Paul wears suits that could have come off the rack at J.C. Penney, has kind of a squeaky voice, talks for an hour without notes (let alone a teleprompter), and looks like your favorite uncle. You would never catch Mitt talking about things like “monetary policy”. Borrrrrrring!

 

Ever since the Nixon/Kennedy debates, right, wrong or indifferent looks have mattered.  It’s such a shame Romney lives in the real world…why would I want to support someone who is sane when I can back a person who doesn’t wish to demonstrate class, tact or self-respect when going in front of a national audience.  Here is Mitt talking about monetary policy and his plans for dealing with economic policy for 160 pages!   And yes I have heard Ron talk about monetary policy many times, however I don’t think I’ve ever caught him discussing monetary policy as if he actually understood it.  (Ron might be interested to know the gold standard only works if A.) there is enough gold for the size of the economy, which there isn’t anymore and B.) it only works if all the countries in the world are on the gold standard as well…but Ron would have to know something about foreign policy, which he doesn’t).

So public image Mitt:  Successful business man who is boring and knows what to do about the economy and has to have his handlers stop him from discussing his 59 point plan to solve the economy because they know it would bore most people to tears.  Reality is the same as the public image.

So public image Ron: A selfless public servant who knows what he’s talking about.  Reality: a lunatic who thinks the words “Gold standard” a magical spell that will solve everything.  Try it “Gold Standard.”  (No, don’t think that worked…?)

5. Freedom – Romney knows that the greatest threat to our freedoms are the “Islamo-fascists”. Not the Chinese, that manufacture everything that we consume and that we depend on to finance our national debt. Not the politicians, that treat the constitution like a blank piece of paper and the U.S. Treasury like their personal piggy bank.  [It’s drivel on about the Chinese and how you’re an idiot if you think terrorists are a threat]

 

Of course Islamo-facists aren’t a threat.  Ron Paul has said he wouldn’t have gone to war with the Nazi’s either.Ron doesn’t care about any form of evil overseas, not matter how horrific…and neither should you.  Like Ron you should

Show me anything that Ron Paul has said that even comes close to this understanding of what makes America great.

be a coward and you should show all the empathy of those “Good Germans” who sat by and did nothing.  And also remember Romney doesn’t care about the Chinese.  Even though one of the 5 things   he’s going to do on day one is impose sanctions for their illegal trade manipulations, and his grand standard for keeping budget items is “is it so important, so critical, that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” which to a normal human being who can read means he wants to stop borrowing from China. Yeah, Romney doesn’t recognize the threat of China…but Ron Paul is right to ignore the fascists who have promised to kill us all and who are trying to get a nuke.  And in all likelihood – they would use it to obliterate Israel first and America second.

 

6 &7. Foreign Policy [I can’t even stand to copy this stupid shit at this point.  Short version: Ron is right to end all foreign aid, where as Romney wants to just give bushel loads to everyone].

 

I’d love to see where these Paulbots think Romney has said he’s going to increase foreign aid.  In fact, given his statement about deficits, I’m pretty sure Romney will try to cut a lot of foreign aid.  Of course what this really all comes down to is aid to Israel.  Paul and his supporters think it’s wrong that we give money and weapons to Israel which only prevents Iran from completing the Final Solution (a plan I’m sure just warms the cockles of Paul’s anti-Semitic heart).  Sane people like Romney know you don’t let the one stable democracy in a region fall, good people like Romney know you have to draw a line in the sand on principle of what is right and what is wrong (hey wasn’t that point 1 of this idiot’s rant?), and people of character know you don’t betray your allies.  Ron Paul is none of these.

8.  National debt – Romney is against it. How do we know? Because he said so a whole lot of times in a very convincing tone of voice. And just as soon as he is elected president he will show us how we can eliminate the budget deficit without raising any taxes, eliminating any cabinet departments, reducing military spending, or cutting Social Security, Medicare, or any other popular program. How will he do this? Well he hasn’t explained his whole program but it has something to do with getting rid of all of those federal regulations that are smothering small businesses like Goldman Sachs.

 

Again, did you miss the 160 page plan?  The 59 points in that plan?  The statements that he will cut federal workforces through heavy attrition?  The fact that he endorses the Ryan plan to solve Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security?  The fact that he balanced the Massachusetts budget, with a hostile legislature, and without raising taxes with a liberal Massachusetts legislature (which I think, if he were Catholic, would qualify as miracles 1,2 and 3 if he was ever up for beatification)?  Exactly where are you lacking details on how he’s going to get this done?

May I ask what Ron’s plan is?  Oh I forgot he’s going fire everyone (yeah I’m sure he’s going to get Congressional support for that), audit the Fed, and of course …”Gold Standard” (Maybe it works better if you wave your hands like you’re performing a magic trick while you say it).  Yeah, I’m sure that will work real well.

 

9. Immigration – Romney is the only candidate who has had the guts NOT to come out with a firm stand on this thorny issue.

 

 I don’t even get this one.  Romney has been for tighter border control, against the Dream Act, against tax payer money to illegals, opposes amnesty, is for self-deportation (which is working even right now) and guest worker programs for as long as I can remember.

What’s wrong with that common sense plan?  This idiot is just making crap up at this point.

10. Charisma – Romney has tons of it. Almost as much as Obama. Why is this important? Because in 2016, when the national debt has soared to record heights and unemployment is still in double digits it will take a lot of “charisma” to convince the voters to put him (or any other Republican) back in office.

 

I’ve learned to distrust politicians in sweaters…(kudos if you get the joke).

I have no comment.  The stupidity of this speaks for itself.

11. Economy – Romney is a businessman. [Edited because I can only inflict so much idiocy on you, the link is at the top if you want to read it all]

 

Yeah, Romney is a businessman.  One of the most successful in modern American history.  And if you took even 30 minutes to actually do research instead of trade in propaganda platitudes and talking points you would know he has business and executive experience, that he knows how to surround himself with competent people who both give good advice and do their jobs well.  On paper this is everything you want in a leader.

Now if there are specific problems you have with the 160 page plan and it’s 59 points, fine, I am more than willing and eager to engage in real debate, but this socialist claptrap has no place in serious discussions.

The genius then goes on to explain how the entire economy is made up of the Fed and banks.  That’s it.  There are Special Ed. children in elementary school that have a deeper understanding of the economy than this twit.

And then of course TARP.  Evil evil TARP.  And because Romney said he supported it, clearly he can’t be president. Yes TARP was a horribly conceived and horribly executed program…but to do nothing as libertarians seem to

The darling of lunatics the nation over.

suggest would have been equally stupid.  For years government conspired to force the financial sector to give out all those crappy loans (and yes they did force and threaten them with criminal and civil lawsuits if they didn’t give them out) so while the financial sector is not exactly saintly and has more than enough blame to go around on its own, the government is equally at fault.  But the libertarians argue that after you’ve stabbed someone in the kidney it’s their responsibility to heal themselves.  Huh?  Yes TARP should have been drastically smaller and shorter, it should have been more targeted and not an industry wide panacea, it should have probably been designed to cure the shock wave after one of the major banks went belly up to prevent a panic not preventing them all from failing, but you know what, not doing anything would have been as bad if not worse.  And yes Bush, Congress and the Fed deserve a lot of blame for not doing a more limited plan, but that does not mean an outsider who had no say at any level of the decision making process should take the blame for supporting what may be the lesser of two evils.  So I can’t fully hit Romney for being pragmatic and saying, yes we need TARP.

12.  Electability – Romney is electable.

This last one boils down to saying you can’t get Romney elected without Paul supporters.  Give into us now.  Sadly reality, which has little value to Paul supporters, tells a different story.  I go one of the most accurate polls in America on a likely voter poll.  Romney wins if Paul runs, Romney if Paul runs…the polls tend to show that Romney is going to win with or without Paulbot support….in fact Paul pulls more votes from Obama than he does from Romney.  Go for it Ron run!

Now, one may ask why I feel the need to insult Paul supporters so much.  Paul supporters think it’s because we think we need them for Romney to win.  We don’t.

I hit Paul supporters because they are the blind following idiots as this article has shown.  It lacks facts.  It lacks reason.  It lacks research.  It lacks wit.  And there is no way on God’s green Earth that I would ever be able to convince this lunatic, no facts, no reason, no words would ever convince him that he is backing a lunatic.  And I go back to my first point this is the devotion that got Obama in office…it won’t work for Paul, but the Democrats will try to pull from this business hating pacifist crowd next time…so every conservative needs to stop thinking Paulbots, especially the ones on the fence, not as funny little lunatics but as people who need to be challenged.  Because if those Paulbots who are on the fence are not shown facts and reason now, you can damn well expect them to follow whichever charlatan the Democrats run in 2016…to hell with the fact that the economy will have rebounded under Romney.

27 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Budget, Capitalism, China, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Illegal Immigration, Individualism, Israel, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny, Unjust legislation

Atheists try and portray themselves as the religion of peace…when they are anything but

So I saw this mind-numbingly stupid statement on Facebook today.

“Militant Muslims blow up car bombs and commit acts of terrorism. Militant Christians blow up abortion clinics and gun down abortion doctors. Militant atheists might just hurt your feelings.”

Now as I’ve said before, atheists are idiots, because they are also a religion–they have a belief system based on an unprovable tenet of faith.  The difference being is every other religion knows it is using faith, whereas atheists mistake faith for reason and get hysterical when someone points this out to them.  Why was Socrates smarter than the rest of the Athens, because while he didn’t know more than they did, he knew he didn’t know.

There are a few ways to deal with this.  Let’s run through most of them.

Militant atheists who killed lots of people.  Tim McVeigh of Oklahoma city bombing fame who said “science was his religion” and indentified himself as an agnostic , Jared Lee Loughner the Arizona shooter didn’t believe in God, and Anders Behring Breivik that crazy guy in Norway last year (whose manifesto included “I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment” and called himself a “Christian-atheist.”  I seem to remember these non-religious schmucks killing some people.  Hell when you consider percentage wise the number of Christian in the world (about 35% of the world) versus the number of these “Christian militants” (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years) compared to the total number of Atheists in the world (about 10% of the world) versus a relatively comparable number of atheistic psychos (maybe 1 or 2 every couple of years), on a per capita basis atheists seem to be a far more dangerous group of people.  But even that would be unfair because in both cases that is taking a few psychos and trying to blame whichever group name you want to apply to them.  Let me be clear, there is not a group, organization, religion, profession, ethnicity, or whatever designation you want to pick that doesn’t have a few crazies…because these groups consists of human beings and the human nature and statistics means that every so often you get a lunatic in the mix.

No, a more fair comparison would be to look at what happens when a religion gets in complete power and enforces their beliefs as law.  Now, without question a secular government which does not give preference to one religion over another is always preferable…but secularism is not enforced atheism.  A secular government does not forbid the display of religion or the acknowledgement of widely held religious beliefs; it merely does not impede others from practicing their own religion.  Banning all examples of religion in government would be an atheistic state religion, just as banning all other religions to the support of only one would be a religious government.

Now you’d have to be an idiot to apply all wars where one side (or both) sides were religious, because no matter how religious the propaganda the wars were really fought over other purposes (nearly all wars in the medieval and early modern era were fought not over God but over land and power, the war in the Balkans is more about ethnicity and nationalism than religious differences).  Now there are a few cases in the East of religious intolerance, but for argument’s sake let’s say 500,000 have been killed in the name of religion in the East.  Now religious wars that we should include are the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the 2nd Sudanese Civil War, the Crusades, and the Lebanese Civil war (the last three being wars of Christianity vs. Islam) because these wars were fought almost solely to extend one religion and destroy another (I realize even that statement has flaws, but I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to those who want to say religion is evil…trust me you’ll love that I’m inflating numbers).  The high end estimate for these 20.75 million (plus our half million from before which gives us 21.25 million so far).    The Inquisition killed maybe 500,000 (a high end estimate), total 21.75 million.  The religious persecution in England during the Tudor and Stuart monarchies killed maybe a hundred thousand (a very high end estimate).  Let’s multiply that by 10 for the whole of Europe for an even million in deaths from religious persecution in Christian Europe, total 22.75. Now inevitably someone is going to want me to put in the conquest of the Americas (even though A. Greed and gold were more the motivating factor, B. Someone would have eventually crossed the sea even if there wasn’t religion and with it the diseases that did most of the killing would have happened anyway) but let’s put that in there.  Now Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States lists the number likely being around 800,000…but let’s give the benefit of the doubt to those who hate religion and give them 5 Million.  So our total for religion stands at 27.75 million.  Let’s add another 10 million for the European slave trade (again another high end estimate).  So our total stands at 37.75 million.  And let’s add another 10 million for all the death at the hands of priest ripping out hearts in the Americas and other religious motivated murders in the New World.  47.75 million. These are pretty much the deaths caused by religion in the last 2,000 years.   You know what, let’s double that number just to be on the safe side.  Let’s say 95.5 Million people have been killed by the repression of religion in the world (I’m also going to ignore other forms of torture, persecution and denial of rights as I think they are probably all in proportion to death tolls).

(I’m going to leave out Islam from this calculation because unlike just about every other religion on Earth, Islam denies the divinity or divine quality of the human soul, for instance you won’t find any statement that man was created in God’s image in the Koran or Haddith, and in this way it makes it philosophically more in line with atheism)…(If you think this is unfair, just look at the pro-atheist quote that started this rant; even they differentiate.)

Now let’s look at the nine nations that have actually implemented atheism in

  1. The French Revolution under the Reign of Terror
  2. Soviet Russia
  3. Communist China
  4. N. Korea
  5. Khmer Rogue Cambodia
  6. Mexico in the 1920’s
  7. Cuba
  8. Various other communist states in the 20th Century.
  9. Nazi Germany (right now some atheist are screaming that it’s wrong to claim Nazi Germany was atheist…shut up and sit down, I will prove this point)

As far as I can find (and this is the result of a month’s worth of research…they were all on the Wikipedia page, but I couldn’t find any others) these are the only countries to ever institute state enforced atheism.  Now anyone with even a modicum of knowledge knows that this death toll is easily going to top my previous one.  But let’s go over it anyway.

  1. The French Revolution with its Reign of Terror and “Cult of Reason.”  Catholicism and other versions of Christianity were outlawed.  Churches burned, relics desecrated, clergy persecuted and of course the guillotine.  Low end estimates for these 2 years of madness are around 15,000 dead.
  2. In Mexico’s 1917 Constitution nationalized all church property and outlawed all religious orders.  This resulted in a small civil war known as the Cristero War (1926-1929) between atheist President Calle’s forces and the pro-Catholic Cristeros.  Low end estimates put the death toll at 5,000
  3. Soviet Russia, Communist China and all other incarnations of communism

If the mere 20,000 deaths I racked up from 5 years of combined terror, let’s take at the death toll of government that brought us gulag, killing fields, the resurgence of crucifixion (yes, the Chinese crucified Tibetan monks and dissidents).  Forced labor, controlled famines, repression…the death toll is, according the obscenely well researched book The Black Book of Communism: Crime, Terror, and Repression edited by Stepane Courtois puts the number of all Communist/Marxist (where religion is always persecuted and outlawed) at 94 million dead. Now you could say it’s unfair that I just use the number the book lists and not say some Marxist tripe historian who probably put the number under 10 million…well I deal in reality and the fact that some historians have called the 94 Million estimate “too conservative,” I think I’m safe with sticking with that number.  But please go on, tell me that Communists have not killed millions.

    4. And of course Nazism.

Now the immediate cry/propaganda is that Nazism was Christian in nature and not atheistic.  And of course we call any nation that goes as far as outlawing miracles very Christian.

So let’s turn to some real sources…I’m going to quote large passages here instead of just sending you to the book because I don’t want to have to deal with the BS that is going to come from atheists farcical denial that their religion was behind a movement that is synonymous with evil.

From The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William S. Shirer, from the section “The Persecution of Christian Churches” (And right before the section “The Nazification of Culture”), page 240,

“What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty point program for the ‘National Reich Church’ […] A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:

“1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be the national churches of the German Reich.

“5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably….the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

“7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains, or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

“13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany

“14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents. It….not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

“18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles, and pictures of saints.

“19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampf (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

“30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals, and chapels…and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.” [Emphasis added]

You know, just because you have the trapping of religious organization, when you deny God and all his works and put in the raving of a single psychopath, I’d call that atheism.

Maybe it’s just that one book.
Let’s switch to The Third Reich: A New History by Michael Burleigh, page 196:

“Nazism represented a sustained assault on fundamental Christian values, regardless of any tactical obeisance to the purchase it had on most Germans. […] The mission here and now, for utopian ends on earth, became a substitute for the futility of earthly existence and the majesty of God.” [The whole passage is quoted here.]

If you read the whole passage it will say that they didn’t want the name atheism applied to their beliefs either…but when you replace God and Heaven with the state and the race, you may not want to call it atheism, but it is atheism.

But, please, perhaps you can find for me a historian who says that Nazi’s weren’t at war with Christianity.  Yes early on they allied themselves with Christianity, and even spouted some of the rhetoric of it, but taking a look at the whole of Nazi history shows that their goal was to destroy ALL religion and replace God with the party and the race.  I suggest you look right next to the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or roughly in that area to find bullshit that says that they weren’t atheists.

It if walks like an atheist, talks like an atheist, acts like an atheist; it sure as hell ain’t a duck.  Germany paid lip service to religion as it slowly replaced every single aspect of religion with the atheistic state.  Communism at first claimed to welcome all religions in the early days and officially banned discrimination based on religion…the difference being that Nazism didn’t last 2 decades, Communism is still going in some parts of the world.  Had Nazism lived longer they would have embraced a full atheistic state.  And to claim anything else is at best naïve and at worst hideously disingenuous.

So now that we’ve cleared up the atheistic nature of Nazi Germany…I believe the number is 6 million (not counting all the deaths caused by their war to try and spread their evil over the globe).  Which I believe brings our total to 100,020,000.  All in little over 200 years.

So let’s see here 2,000 years an absurdly liberal estimate puts the death caused by religion at 95.5 Million meanwhile in a tenth of that time atheistic governments, by a very conservative estimate, have killed over 100 Million.  I’d hate to see the world after 2,000 years of atheism, the population of mankind would be around zero.

Now, my favorite objection is that these aren’t real atheists because atheists are people who follow reason (a claim I’ve never seen in practice, but let’s go with their objection), and these governments were very unreasonable.  Okay, let’s go with that objection and not count any of those deaths that the religion of atheism brought us, but then you have to play fair and admit that all of these supposedly religious governments are equally falling short of their religion’s call for compassion.  If you give the benefit of the doubt to one side you have to give it to the other…or will atheists fess up and admit not only to their atrocious reasoning skills (after all the preponderance of the evidence is on the side that there is a God ) but also their deep-seated hypocrisy.  I doubt they will.  And you wonder why I find them a bitter and violent bunch.  Religion shouldn’t take all of the blame for the death toll above, and atheism isn’t the sole cause of the death I attributed to them.  And it is wildly poor logic to attribute the acts of one lunatic who claims to be part of a group when they are acting against what most of the members of that group believe (when polls show that a majority of a group is fine with suicide bombing…that’s a different story, and you might want to look at what that belief system is preaching).

In the end there is a simple fact, as bad as religious government can be, and as much as we should always strive for pluralistic and secular government, religious government could go years, even decades without harming those who practiced other religions.  For atheistic governments, it would be hard to find a day where an atrocity was not committed.  Now the vast majority of atheists are not butchers as the vast majority of the religious aren’t, so again please explain to me how atheists feel they have such a right to their sense of superiority.  Perhaps it’s their recorded efficiency.

26 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Atheism, Death, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, God, Government is corrupt, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Religion, Spirituality, Tyranny

Newt shows he knows nothing about history

Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.

Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history.  Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:

“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”

The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford.  And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan.  So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.

Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS.  And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics

In an argument with a Ron Paul supporter? send them here…

If you’re sane and like me you’re probably getting tired of these RonPaulBots who like Objectivists defending Ayn Rand (I wonder if there is any cross over there?) think the man walks on water and is no more infallible than the Pope…yeah because that kind of blind devotion really proves to me you’ve thought this one through. I think Reagan is probably the best President in history, but I can probably rattle off 20 things he did wrong right off the top of my head, easily. Even great leaders are human, and anyone who wants to portray their candidate as perfection defined clearly hasn’t thought about the issues very well…and as we have seen with Barrack “The One” Obama, blind devotion is often attributed to the worst, not the best candidates.

So to save you some time I am presenting you with a wide variety of valid resources on why Ron Paul must never, ever be allowed near the White House for any reason whatsoever.

I’m going to be providing a lot of links, and just copying some of my previous statements, so that you have it all in one place at one time. Please feel free to share this with any mindless Ron Paul supporters.

He is a racist and Anti-Semite and just a bigot in general

This is, by far, my biggest problem. I had hoped that Jimmy Carter would be the last anti-Semite this country ever elected. 2008 ruined that hope. But that is no excuse to once again make that mistake.

In his book Liberty Defined (Liberty Defiled might be a better title for his understanding of liberty) he goes on about how in high school he heard a Palestinian student go on about how those mean evil Israeli’s forced them off their land. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? He says it struck him as unfair. First, what conservative uses the word “fair”? Second, it strikes me as anti-Semitic propaganda and pretty much an outright lie, and history has shown me to be correct. But Paul would rather believe it than find the truth. For a high school student, or maybe some idiot hick that might be forgivable…for a person holding an advanced degree and who is in Congress and thus might have access to some legitimate records, it’s a complete denial of reality and unforgiveable. So there is point one for anti-Semitism, repeating anti-Semitic lies.

You might also notice, that any conversation would logically not start off with information from 60 years ago, but maybe deal in the here and now. But no he wouldn’t do that because that would show the Israeli’s to be people who target terrorists and military groups while on the other side you have thugs, tyrants and terrorists who target nightclubs, schools buses and other innocent civilians. Point two covering up legitimate evidence.

He uses the word Zionism as the title of that chapter as well. You know I know the word has historical meanings implications beyond a racial slur…but it’s pretty much a racial slur these days.

Then of course there is his newsletter which makes such statements as

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” (I need to comment on this one, I could have sworn I saw white people involved in the in the LA riots in the early 90’s…and I believe order was restored, at least in part, because of the police).

“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”


An according to the Atlantic “Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.”

Oh and did you know that gays were, “far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” 

All of the articles have no byline but are written in the first person…so you believe that with a heading like the Ron Paul report, and written in the first person, Ron Paul has nothing to do with it’s content.  And if you believe that I have some lovely bridges to sell to you, please contact me. You know what I find interesting, if I found out someone was publishing racist material with my name attached suggesting I was the writer I would sue them for libel for every last cent they were worth, and if it cost me a job (like the Presidency) then that would be a solid case…yet I have seen no such lawsuit filed. And in 1996  “[h]e said they were being taken out of context.”  I would love to hear what context those statement were made in that doesn’t make them, at best, questionable.

A word on this. Let’s say Ron Paul’s latest excuse, that he owned the newsletter but didn’t have anything to do with the writing of the “very bad sentences” (there’s an understatement). Which means that he is 1. So incompetent a manager he has no clue what people under him are doing and 2. He has no ability to detect character in his employees as he apparently hired some really scummy people. So my option are he is a racist or the world’s worst manager. I can’t wait to see who he would pick as Attorney General…but I can tell you this, it would make Eric Holder look competent by comparison.

Or listen to this:

“…I think it’s absolutely wrong to prevent people that are starving and having problems, that are almost like in concentration camps, and saying yes we endorse this whole concept that we can’t allow ships to go in there in a humanitarian way…”

That’s right let’s compare the Israeli’s defending themselves to the acts of a Concentration Camp…who else talks like that, oh yeah, anti-Semite extraordinaire Jimmy Carter. Oh and you have to like the typical propaganda: let’s ignore the fact that these flotillas were a cover weapons and funding. And to deny that is again something either means he is an idiot or he is intentionally lying to distort the facts to hurt Israel.

And you have to love how he doesn’t see any problem with Hamas being voted in, in fact preposterously claiming them to be democratic government. Because why should you care if a terrorist organization whose charter is to “drive the Jews into the sea” takes charge of country? Notice his only definition of a democracy is that there is s public election. When most sane people talk about spreading democracy they mean spreading Classical Liberalistic democratic-republics which are designed to protect people’s right…not destroy them. But in Ron Paul’s mind anyone who receives the majority of votes is a valid leader. I remind you that Hitler, Saddam, Hugo Chavez, and a whole host of other tyrants are “democratically” elected by Paul’s definition. And it it’s good enough for Paul, Jimmy Carter and the rest of the world’s anti-Semites I guess it should be goo enough for us.

I also find it fun how he talks about “Didn’t we talk to the Soviets?” Yes, most presidents did…until Reagan who while he held a few conference pretty much gave them nothing and didn’t back down. So let’s see Truman-Carter talked and how did that go. Reagan gave them at best lip service…and that led to what? Cleary a ringing endorsement to always “talk” to despots.

Oh, and in 2008 he endorsed rabid anti-Semite Cynthia McKinney for President.

His ideas on foreign affairs are beyond insane


I love his argument. Islamofacists are terrorists because we’re occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains their genocidal beliefs and actions towards women, Jews, homosexuals and all non-Muslims. Because the U.S. is occupying the Middle East. I’m sure that explains why Hitler was making an alliance with Mufti of Jerusalem to exterminate the Jews in Palestine, because they were a bunch of peace loving people. I’m sure that’s why the Muslim Ottoman Empire committed the first acts to be called genocide against the Armenia population. This could go all the way back to the genocide of the Persian Empire and the vicious eradication of Zorasterism in the 7th century and back to Mohammed personally ordering the genocidal slaughter of the Jews of Medina. It’s all because the U.S. was occupying the Middle East. Islam has always been a religion of peace and does not have a history of encouraging the absolute worst aspect of human nature. It does not have a track record for acts that even in the 6th century would be called evil. It doesn’t have a “holy” book that glorifies violence and slaughtering those who are different. No. No. Not at all, it’s only because we’re in the Middle East and if we left (and probably took all the Jews with us) they would return to their pre-Israel state of near Edenic peace and utopian prosperity.

Why am I the only one who thinks this man saying “It’s because we’re occupying the Middle East” and implying that if we left they wouldn’t attack us has all the ring of Neville Chamberlain saying if we just give Hitler the Sudetenland we shall have “Peace in our time.” Might be because I have even a layman’s understanding of history and human psychology. They hate because, since birth, they have been fed a steady stream of hate…and it is a fire that cannot be quenched by appeasement, it can’t even be stopped by reason, it can only be opposed. I think most Muslims are probably like most Christians they care more about paying the bills and their family more than they do about the more abhorrent parts of the their holy book…but there is a virulent strain in Islam that seeks to oppress and destroy liberty, and it cannot just be ignored by leaving.

And while we shouldn’t get involved in every countries problem there are evils that always have a nature of expanding (tyranny) and are so abhorrent that to not act is an act of evil (genocide). To not oppose tyranny and genocide wherever we find it when we are able is to relinquish everything we believe is right (you know, the little things like the idea that “all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”…I failed to see the line where it says that equality and those rights end at the U.S. border). If tyranny is an evil because it is in opposition to a natural right, it is as great an evil in someone else’s country as when it is in your own. And to sit by while this evil goes on and you have the ability to stop it is not only morally reprehensible, it is also patently foolish. One of my favorite authors, P.J. O’Rourke, pointed out that “evil is an outreach program.” History shows that tyrants and those who commit genocide are never content with their own little patch of ground and like a cancer they always, always spread…and when you’re the biggest country around they will always become your problem eventually. So why not stop evil when it’s small and easily handled, when the bloodshed committed by the evil has not gotten out of hand, and when it will take less bloodshed to put it down.

Or you can go with the Ron Paul/Neville Chamberlain theory of isolationism. Because it always works so well.

Yes, there are numerous legitimate objections to the way we handled Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of legitimate objections. Might be helpful to have a plan on how to build a government next time. Maybe not make deals with the devils in the country. Just a thought. But there is a difference between complaining about how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled (which any sane person should have issues with) and with complaining about the idea of opposing tyranny wherever we find it with all the weapons we have at our disposal (which includes but should not be limited to diplomacy, embargos, espionage, assassination, and full military force). Paul seems to think that if you aren’t directly attacking us it doesn’t matter how evil you are.

In fact, the absolute litmus test of a just war is World War II, which in retrospect every sane human being sees that we should have invaded Germany the moment they took over Austria (probably sooner), not waited for the Sudetenland, not waited for Poland, not waited for France, not waited for the Blitz and certainly not have waited for Pearl Harbor but taken them all out before millions of innocents were needlessly slaughter …how did Ron Paul respond to this particular test of sanity? Why he said in response to being asked if we should have used military force to end the Holocaust:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Not only is that line pure evil, and another point in the Anti-Semite court (what is that five? but notice also his statement about going to fight for someone. Notice the moral ambiguity. It seems to suggest that if you wanted to go fight with Chinese or the British (which many honorable Americans did) that would be fine…but it also seems to suggest that if you would have rather fought with the Germans or the Japanese that would also be okay with him. Now I may be stretching a little, but the man seems to have no moral compass whatsoever so can you say there is anything he has ever said that would have stopped someone going to fight for Germany or Japan. A sane human being would say anyone who did that should be put up against a wall and shot, I’d bet you Paul wouldn’t be bothered by such an idea.

Need further proof he has no moral compass…

He doesn’t see a problem with Iran having nuclear weapons. The fact that they’re a theocracy might be a problem. The fact that their president, Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denying lunatic who believes the end of the world is near, and that he might be able to hasten it by bringing about nuclear war…yeah can’t see how that guy having nukes could possibly end badly.  After all many will point out that Ahmadinejad answers to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Khamenei is trying to get Ahmadinejad removed on charges of “sorcery”. Yes I feel much safer with the nukes being in the hands of a Holocaust-denying religious leader who finds “sorcery” to be a valid accusation against someone. Why shouldn’t Iran have nukes? Because all the intelligent people were either killed, jailed, or are now too afraid to act after the U.S. didn’t support their uprising (maybe they should have demanded an even more Islamist government and Obama would have supported them…it worked in Libya and Egypt). And the fact that Ron Paul seems oblivious to this insanity is frightening. I guess since he feels that he, a lunatic, should have the nuke codes, why shouldn’t other mentally unstable dingbats.

Let me just ask this:  How do you expect a man to defend your rights, when he doesn’t apparently believe they are natural human rights in the first place?  I can see logical arguments for, we don’t have the manpower or money right not to take on the world’s tyrants…fine…but he isn’t making an argument from practicality, he’s saying that tyrants can burn the world to a cinder so long as they leave us for last.

The belief that his ideas on the economy are sound is a joke


Now in all fairness, Ron Paul claims to be a follower of Austrian economics, whereas usually I am more of Milton Freidman Monetarist, so while we agree on probably 99% of this economically, we would never agree on everything. But as I did research I found he doesn’t exactly live up to even his supposed Austrian economics ideals…

But watch him be a total hypocrite

So what he does is he gets pork put into the bill but then votes against it so he can say he has never voted for an earmark. The lack of a principle there is beyond astounding. I haven’t seen ethical summersaults like that since Kant tried to argue you should help murders find their victims. How much Pork has Ron Paul brought to his district?

·$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Phase Piers.
·$2.5 million from taxpayers for “new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting.”
·$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an “Economically Disadvantaged” area.
·$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a “Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center.”
·$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to “encourage parents to read aloud to their children.”
·$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
·$4 million from federal taxpayers for the “Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative.”
·$11 million from federal taxpayers for a “Community-Based Job Training Program.”
·$2 million from federal taxpayers for a “Clean Energy” pilot project.
·$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
·$1.2 million for a “Low-income working families Day Care Program”
·$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.

Don’t believe me, think I just made this up, or got it off another website (I got the wording because this is getting long as it is and I’m trying to save time) …well then you can go to this website. It’s Ron Paul’s Congressional webpage, maintained by Paul and his staff and you can see pdf copies of all the requests WITH PAUL’S SIGNATURE on them. Oh yeah he really believes in small government. Not one of those pork projects has even the slightest thing to do with what federal spending should be. It takes balls to complain about the size of government spending with one hand and contribute to the tune of $82.4 million dollars in 2010 alone…let’s see, assuming this is an average year for him, he’s been in the House for over 2 decades at $82.4 million a year…last time a I checked that number comes out to just over a Billion dollars in pork. Truly this man is a champion of conservative economics and not a hypocrite like the rest of the Republican party.

And then does anyone remember his response to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, that is was too ”regressive” that it was utterly unfair to think that maybe, just maybe, the poor should pay some part of the tax burden of the economy. That’s right he only believes the middle class and the rich should shoulder the burden. Does that sound like a capitalist to you? Now if you want to complain that the numbers were too high, that it should have been 5-5-5 would be more economically logical, that would be fine, it was not a perfect plan…but to complain that it has an actual capitalist tenant that everyone has their money in the game…utterly astounds me that any supposed economic conservative can possibly support this man.

Or there is this little gem from his own website “ Legalizing sound money, so the government is forced to get serious about the dollar’s value.” Sound nice doesn’t it. Do you know what it means? It means he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. You know ignore whether there was a rational argument for staying off the gold standard or going off it back in the day…the fact is that we have been off it for so long that there is no going back. Yeah, academics may like to banter around whether it would be a good thing or not…but show me one crazy enough to advocate to have it put back in place immediately. Even if you were going to do it you would have to lower the amount of money in the system (which the Fed has put far too much in) but continue lowering it beyond what any Monetarist would think healthy even over a 20 year period of time…but in Paul’s case, since you wouldn’t have 20 years to do it you would have to do it in 4 years or less! Even if returning to the gold standard was a good idea, trying to adjust an economy that fast is suicide. There is no going back and trying to force it back into place and it would possibly be the most economically destructive idea possible. It’s an arcane debate that whether it was the right or wrong thing to do is a pointless argument now. And a man who doesn’t get that is not qualified to be in the Oval Office.

This is a man who thinks that all countries are created equally and should be left alone to do whatever they want, because none of it is America’s business. First off it’s frightening to think that someone who claims to understand economics has not a single clue that the economy has reached a point where every country in the world is connected into one giant economy. No country is an island; every country is a piece of the whole global economy… any country’s economic problems diminishes America, because we are involved in the global economy, and therefore never seem to know for whom the closing bells on Wall Street tolls; it tolls for thee.

I have few problems with true Austrian economists like Hayek or Von Missus. But Paul, while he may at times parrot the words well. The man’s words may say economic capitalist…his actions show he knows nothing or is just a hypocrite. Either way he ruins the valid arguments of libertarian philosophy.

And that he is the only answer

Three times already I have been asked by a Ron Paul supporter in the last week “What do you support NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act of 2011) or SOPA (the poorly named Stop Online Piracy bill)?” when I said it would be a cold day in hell before I supported Paul. Those would be the defense bill that allows Obama to imprison any American without trial and the bill that allows Obama to shut down any website he wants. Both bills were moves by the Obama administration to have near tyrannical power and to completely shred the Constitution. Both are entirely unconstitutional and I see a 9-0 thumbs down coming from the Supreme if they survive the first days of a new presidency. However, why if I oppose Obama’s power grabs would it follow I must support Paul or that if I don’t support Paul I must approve of shredding the Constitution. Huh? Is that the best they have, that a man who has been able to get exactly one bill through Congress in a very long political career is the only hope we have for getting this legislation overturned? That is beyond any form or reason as I understand. But RonPaulbot reason is very different than our Earth logic, they believe it to be superior form.

He appears to be very, very popular with liberals (which in this case I think is a valid case of guilt by association)

And then there is this. And I’m saving this for last, because I do know how laws are written and how there can often be extra materials that has nothing to do with the law that should be opposed (like I support funding for the military included in NDAA, I oppose the Constitutional violations, thus I oppose the whole law)…so I’m kind of willing to hear that there was something else that was terrible in this bill that was tacked on because no one would vote against it…but he voted against a bill that would have required wi-fi carriers to report child porn downloads to the police. I don’t care how libertarian you are, it’s child porn, if you’re caught with it you need to go away for a very, very long time. (Again I would be willing to hear an argument that there was some terrible part to this bill that did need it to be opposed until that part was removed…but otherwise this is kind of sick.) I’m sorry you vote against this there is either a legitimate legal reason, and in which case you scream from every mountain exactly why you’re doing it to make sure there is nothing unclear about your motives and you offer a bill or amendments that corrects those problem (which I can’t find any record of him attempting amendment or a different bill), which last time I checked is why we elect people to Congress, to work together to craft the best bills (yes I know they all fail miserably, that doesn’t forgive Paul’s sins)…or, besides getting money from Odessa, is NAMBLA funding this psycho as well?

You know what, you don’t like Obama or Romney, fine. But don’t vote for an even bigger idiot just because you don’t like your choices. Stay home, or vote for Mickey Mouse…anything, but do not support this vicious, hypocritical demagogue.

***

One last thing I have to say. I get very animated and passionate about my arguments with liberals or isolationist libertarians.  But unlike RonPaulBots I do understand where they are coming from.  I understand that much of what I say comes off as heartless to liberals (even though I would argue that it helps more people in the long run by being purely rational in terms of government) and I understand the desire of libertarians to just want to be left alone (even though I argue that attitude is never pragmatic).  My point is that while I cannot always agree with my opponents I can at an intellectual level understand where they are coming from.  Ron Paul supporters do not seem capable of this.  If you tell them you can’t support him because you think he’s an anti-Semite they act like you just said the sky is green with yellow polkadots or suddenly just started speaking Summerian in front of them.  I know this won’t actually shut them up, because they believe with a religious fervor that cannot be challenged with fact and data.  It is faith that Ron Paul is the only solution and there can be no challenging the faith, they cannot even conceive of there being an objection to their god-king–there can only be burning the heretics.

Vote for Ron Paul…prove the Mayans were right about 2012

6 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Carter, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Long Term Thinking, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Racism, Taxes, Tyranny

In other horrifying news…

So apparently this weekend in an area of Brooklyn with a  large Jewish population there was a rash of vandalism and arsonist fires set.  The statements and choice of victims makes this clearly aimed at the Jewish
community.

As I’ve been complaining for a while that Anti-Semitism, the barometer of evil in the Western World, has been on the rise in America and the  world in general and that the public has been far too lackadaisical about the  fact that evil is growing in strength and audacity right in front of them.

So why is this story any worse?  Why should it be more disturbing…

Well first  because it was pretty much buried by most of the media.  I couldn’t find this in the NY Times or any other major  media outlet. You think they were trying to ignore acts of Anti-Semitism while their most favoritest people in the whole wide world, OWS, were in town.   This is actually counterproductive for OWS as the lack of  coverage just makes it appear that it’s actually the OWS people behind this  perverse behavior and the liberal  media is just trying to hide that.

But there is something even worse.  This weekend was the anniversary of the Kristallnacht, the Nazi German night long attack on Jewish citizens and businesses.  It made Russian pogroms look pleasant.  The night it should have become obvious to the entire world that Hitler’s hateful words weren’t empty rhetoric but that actions would back up those words and genocide was guaranteed to follow.  The night that the lack of action by the German public and the rest of the world crossed the lines from foolishly naïve to criminal depraved indifference.  What makes this so terrible is that is means the Anti-Semites aren’t just saying and believing stupid things, they’re not even just acting on those evil beliefs…by trying to “honor” the evil of the Kirstallnacht it means they’re actively trying to embrace Nazism.  This should be a “oh shit” moment for all of us.  The evil that this suggests is coming back from the extreme fringe should be a horrific concept and it should be one that should make you stop and think.  When was the last time you heard someone say something even remotely Anti-Semitic, did you challenge their statement?  Did you berate them?  Did you force them to justify their prejudice  (which can’t be done)?  Did you  irrevocably humiliate them in front of everyone around?  If not, shame on you.  Every single trace of this evil needs  to be stamped out, preferably once and for all. Every statement, no matter how  seemingly harmless and innocuous, needs to be challenged.  Every rant needs to be berated. Every action needs to be punished with a harshness that exceeds the evil of individual  acts, because it’s not an individual act, Anti-Semitism has always been a  symptom of something far worse and far larger.  And we cannot let it rear its head ever again.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Occupy Wall Street, Tyranny

Tea Party vs OWS (Patriots vs. Thugs)

I am getting tired of people comparing the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street. Now I am not fully in support of the Tea Party, while I like what they stand for they need to prove to me that they can last beyond a single election…at that point I will whole heartedly say I am a Tea Party member (also assuming it stays solely focused on economics and ignores social issues). And the Tea Party hates the fact that the government gave bailouts to banks because it was a bad economic move…Occupy Wall Street hates that banks took the money (not so much with the government giving money)…but this is really the only place where the two movements kinda sorta touch…as an example of a Venn Diagram these two movements are a poor case. The Tea Party is asking for government to get out of the economy, the Occupy idiots are asking for the government to take charge.

But what really pissed me off is today I heard someone complain about the use of force to disperse the morons at Zuccati Park. The complaint went “They didn’t use police against the Tea Party.”

Could that be because while there was not a single murder at Tea Party rallies there has been one murder suspected to be in relation to Occupy Oakland and several rapes and sexual assaults at OWS

Or maybe because for the most part the craziest thing you see at a Tea Party rally is a guy in a tri-corner hat…whereas at Occupy there is (at last count) 271 major crimes

Maybe it’s because Tea Party members aren’t a massive collection of disease, lice, and drug resistant TB…Typhoid Occupy.

Maybe it’s because we can teach chimps more sophisticated hand signals.

Maybe it’s the Anti-Semitism

Maybe it’s the media bias that ignores all of this…

Maybe it was that endorsement by the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party.

Maybe it was the fact that, unlike the Tea Party, they have no ability to articulate even the most basic of core beliers.

But, you say. The Tea Party has problems too. They’re racists. Really? Because I looked to find evidence of that.

I found a conference of College Professors that said they could prove the Tea Party was racist because Tea Partiers support more border control and actually enforcing laws when it comes to illegal aliens.  Well you have me there because there could not possibly be any legitimate economic reasons to support border control, no, none whatsoever  …clearly the only possible reason is that they’re racists. No other logical option is open.

I couldn’t find much else. Hell I looked for just pictures of signs of idiots with racist comments at a Tea Party rally. I couldn’t find them. Now I’ll admit there has to be a portion of idiots at Tea Party rallies who have racist ideas, it’s all but impossible to get a group that big and not have a few assholes in the mix, but they don’t seem to be making a lot of noise in the movement. There is such a lack of evidence of racism in the Tea Party that it’s kind of funny to see what liberals trump up as evidence.
For instance this website (http://www.newstaco.com/2011/09/08/tea-party-associated-with-racist-immigration-group-fair/) Linked to someone’s blog at blogspot as proof that the Tea Party is racist. Because as you all know if one idiot who posts a blog is racist then every single organization that moron belongs to is nothing but hell-bent on establishing a pure Aryan race—without exception. If you have even one racist in your midst clearly your whole organization is corrupt to the core (unless of course you’re the perfectly saintly people of OWS, the evil in their midst, and the rap sheets must be ignored for these nearly divine soldiers for social justice…how dare you question them!)

Oh and I found this genius his proof that the Tea Party is a bunch of Anti-Semites?…well there was…
A picture from a Ron Paul campaign flyer…now Ron Paul is not a Tea Party candidate, he’s a libertarian, and we’ve always known him to be an Anti-Semite and lunatic.

A picture comparing ObamaCare to the Dachau…now it might have issues with tact…but this isn’t denying the Holocaust nor is it claiming it wasn’t terrible…such a sign merely is literarily or poorly hyperbolically stating that ObamaCare will end up killing people. How is that Anti-Semitic?

An Op-Ed (and we know all Op-eds from good liberal papers are to be treated ahead of the gospels in terms of their absolute truth) that says the Tea Partiers shouted the N-Word (Andrew Breitbart has offered a lot of money for tape of that…but it has strangely not shown up yet, it’s only a couple of years I’m sure it will turn up ) and recounting (read hearsay) that Rep. Anthony Weiner (remember him?) had Tea Party members shouting Anti-Semitic statements at him. Weiner was an ass and liar even back then so I would have doubted his word; that amazingly lacks any tangible proof from an event that supposedly occurred the week when ObamaCare was voted on…you know when you couldn’t throw a stone around the capital and not hit two camera crews.

A news article that White Supremacists were planning to recruit people at Tea Party rallies…yet strangely no follow up on how well that member ship drive went…although given the American Nazi Party’s endorsement of OWS, I’m going to guess they didn’t do all that well.

Really, that’s all they have I looked for over an hour to find better stuff. Nothing. No racist’s pictures, no rants on video about how we should all blame the Jews. Nothing legitimate. Hell I expected to find something, pure statistics said some lunatic should have wandered into a Tea Party rally and some liberal journalist would have recorded his rant. But no. Yet somehow FOX, Reason.tv, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, and a few bloggers have been able gather the plethora of evidence against OWS I have shown above (really it’s just the tip of the iceberg). Now the liberals were slobbering to find evidence of the evil at a Tea Party rally and couldn’t (and don’t for a second tell me that CNN, MSNBC, the main 3 networks, Huffingtonpost, NY Times, Washington Post and a dozen others weren’t better staffed than the conservative side of the journalism game…and yet they found nothing).

It’s insulting and intellectually dishonest to compare a real political movement to a collection of thugs, whiners, criminals, and scum. But that’s the kind of intellectual dishonest the left traffics in…

…and I dare anyone to find for me a video of someone at a Tea Party rally going off on an ant-Semitic rant, of anyone rapes at a Tea Party rally, or even of Tea Partiers leaving such massive piles of filth. I remember a story about someone showing up with a racist sign but they got yelled at and told to leave (something that you don’t see at OWS)…but that’s about as close as you come.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Economics, Equality, Evils of Liberalism, Free Will, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Individualism, Long Term Thinking, Obama, Occupy Wall Street, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Popular Culture, Taxes, Tea Party, Tyranny

My faith in humanity is redeemed just a little

Apparently the LA Unified School District has fired the anti-Semite that made those disgusting remarks at the Occupy LA rallies. This is more than I had expected from LAUSD, a lot more. The woman was a substitute (feel free to have chills run down your spine at the idea that that bigot was ever near children) which means that the school did not have to deal with the teacher’s unions (whom I am convinced, by the fact that they often defend pedophiles, would have defended this woman as well).  Occasionally it’s nice to be proven wrong and see that not everyone in California is insane.  Now let’s see if I’m wrong again and a judge will throw out her inevitable lawsuit (and I am more than willing to be disproven once again).

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Occupy Wall Street, politics, Teacher's Union, Teaching

When Did Evil Become Socially Acceptable?

I could use this to declare all the Occupy Wall Street people as Anti-Semites, but that would be unfair and stupid. They’re not all Anti-Semites. However they seem to be a little accepting of them as this is like the fourth video I’ve seen from the protests. (Still waiting for the ones from the Tea Party…[crickets chirp]…)

But this isn’t about Occupy Wall Street, because this is a far bigger problem. Clearly this woman is evil. No argument can be made against that. However, it just used to seem to me that society had enough decency that we made it clear to sick people like this not to speak up.

We all admit that there are lots of racists and Anti-Semites who hold their perverted beliefs in their minds and souls, but don’t speak up about them. And we all wanted to root that out.

But the fact that I am seeing more and more of this suggests that Anti-Semites feel that it’s now socially acceptable to voice their hateful views. What the hell is wrong with society? In a sane world this woman would be without a job within the next week. Good lord, she said she worked for the LA School District. If I were a parent I would be demanding that she in no way, shape, or form be allowed to work at a school. I don’t care if she’s in the accounting department. A Nazi like this has no right to be working anywhere near children. I guarantee you, the odds of such a thing happening are very low. And even if the LA school district decided that this would be their once in a century right call, they would immediately get sued because judges in California are insane and wouldn’t have the guts to laugh her case out of court and tell her to go to hell while they’re at it.

I’m sure even the idiots at ACORN wouldn’t have been fully in support of forced prostitution of underage illegal immigrants if they had known they were on camera…so when did it become socially permissible to advocate what is essentially the Western world’s most effective barometer on evil (no really, you look at just about any evil in the last 2,000 years of Western civilization, 90%+ are tied in some way to Anti-Semitism).

I think we’ve forgotten that some views are not acceptable even in the most free speech nations. Do they have the right to spew such filth? Yes, yes they do. And they have to the right to be ostracized, humiliated, insulted, and maybe even slapped repeatedly for having such beliefs as well. I will defend your right to say anything to the death, but I will also ensure you accept the consequences of your actions. And advocating pure evil should have severe consequences.
.
Let me remind everyone, if you hear people utter things that are (actually are, not just a careless word that could be interpreted numerous ways) Anti-Semitic or racist you have a responsibility to insult and humiliate them publicly. Do not associate with them. Do not do business with them. Do not tolerate such behavior.

And if they’re working at the school your children go to, demand they be fired.

 

 

For another take on the Anti-Semitism that seems to be permeating the Occupy Wall Street Protests please read the post by our friend “Dirty Sex and Politics.” 

4 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Education, First Amendment, Occupy Wall Street, People Are Stupid, Racism, Tea Party, Tyranny, Welfare

Remind me again, which party is racist?

So there is video of an Anti-Semitic piece of trash spewing his filth at the OcupyWallStreet protest.

Now, it would be unfair to judge a whole movement by what one idiot says. However…

No one around him seems to stop him. No one seems offended by his Ant-Semitic statements, no one. None of the other protesters seem to find his comments abhorrent and tell him to shut up, or even that he’s wrong.

The OccupyWallStreet thing has been going on for what, two weeks? And the Right already has video of these protesters making racists statements.

And the Left still has yet to have a comparable video from the Tea Party after how many years? I even have to admit I find that odd, there has to be one moronic racist out there who doesn’t understand that the Tea Party isn’t racist and came to the rallies to shoot his mouth off; law of averages alone suggests there had to some racist morons, because any rational person will admit there are probably a few racist morons in just about any political movement–their ideas are not representative of that movement but every movement probably has a few idiot that latch on…but maybe it’s that since that kind of language isn’t tolerated by Tea Party members the idiots are never around long enough to be caught on camera. Maybe it’s because if you tried that at a Tea Party rally you would be shouted down, told how stupid/evil you were and would be advised to join the Democrats. You know the kind standing up for what is right and stopping idiots that you clearly don’t see in this video.

Or was there a video of Tea Party members making racists statements that I just hadn’t heard about?

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Tea Party

The Palestinians demand a state…and I want a pony.

 

The Palestinians are demanding full recognition as a state by the U.N. which is pretty much the standard by what is and isn’t a country these days. (Just so you know how f-ed up a process this is that it considers that Tibet, a country invaded by a bloody genocidal army who still use crucifixion as a punishment isn’t recognized as a country because the butchers who tore apart Tibet without any consideration for human rights have a seat on the U.N. Security Council and Human Rights Council. A democratic-republic like Taiwan isn’t recognized either for the same reason.) They will then try to use this to A.) restrict Israel’s control in these regions (read: strip Israel of all ability to defend itself) and B.) take control of their own borders (read: ship in thousands of terrorists and weapons and prepare for a full on assault of Israel).

But ignoring the obvious problems with this toward Israel let’s take a look at some of the other reasons why this is just about the dumbest idea known to mankind.

What laughably passes as a government.  If you will recall the last time the Palestinian people voted for a government they voted in Hamas. You know the same Hamas that calls for the death to all Jews in the world…yes that Hamas. They’re not thrilled with the U.S. either…(although, three guesses as to which U.S. president they really like,  … the U.S. public should probably be weary of a man whom terrorists feel comfortable with). This has to be the worst moment in the history of honest democracy since it was invented. The Germans at least have the excuse that Hitler didn’t actually come out and literally say he was going to kill the Jews (it might have been under the thinnest veneer in history, but as far as I know he never stated “We’re going to kill all the Jews,” not that the Germans couldn’t have figured that out by just listening to what he was saying, still he never stated it in precise uncertain terms), Hamas’ actual charter literally calls for killing all the Jews. And these are the people the Palestinian people elected—a political party with an actual charter that calls for mass genocide. Would you give a country to a group of people who when actually given a choice freely and willing chose evil? I know I wouldn’t.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Palestinian government. Because Hamas then just took over Gaza. Which is why Gaza is now under complete lock down and the comically named “Freedom Flotillas” full of terrorist sympathizers and weapons keep trying to get into Gaza. If the West has any real morals we would sink the next one for Israel (preferably with an explosive that leaves no survivors…it’s a pretty clear line if you support the butchers in Gaza, you’re about as Anti-Semitic a son-of-a-bitch as they get, and I live by the general rule that the only good Anti-Semites are dead ones) long before it got anywhere near Gaza. Now some may claim that these flotillas were bringing humanitarian aid. It’s interesting how weapons now qualify as humanitarian aid. But if you still believe that the Freedom Flotillas were carrying only humanitarian aid please contact me—I have some lovely bridges to sell at rock bottom rates that I’m sure you would be interested in. But back to Hamas. After staging their little coup in Gaza the Palestinian government in the West Bank threw Hamas out and put in a bunch of non-Hamas members into the role of Prime Minister, the cabinet and parliament. In real governments when something this major goes on you hold elections to replace the vacant office…but as we already proved the Palestinian people to be morally bankrupt and fairly dumb by their last democratic vote we couldn’t do that so President Abbas just appointed a bunch of people (and that doesn’t sound at all like a petty dictator, no not at all). (And dare we mention that Abbas was a lackey for mass murdering terrorist Yasser Arafat?) And no new elections have been held. Half the so called country is in the hands of insurrectionists, the other half has a government which exists on shaky legal footing. Yes, let’s grant these jokers full status as a real country.

Oh and let’s talk about the Palestinian economy. It doesn’t have one. There is no real industry to speak of. Half the population works in Israel. The entire country would be starving to death if it weren’t for U.S. aid to these terrorists (and who’s bloody brilliant idea was it in the first place to give these idiots money?) Israel has said they’re going to have no choice but close the borders completely if Palestine is granted full recognition (I say they should have done it years ago) and there is no way to ethically justify supporting a country so founded on terrorism and tyranny so the U.S. should pull out every single cent we send to them (and for good measure send them a bill for everything we have paid saying we want it all back).

Oh but the poor Palestinians, you say. These are people who dress their babies up as suicide bombers and release those pictures. These are the people who danced in the streets on 9/11. These are the people who have made suicide bombing a recreational sport. And, oh yeah, these are the people who freely elected genocidal butchers as the government they wanted. Forgive me if my heart does not bleed for those who choose evil.

And then of course there is that tiny problem of where exactly is this country. There haven’t exactly been set borders. Now some terrorists, Anti-Semites and idiots have argued that Israel should go back to the so called green line of its original borders. This is stupid for two reasons. One, because those new borders that Israel has are because they won that land in the 6 Day War. For those of you who have been raised in an academic setting all too friendly to Palestinian terrors, let me give you a refresher on what the 6 Day War was. In 1967 Jordan, Syria and Egypt (with the help of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, and the Sudan) attacked Israel with twice the number of troops that Israel had. Of course the advantage of being civilized and not barbaric terrorists is that you can defeat a force of superior numbers in only six days. And on the other side of this war where basically Israel stood against the ENTIRE Arab world by itself (because U.S. President LBJ was beyond a coward and worthless piece of crap to give any help…no he would rather destroy the U.S. economy with his War on Poverty…in case you’re wondering we’re still using his tactics and good lord are we loosing that war, might have something to do with the fact that socialism does and can never work) and they won. And they won land too. Now traditionally, to the victor go the spoils, especially when you weren’t the one to start the war. For instance if tomorrow Canada decided to invade and we beat them back but decided to keep lovely British Columbia, that would be more than ethical. (I choose the preposterous example partly because A.) it is silly and B.) because we already have invaded Mexico, we took one look around and left). To go back to the green line is to say, we’re sorry that those countries invaded you with genocidal goals, but the land you took from them in a very unfair fight against you was theirs, and they shouldn’t be punished for acting like pure evil.

The other problem with the green line it’s insane from a defensive position. I could go on for a while on why this is or I can show this video. I apologize for the over the top narration and music, it’s still completely accurate.

Oh and one more thing. Since any reasonable person knows that Palestine will just become a base to launch terrorist attacks against Israel with the intent of full on war against Israel (Egypt seems to be preparing as we speak) this is only going to lead to an all out war. You may complain, foolishly, about the destabilizing nature invading Iraq and Afghanistan (destabilizing really, yes Iran is more powerful today than before the war, it was a trend they were on for two decades before we invaded, do you think they’d be less powerful today if we hadn’t tied up all their funds in supporting terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq?) Giving the Palestinians full recognition is just asking for an all out war to break out.

I know my attitude has a distinct “kill them all, God will know his own” feel, and I know if I were in a position of power and not just venting on a blog my actions would be a bit more measured than my words, but it is getting infuriating to deal with people who at every turn support terrorists and tyranny. There are only so many chances you can rationally give someone before there is no choice but to put them in a position where they can never harm you or anyone else again. And sadly when it’s a whole country that seems to have lost its mind on repeated instances I can’t help but get overly upset.

4 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Israel, Obama, politics, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

Isolationists and the moral requirement to act

At a recent dinner I got into an argument with a couple of libertarians (well one was a libertarian, I’m not quite sure what the other is) (and I would like to point out that I was nicer there than I am here). It started somehow with a discussion of Ron Paul and my saying that he was an isolationist and Anti-Semite (he is). The rebuttal came that all the quotes attributed to him aren’t true. Well I’ve read his chapter on “Zionism” in his book Liberty Defined. After reading that I feel comfortable calling him an Anti-Semite, don’t believe me, go read it yourself, it should be in most Barnes and Nobles in the Current Events Section…just don’t buy it, just read it there, there is no need to encourage such degenerate filth as Anti-Semitism by giving it money. Then of course I was then told that he never said we were responsible for 9/11. Let me quote to you from the Republican debates back in 2008:

 

Ron Paul: They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

Now, I’m only a simple English teacher, but that reads like a simple conditional clause. “They attack us BECAUSE we’ve been over there.” Any logical interpretation to this would suggest that he is saying that IF we weren’t over there THEN they wouldn’t attack us. But I’m just using simple things like grammar and logic to interpret Ron Paul’s words. Perhaps if I drank the Kool-Aid his followers have I might see the mystical other way to interpret those words. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years” suggest if we had just left that nice Hussein alone, we wouldn’t have had any problem. If we had just let him invade Kuwait and subjugate the people there obviously the world would be a better safer place. You believe that don’t you? Now I’ll grant you oil would be cheaper, but we would have let tyranny expand further in the world (not exactly worth the cost of saving a quarter on a gallon of gas). The next two sentences are kind of non-sequitor, but I’m going forgive more of it because when speaking on the spot it takes a while to collect your thoughts (if you have any). But my favorite is the last sentence is “We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.” Ignoring the racist overtones of the suggestions that Arabs are too stupid to be rational, it suggests that because we can’t understand Middle Eastern politics we shouldn’t get involved. Which leads to the question, because it was almost impossible to understand the insanity of communism, should we have just let the rest of the world fall to Soviet expansion? Because we couldn’t grasp the pure evil of National Socialism should have just ignored it until it came to our shores (oh, wait that’s effectively what we did!)?

But let’s ignore Ron Paul for the moment and go back to my conversation. I pointed out that yes my interlocutors had a point that we have botched and screwed up a lot in our recent endeavors overseas. The monster that was Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama seems to have no idea of how to conduct foreign affairs (although each retarded head of that beast has its own unique flaws—cowardice/indifference/idiocy/evil). But no matter how bad our screw ups, not doing anything would have been far, far worse.

My opponents tried to then point to Israel as part of the problem and our help in creating it. That if we just didn’t back it we wouldn’t have had all these problems with terrorists attacking us. Really? So to protect ourselves we should betray the only democracy in that part of the world. Our survival is more important than the lives of others. What a moral stance isolationists take. This is preposterous for two reasons. The first is sanity. While I do not believe in an inability of Arab cultures to create democratic regimes, I believe that those cultures have become infected with a perverse belief system (to call it a religion would be overly generous). And those who subscribe to this sick ideal hate us not because we support Israel, or because we have economic prosperity, or because we support the Saudi regime, or because we supported the Shah or this or that…they hate us because the kind of evil they subscribe to is based on hate. Hate of that which is different and until everyone is under the yoke of their perverse system they won’t have their blood lust satiated (even then it will just turn more on itself until nothing that resembles anything human remains). If Israel falls, they will still hate Europe. If Europe falls, they will still hate the US. If we paid exorbitant tribute to them they would still hate us. There is no dealing with this or any evil. P.J. O’Rourke offered one of the most insightful comment of the century when he noted that “Evil is an outreach program.” By its nature it can do only one of two things spread or die. The only sane option is that we choose the latter, because it can never be appeased, never satiated, never halted. Your only choice with evil is to surrender or kill it. The second reason is that it’s evil. To withdraw support for Israel would be condemning thousands if not millions to death. I think the blood of 6 million Jews is enough on the hands of our country. (And yes I will maintain we are responsible for the death of the Holocaust victims because we knew that something was going on, we knew how evil Hitler was, and we did less than nothing. I say less than nothing because we didn’t just ignore the problem, we denied Jews attempting to escape entry on numerous occasions condemning them to torture and death. That’s the legacy of the so-called greatest generation, electing leaders who turned a blind eye to genocide.)

I was then treated to a statement about how I shouldn’t support Israel because they have a very liberal/pseudo-socialist economy. Which they do. I will admit that. But I would also point out two things. One, liberal economy with democratic-republican system is still better than psycho-evil-fascist-theocracy any day. Second, I will actually say something nice about socialism so get ready because this is a once in a decade event. Socialism is an excellent economic system when at war. (And by war here I mean more the Von Clausewitz concept of total war where you are in a life or death struggle.) When you are at war you have to control industry, resources, and capital if you’re going to survive. And guess what, Israel has been in this state of total war since the first day they were created. I may not like their economic system, but I understand why it’s necessary.

So seeing they weren’t going to make headway on the Israel point, because it will be a cold day in hell before I turn my back on Israel (in case you’re wondering it will be a cold day in the Arctic before Obama or just about any non-Jewish Democrat turns their back on Israel) my dinner companions tried to go with history. They tried going to our support of the Shah as the reason that Iran hated us. No, actually it was their embracing a religious lunatic. Under the Shah, bad as he was, Iran was Westernizing, it was becoming exceedingly civilized and would likely have naturally done away with the Shah and adopted a democratic system, or at least something less corrupt if the Ayatollah hadn’t taken over. Besides as bad as the Shah was, there was a lot worse….like the Ayatollah. We backed the lesser of many evils and it took a gutless wonder like Carter to do nothing when the country fell to absolute insanity. (One wonders what would have happened if Reagan had won in 1976 the first time he ran…oh wait, I don’t have to wonder, the armed services would never have atrophied due to lack of care that Carter gave them, they would have gone in, rescued all the people in the embassy and killed everyone who was about to plunge Iran into 30 years of medieval nonsense and tyranny. Then the terrorists of the world would have had no one to turn to in order to fund their constant attacks on the U.S., Europe, and Israel. Thanks Jimmy it’s amazing you won a Peace Prize for being the person most responsible for letting tyranny and terrorism thrive. I hope the Ant-Semitic bastard that Jimmy Carter is, and yes he is a goddamn Nazi at heart and I don’t mean that in any exaggerated or hyperbolic way, rots in hell.)

Then they tried to go back further all the way to WWI. Saying that our involvement in WWI was wrong. That we should have stayed out. Yes, when the Ottoman and German empires are engaging in such horrendous behavior that words like genocide and crimes against humanity need to be invented because nothing else quite fits how sick these people are…yeah we shouldn’t have chosen sides. And dare we forget that it’s our isolationist behavior during the treaty talks and after the conclusion of the war that caused WWI…it wasn’t because we were too involved in world affairs. (I’ll also blame Wilson’s gross incompetence in his stupid 14 points plan).

The fact of the matter remains that even at our worst when we get involved in world affairs it is always better than when we don’t.

When we are involved we stop the genocide of the Ottoman Empire. When we don’t the Reich takes its place. When we are involved fascism dies. When we aren’t communism thrives. When we are involved we have Mi Lai. When we’re not we have the killing fields of Cambodia. When we’re involved we have slow progress in Iran. When we’re not we have them reverting to barbarism. When we’re involved we have Afghani’s killing Russians! When we’re not we have the Taliban take over. When we’re involved at least now that there is a way for people to get out of Afghanistan even if we’ve screwed everything else up over there. But then again all of the enemies time and money seems to be concentrated over there and not here (it’s cynical but it’s true). The world is better when America acts even on our worst day than any day we don’t act to draw a line in the sand and tell evil that it will not move one step further (even when we don’t succeed).

To deny this is to be like Ron Paul who best belongs with Neville Chamberlain and the apologists of the 1930’s who seek only Peace in our Time. When you try to deal, to reason, to appease evil you will always find that our time only lasts a few days. The only sane, rational, and morally correct way to deal with evil is to oppose it. Better to do with it with forethought, planning, and a somewhat cold calculation that innocent dead today is better than twenty at the hands of tyranny. No matter the cost the only sane reaction is to oppose evil and tyranny with everything we have. To do less is to sign our own death warrant.

7 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, American Exceptionalism, Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Conservative, Death, Economics, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Fear, Foreign Policy, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Happiness, Israel, liberal arrogance, Libya, Long Term Thinking, Natural Rights, Obama, Patriotism, People Are Stupid, politics, Racism, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

“The Debt” A tragic masterpiece

As it was the first movie in weeks even worth considering going to see, I saw The Debt this weekend. I was not disappointed. While not the big explosion, all around fun movie you usually expect around this time of year, The Debt is a moving tragedy that forces the viewer to ask some very weighty questions about heroism, cowardice, truth, evil and pacifism.
I’m going to split this blog into two parts, the first being a more general praise of its style that won’t ruin anything and then a more spoiler filled discussion of its themes. Usually I don’t care about spoilers as I know plot is the most meaningless and least important part of any good story, but there is a certain emotional gut kick that comes with seeing this movie without knowing what will happen (something so lacking in modern movies and books) that I do not want to ruin for you.
First and foremost what immediately struck me was that the movie was being directed by someone who knew what a camera was for. There was none of the random, slipshod, quick and numerous cuts that define so many hack directors. This is one of the few movies in the last decade where cinematography and editing skill are actually apparent without overpowering the characters and theme.
The story itself, if you don’t know already takes place during two different time periods. The early time period is in 1966 where three members of the Israeli Mossad have been sent to capture the Nazi war criminal “the Surgeon of Birkenau” (a thinly disguised fictional version of Mengele) from East Berlin and send him for trial in Israel. They return to Israel, reporting their mission was a partial failure as they were forced to kill their target when unable to get him out of East Berlin. Thirty years later, having lived with the complete failure of their mission, they are threatened by the full truth coming out.
This story involving espionage and deceptions offers a lot for the actors to work with, and there should be several academy award nominations coming out of this, most notably for Helen Mirren and Jessica Chastain in the portrayal of Rachel Singer, the movies’ main character. I think Chastain probably gave a slightly better performance, but this was partly because she had more screen time. (This is at least a rarity in Hollywood I now have two women in the best actress category to root for this year…all but unheard of in the misogynistic wasteland that is Hollywood). The acting job of Jesper Christiansen provided one of the most sociopathically evil Nazi’s to grace the screen in years (although it did not surpass the gold standard of evil set by Gregory Peck in The Boys from Brazil, it came disturbingly close). And while nothing in this movie caused me to change my absolute hatred of Sam Worthington and all his characters, at least in this case the character was a coward and morally responsible for most of the problems in the movie, so I was justified in my hatred in this case (every other movie Worthington has done I’ve merely been justified by the fact that those movies are complete wastes of film).
In every respect that one can judge a movie this movie is a superior film. Its themes are powerful and its performance superb. I would wager that this movie will deservedly gain a best picture nomination, and if nothing better comes out this year it should win best picture. You need to see this movie. Every other this year has been a rental or worth seeing on the big screen only because it was mildly enjoyable and it was worth seeing the special effects on the big screen. This movie is truly great art and if we are ever going to convince Hollywood to make more movies like this then we have to encourage them with ticket sale at the box office. Go see this movie.
Now one may wonder why, as opposed to most political themed movies I didn’t title this “Movies for Conservatives”? After all this movie deals with the consequence of deception to one’s character and life. It deals with the absolute evil of socialism (yes, Nazism—National Socialism—is socialism, and butchers like the one seen in this movie are its inevitable conclusions) and the hatred and perverted creatures it breeds. It deals with the toll that lies take on ones soul, and of course how it becomes an impossible debt to pay (yes there is a reason for the title). All things I would like to think go hand in hand with conservative values…but I’m just not cynical enough to say that these are only conservative values…I hope.

Spoilers ahead….please go see the movie first; these reflections make more sense when you have the whole scope of the film in your mind.

No, really go see it first.

Okay you were warned, don’t blame me if you don’t feel the full force of the movie.

The movie deals with several weighty themes. The first and most important is the nature of truth and lies. Our three main characters tell a lie about their failure, a lie they know will never be challenged, a lie that is meant to help their country…is it worth it? One looks at real history and sees that Mengele escaped justice in real life and how this is a black mark, not just on Israel, but on the civilized world as a whole that we let this piece of trash die living in relative freedom never having to face his crimes. What does this say about our competence, our character, our resolve in the face of evil. This is a man who earned the name “Angel of Death” and we let him live in freedom and die of old age. (And even worse, if you’re a Nazi who knew even the first thing about firing rockets we gave you a free pass and U.S. citizenship). Makes you wonder what civilization is worth if we allow such unquestionable evil to go unpunished (it’s not like we didn’t know where they were). Might it be more comfortable if we thought as a country—be it Israel or the U.S.—had stood for something and actually tracked these monsters down? When the characters were debating telling the lie about their complete failure I heard overtones of the equally political film The Dark Knight and the last few scenes where is was pointed out that “Sometimes people need to have their faith rewarded” even at the cost of a lie. One of the better reviews I saw for this movie brought up the Churchill quote “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies,” and it wouldn’t be hard to make the argument that Israel has in reality been in a perpetual state of war against barbarians at its gates from the first day of its creation, and that its population was always in need of a moral boost. (Yes I said barbarians, and my only apology is to the ancient culture who had that name applied to them who understood reason, civilization, and humanity far more than then the wretches in Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Libya and the quite fictional state of Palestine). However this is all sophistry at some level. But it’s a sophistry the writers and director of this The Debt wanted you to indulge in. Only then does it become evident how apparent and how valuable the truth is. It is something that is so easily rationalized away, always in the name of greater values and higher purposes…and always at the cost of one’s soul, as even the most amoral of the three has trouble living with the lie…especially because “but at the length truth will out” and demand the debt that needs to be paid.
Next is the question and nature of evil. The villain of this movie (or at least the main one) is the Mengele type Nazi. For a great deal of the film he demonstrates that banality of evil Ardent noticed in Eichmann’s trial (although seeing a Nazi work as an OBGYN adds a whole new level of disgusting I hardly thought possible). But he is at his most horrendous when he begins to toy with his captors, taunt them, and use them even though he is the one tied up. Really, there was a point that I don’t think a person in the theater wouldn’t have gladly beat that son of bitch to death with a crowbar given the chance—and felt justified in doing it. But the worst part is when he says something you can’t deny. It’s one of the great tricks of literature to put truth (or at least half-truths) in the mouths of evil because it forces us to confront things which we might not want to. At one point the Nazi states that he knew the Nazi’s had won, (and I’m going from memory here) “When it took only 4 guards to lead thousands to the gas chambers and no one ever fought back—even when we took away your children none ever fought back. That is when I knew we had won.” It is a sick fact of the Holocaust that makes you wonder if it would have been nearly as bad if the Jews had fought back. However the problem here, the evil of this statement, is that it is applied to only the Jews, when the truth is that it was the sickness of Europe. All of Europe didn’t fight back. They didn’t fight Hitler or Mussolini on the continent as they expanded their influence. Austria and Czechoslovakia were taken without firing a single bullet, the French may have fired about a dozen before eagerly capitulating and handing over every Jew they could find with a determination that probably even freaked out the Nazis. It seemed only the Poles (who were hopelessly outnumbered) and the British (who had spent a decade trying to appease the monster) who seemed to have even a mild ability to fight back (and given the recent events in London it appears that whatever streak the British once had to fight evil has been beaten out them). It wasn’t the Jews who didn’t fight back, it was all of Europe. Which only leaves the question…what evils are we not fighting against today, willingly allowing thousands to be led by a handful through fear. (Hint: Hitler promised great change and the hope of a thousand year Reich, and as every German Jew knows nothing can stand in the way of power of millions of voices calling for change).

2 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Art, Death, Evils of Liberalism, Faith, Fear, Foreign Policy, Free Will, God, Government is useless, Israel, Libya, London Riots, Movies, Movies for Conservatives, politics, The Dark Knight, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

In (what’s the opposite of defense?) of Ron Paul

So Jon Stewart is apparently upset about the media ignoring Ron Paul. He seems to think that ignoring this lunatic is something wrong. His proof… Ron Paul is doing well in the polls.

First let me point out that I doubt Ron Paul will ever go above those numbers. Paul’s supporters are a hard core bunch. They latch on easily and stick like a lamprey until they have no other option…but he does not appeal to anyone but that core bunch. Ever!

Stewart claims that Ron Paul is the original Tea Partier and that all others like Bachmann are merely new comers to the party. This is a terrible misrepresentation. I think that if some darling of the Tea Party, Bachmann, Christie, Ryan or Rubio were given complete control of the country without any opposition and a Supreme Court and Congress that would just rubber stamp everything they wanted, somewhere around 40% of the government would be gone in 8 years, with perhaps long term legislation to get rid of another 30% within the next 10-15 years. If Paul got that same deal 95% of the federal government would be gone in the first year of his term (even die hard libertarians can usually see why such a radical shock would be bad for the economy…hell even Ron’s son seems to think his dad is a little crazy).

Ron Paul isn’t so much a Tea Partier, as he is the GOP answer to Dennis Kucinich. A loveable lunatic who says things his side thinks need to be said, but not the kind of person you actually want to give any real power to.

And I think most of the media understand that while he has his hard core following there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell of him getting more (God please do not let humanity disappoint me once again on this point) and thus there is no real chance of him winning the nomination (unless perhaps Satan himself intervenes) and thus no chance of him facing off with Obama. This is as it should be. Ron Paul needs to be in the House as a strong voice of a particular ideology…I might even go as far to say that he might need to have one of the lower GOP positions within the House. (And if we gave him the Speakership it would be a complete disaster, but it would make CSPAN the funniest sitcom on TV).

But more importantly, is the reason why we can’t let Ron Paul ever get near the White House. His foreign policy beliefs.

This is a man who thinks that all countries are created equally and should be left alone to do whatever they want, because none of it is America’s business. First off it’s frightening to think that someone who claims to understand economics has not a single clue that the economy has reached a point where every country in the world is connected into one giant economy. No country is an island; every country is a piece of the whole global economy… any country’s economic problems diminishes America, because we are involved in the global economy, and therefore never seem to know for whom the closing bells on Wall Street tolls; it tolls for thee.

(Yes, I had to go there.)

But more importantly it is that this man has no ethical compass. Yes Iran and Israel are equally good. Huh? I worry about someone who can’t make any distinction between them, yeah maybe with Israel their economy sucks and they’ve got some problems but they’re not psychoville hellbent on destroying the free world. You know there is a lot of grey in the world, but sometimes there is also black and white, and when you don’t recognize that you shouldn’t be allowed to pretend you’re a leader. But it might not just be that he doesn’t see anything wrong with Iran, it may be he supports their goals. I browsed Paul’s book “Liberty Defined” in Barnes and Noble a couple of weeks ago (I had no intention of buying it and giving Paul a cent, but I thought I should take a look at it). My favorite part (and by favorite I mean the part for which I would most like to see Paul thrown into a dark cell and never let out) was his section on “Zionism.” (Because everybody uses the word Zionism…oh wait, no, it seems almost exclusively used by the same people who buy “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”) In it he talks about hearing a Palestinian “refugee” coming to speak at his school when he was young and talking about all the terrible things that happened to Palestinians because of those evil, evil Jews. And because they said the Jews were evil it must be true. That nice Mr. Goebbels wouldn’t lie to us, would he? You know I might be willing to forgive a young Ron Paul not knowing that 90% of the so-called atrocities against Palestinians to be a lie as vile as any Riefenstahl movie and the other 10% was defensive measures in response to barbaric terrorism on the part of the, you guessed it, the Palestinians. I could forgive young Paul for this mistake. I cannot forgive Congressman Paul who now has access to the truth for believing such BS. Either he’s an idiot, or he is intentionally ignoring the facts because he has problems with the people of Israel. I don’t think it’s only because of their less than capitalistic economy that Ron Paul doesn’t like the Israeli’s.

Then he also likes to go off on all the problems the U.S. has caused in our sometimes less spectacular foreign policy. Yes we’ve made some major blunders in our interventionist behavior. And we’ve gotten involved in wars we shouldn’t have (Libya comes to mind). But you know what, that’s still better than when we didn’t get involved. Last time I checked when we didn’t get involved you had 6 million+ dead Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and other minorities (although I doubt Paul actually thinks of that as a loss) in Europe (not even counting the dead British, French, and other allied members who fought in war) and millions tortured and killed by Japanese in China, Korea and the South Pacific. Somehow I find American blundering on its worst day to be somewhat better than that. But that’s just me, and every sane person, who understands that, as P.J. O’Rourke put it, “Evil is an outreach program.” And dear god do we have a lot of countries in the world that could easily be classified as evil. This country already has enough blood on its hands; we don’t need the callous indifference of Ron Paul to add more.

These crazy at best beliefs may be why the media doesn’t give Ron Paul a lot of attention…because he isn’t worth it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Election 2012, Foreign Policy, Michele Bachmann, Problems with the GOP